Summary of Proceedings and Decisions

International Centers Week Washington,D.C. October27-31,1997

~ ResearchImpact: Yesterday’Achievements,s Tomorrow’sChctllenges CGIAR Centers

CIAT Centro International de Agricultura Tropical (International Center for Tropical Agriculture) Cali, Colombia

CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research Bogor, Indonesia

CIMMYT Centro International de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trig0 (International Center for the Improvement of Maize and Wheat) Mexico City, Mexico

CIP Centro International de la Papa (International Potato Center) Lima, Peru

ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas Aleppo, Syria

ICIARM International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management Metro Manila, The Philippines

ICRAF International Centre for Research in Agroforestry Nairobi, Kenya

ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute Washington, DC, United States of America

IIMI International Irrigation Management Institute Colombo, Sri Lanka

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Ibadan, Nigeria

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute Nairobi, Kenya

IPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Rome, Italy

IRRI International Rice Research Institute Manila, The Philippines

ISNAR International Service for National Agricultural Research The Hague, The Netherlands

WARDA West Africa Rice Development Association Bouake, C&e d’Ivoire Summary of Proceedings and Decisions CGIAR International Centers Week October 27-s&1997 Washington, DC

Research Impact: Yesterday ‘s Achievements, Tomorrow ‘s Challenges

ICLARM and IRRI e The Philippines

Kenya

Issued by the CGIAR Secretariat 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA

Telephone: l-202-473-8951 l Fax: l-202-473-8110 E-Mail: [email protected] or [email protected] Internet: http: \ \ www.cgiar.org

January 1998 Table of Contents

MAJOR DECISIONS ...... 1

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS ...... 3

I. Opening Statement by CGIAR Chairman Ismail Serageldin ...... 3

II. New and Potential Members ...... 8

III. Overview of the World Food Situation ...... 9

IV. Genetic Resources and Biodiversity ...... 11

V. Impact of the CGIAR ...... 13

VI. Biotechnology in the CGIAR ...... 24

VII. Review of the CGIAR System ...... 30

VTII. Financing the 1998 Research Agenda ...... 33

IX. 1999 Research Directions and Funding ...... 3j

X. Progress on Strengthening the Global Forum ...... 35

XI. Reports from CGIAR Cosponsors and Committees ...... 36

XII. Honors Conferred ...... 42

XIII Other Business ...... 43

XIV. CGIAR Chairman’s Summation ...... 43

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... 49

ANNEXES ...... 51

Annex I: ICW97 Draft Agenda ...... 51

Annex II: List of Documents ...... jj

Annex III: List of Participants ...... 57

CGIAR ICW97 Major Decisions

The Group took the following major decisions at International Centers \Veek 1997:

NEW CGIAR MEMBERS evaluation, and feedback. In col- I tential downstream and ecological laboration with the centers; TAC, effects of new technologies. The Group admitted New and other institutions, the IAEG q Zealand, Peru, and Portu- should continue efforts to identify Centers must abide by the gal to CGIAR membership by ac- and develop the most appropriate highest standards of clamation, bringing the total num- evaluation methodologies for the biosafety in carrying out their ber of members to 57, of which 19 CGIAR. Evaluation should be har- work, including standards in place are from developing countries, 21 monized across centers as much at the national level. from industrial countries, 2 from as possible, and the use of com- economies in transition, 3 from mon methodologies encouraged. The free flow of know- private foundations, and 12 from H: edge, information. and international and regional organi- The Group determined that technology from CGIAR centers to zations. broad assessments of the NARS must continue (and not be complex linkages between the slowed down). The CGIAR may [See pages 8 to 9 for further de- work of the CGIAR and the ben- have to consider defensive patent- tails.] efits across society at large are ing, to ensure that poor farmers needed. The CGIAR should focus have access to new technologies. GENETIC RESOURCES AND on case studies where quantitative BIODIVERSITY analysis is feasible, enhancing this The CGIAR should seek ad- with qualitative analysis to provide vice on legal issues and The Group adopted draft richness and breadth. ramifications of proprietary science El Ethical Principles Relating and the complex partnerships that to Genetic Resources as an interim The Group asked the have arisen in this area. statement, on the understanding IAEG to provide two types that the principles would remain of impact assessments: those The composition of the two under review in light of decisions which show direct links of agri- q expert panels convened taken in evolving international fora cultural research with the devel- under the auspices of TAC (on gen- and subject to input received from opment objectives of donor eral issues in biotechnology and CGIAR stakeholders. The Group agencies; and short, pithy state- on proprietary science and tech- agreed to review the draft ethical ments on CGIAR impact that nology) should be broadened, to principles at MTlM98, and amend demonstrate the importance of include in particular more experi- them as needed. continued investment in interna- ence from the South. tional agricultural research. [See pages 11 to 13 for further [See pages 24 to 30 for further details.] [See pages 13 to 24 for further details.] details.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW OF THE CGIAR SYSTEM EVALUATION BIOTECHNOLOGY IN THE CGIAR The Group broadly en- The Group reaffirmed that dorsed the system review El the CGIAR system should The Group agreed that the panel’s planned work program, promote and nurture an evaluation q CGIAR has a responsibility urging the panel to reach out to a culture as an internal means of to look beyond the generation of broad constituency to ensure an quality enhancement, through a technology to biosafety regulations open process in which all view- continuous process of monitoring, at the national level and the po- points are taken into consideration.

CGIAFt ICW97 The panel should take particular other developing countries, be- Kenya Agricultural Research Insti- care to hear the voices of NGOs, cause of their eligibility for ODA tute (KARI) and ILRI. Outstanding women, and NARS, especially from under the D-AC criteria. Scientific Partnership Award Sub-Saharan Africa. [See pages 33 to 3j for further The Group unanimously [See pages 30 to 32 for further details.] LIB adopted resolutions to details.1 honor Robert McNamara and 1999 RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Ernest Corea, respectively, for their FINANCING THE 1998 AND FUNDING contributions and service to the RESEARCH AGENDA CGIAR. In keeping with the cycle The Group endorsed cen- q of decisionmaking en- [See pages 42 to 43 for further ter financing plans for 1998: dorsed at MTM95, the Group com- details.1 and approved an overall CGIAR missioned the preparation of the financing plan of $345 million. 1999 research agenda by the cen- FUTURE MEETINGS Centers should plan for 1998 on ters, which will be viewed in the the basis of identified funding. context of the 1998-2000 center . The Group agreed with the The Group will review updated medium-term plans endorsed by q0 following dates and loca- 1998 center financing plans at the Group at MTM97. tions of future CGIAR meetings: MTM98. [See page 35 for further details.1 MTM 1998, May 25-29, Brasilia, The Group agreed that the Brazil World Bank’s 1998 contri- HONORS CONFERRED LIEI ICW 1998, October 26-30, Wash- bution will be disbursed as follows: ington, DC, USA S33 million to centers on an 11 per- On behalf of the Group, the cent matching basis; $5. j million m Chairman awarded Excel- MTM 1999, May 24-28, Location to as crisis funding ($3. j million to lence in Science ,4wards to honor be determined ICRISAT and S2.0 million to ILRI outstanding scientific achievement, for the System-wide Livestock Pro- as follows: ICW 1999, October 2529, \Vaish- gram); $2.5 million for expenses ington, DC, USA associated with CGIAR partnership Dr. Marianne Bgnziger (CIMMYT), MTM 2000, May 22-26. Location to committees and the system review: Promising Young Scientist -4ward be determined and S4 million set aside until Dr. A. K. Singh (ICRISAT), Out- MTM98. standing Local Scientist Award ICW 2000, October 23-27: Wash- ington, DC. USA The CGIAR will treat the Mr. Marco A Rond6n (CIAT)? Out- q countries of Central Asia/ standing Local Scientific Support [See page 43 for further details.1 Caucasus in the same manner as / Staff Award

2 CGIAFt ICW97 Summary of Proceedings

I. OPENING STATEMENT BY CGIAR are truly daunting, and redoubled efforts to develop CHAIRMAN ISMAIL SERAGELDIN sustainable agriculture! particularly in the worlds poor countries, is vital to their solution. To help bring Welcome about such a development is our particular task.

I am happy to welcome you all in this new audi- Today, therefore. I want to address you on four torium, which is named after the late Lewis Preston, interconnected issues that challenge us all. First, the President of the World Bank, friend of the CGIAR, evaluation of where we are and where our problems and, particularly, a staunch friend-in-need during the lie. This is linked to the nurturing of an evaluation greatest crisis of the CGIAR. culture within the CGIAR and to the work of the system review panel. Second. the needs and con- In keeping with established practice, this ICW97 cerns of the scientists as I have heard them. Third; business meeting will commence with the Chairman’s the financial condition of the system and some fur- opening statement, which will be followed by a brief ther attention to financial issues. Fourth, the chang- period of comment and discussion. I will then make ing paradigm of science and partnerships that I think the Chairman’s announcements before moving on to is going to be relevant to how we will address our the rest of the agenda. Through most of that agenda, future mission. we will be exploring issues that lie at the heart of the system’s future effectiveness. We will also be shar- An Evaluation Culture: Where Do We Stand? ing expectations with the distinguished panel con- ducting the third review of the CGIAR system. Let me now turn to the first of these challenges: which is how to nurture an evaluation culture. We The distinguished panel that has been convened are all agreed on the need to do so. The world under the chairmanship of NIaurice Strong is charged acknowledges that our contributions hav-e made a with the responsibility of repositioning the CGIAR to substantive difference. In accepting that acknow- ensure its effectiveness in the next millennium. I urge edgment, let us honestly assess just how effective you to share your thoughts and expectations with Mr. we, the CGIAR, have been. We must ask ourselves, Strong and his colleagues, who are committed to a did we indeed make a difference? How much of a collegial approach to their tasks. They will consult difference? How imaginative and efficient were we widely and deeply with all stakeholders. We eagerly in using the available resources in making that await the conclusions based on their inquiries. difference? Above all, how do we integrate these assessments in the way we undertake our work Hon:ever, we cannot close shop until they have today? completed their scrutiny. Inactivity by us will not reduce poverty, enhance food security, or strengthen I feel that, today, we have too much reporting the environment. There is much that we must do, and not enough evaluation. Indeed, looking at the and we must be prepared to do some of that now. external evaluations of centers, I am often struck by As you will hear in greater detail from the Director their great variability. Some are incisive. others are General of IFPRI later this morning, the closely inter- bland. The question is, are they helping to sustain twined problems of poverty, hunger! environmental scientific excellence? distress, and population increase press upon us. These problems were held at bay by past achieve- Should distinguished external reviewers make ments in which the CGIAR played an important part, more use of internal material produced by the cen- but they are not gone. They demand our dedication ters themselves? These will be produced. I should to their resolution. add, with methodologies honed and harmonized to the extent possible by the systemwide efforts of an Indeed. our generation is called upon to grapple effective impact assessment and evaluation group, with this nexus of problems in circumstances that an IAEG, that would diffuse best practices among

CGIAR ICW97 3 the centers. Vould such approaches result in better. strain? Is such informality tenable? IS the appear- more systematic peer reviews and externally based ance of informality being stifled by too many struc- quality enhancement devoted to promoting scien- tures of panels and committees? tific excellence? These are the domestic questions that have to These are some of the key questions at the heart do with putting our own house in order. They relate of the evaluation culture that we are all nurturing in to the internal workings of the Group. In its exter- the CGIAR. Armed with the self-knowledge that the nal relations, the Group has to ask itself, how are we evaluation culture brings: let us build on our strengths going to respond to the rapidly changing world of and confront our shortcomings. For only from that proprietary science and the increasing politicization kind of candid self-assessment will we prepare our- of areas such as access to germplasm and intellec- selves for the endless challenges, obligations, and tual property protection, all of which are critical to opportunities that we enco,unter. We must meet them the work of the CGIAR? boldly, and not be content merely with what is, not content with how to do better with what we have, I will only flag these questions now and urge but dare to dream the dreams of what can be! reach- you to grapple with them openly and frankly through- ing out to what our imagination and our dedication out these meetings, which have been structured to can create. enable us to deal with issues such as these.

The Group: A Candid Assessment The Concerns of Center Scientists

For the CGIAR! the stocktaking required for self- These issues are among those that exercise the knowledge has to begin with you, this group, which scientists and management at the centers. I have is the driving force of the system. The size of the often described my primary function as that of the Group has grown from the original nine members of ambassador of these dedicated men and women to May 19> 1971, through the forty strong membership you, the members of the CGIAR, and to the rest of on the eve of the Lucerne Ministerial-Level Meeting, the world at large. As their ambassador, let me tell to the fifty-seven members of today. The expansion you what I hear from them. of the Group has also brought about its transforma- tion. From a dedicated set of Northern donors, the I am, as always. delighted to report that across CGIAR today is a fully South-North enterprise in which the centers commitment to the mission of the CGIAR all speak as equal partners. is as strong as ever. The centers are staffed by women and men whose extraordinary scientific The changed character of the membership has capacities are matched by their compassion and coincided with and encouraged a reaching out by caring. They value the many signals of confidence the system to important elements outside the and support they have received from members and CGIAR, be they the national agricultural research from the international community at large. They systems, non-governmental organizations, ad- are eager to continue their nrork unimpeded. To vanced research organizations, or the private sec- that end, and in the spirit of being able to soar to tor. These changes have endowed the Group with the fullest extent that the challenges we all face a new dynamism that has renewed and strength- detnand from all of us? they reach out to you here ened the exemplary vision of its founders. That in this group. dynamism has led to increased confidence in the CGIAR within the international community gener- They ask for your confidence. Do not ally and especially among the cosponsors. micromanage them. Science cannot be well done if you cannot give your imagination free rein. It can- Let me ask a contradictory question. can the ex- not be done where endless reporting substitutes for panded and changed Group continue to maintain quality enhancement. the characteristics, and be run by the rules. that have up to now defined the CGIAR? Do we need to They ask for your suppcv-t. They need ex- change? If so, in what direction? Are we now over- panded resources to launch the next round of re- structured? Is the informality of the system under search activities in this never-ending race against

4 CGIAR ICW97 time. After all, the raison d’&re of the CGIAR is there, and it is important. Despite the commitment to enable the center scientists to carry out such and the enthusiasm that motivates one and all, research. there is among them a certain apprehension, some- times manifested only below the surface of public They ask for your understanding and your will- discourse, an apprehension that their scientific fo- ingness to participate in the common enterprise, not cus could be weakened by circumstances beyond to fragment resources, denying them the broad pro- their control. These apprehensions are not un- grammatic support so necessary to make significant like those enumerated some years ago by Hanna advances, not to refuse to cover the costs of overheads Gray, former president of the University of Chi- that are imbedded in the project-specific funding that cago; who said that US universities had “arrived so many donors support. at a stage of maturity burdened by too many tasks and too many demands and too great a confusion They ask for your commitment to stay the of expectations.” course and to invest in the non-immediate, to re- establish the unique characteristics of the early I think center management and staff sometimes days of the CGIAR-a willingness to stick with feel burdened by the task and responsibilities inher- research for the long-haul because some of the ent in changes within the Group. They feel obliged best and largest payoffs will come only from such to spend more time on reporting procedures than sustained efforts. on research; to satisfy more masters in more ways than before, to immerse themselves in the competi- They ask for your consistency in matching with tiveness of the marketplace in order to remain finan- hard dollars your avowed commitment to the heart- cially viable and to meet scientific demands that are land of the long-term scientific research agenda, and sometimes in the nature of a moving target. They not to be swayed by the passing fashions of the de- fear, therefore, that changing times could alter the velopment literature. They know, as you do, that characteristics that have defined the centers and con- scientific excellence cannot be promoted in an at- tributed to their effectiveness. mosphere where the specter of discontinuity haunts the work. Times have undoubtedly changed. Business as usual is no longer possible. Kobody in the centers They ask for your timeliness, for delays in pay- contests that. However, the challenge that we and ment of agreed and pledged support have created the centers must face together is to ensure that the cash flow problems in many centers: and there is an dynamics of change support and do not impair the opportunity cost for the stop gap measures that the commitment to scientific quality. centers have had to employ in order to keep their work going until the checks arrive. Finance: A Balance Sheet

However, my friends, they do not just ask; they Now the third challenge concerns finance. For also promise. They promise the continuation of that the fact is that apprehension at the centers is aggra- stream of output, that high quality research, with high vated by concerns over funds. Despite enormous rates of return on investment that have been interna- achievements in that area, especially in this time tionally acknowledged and envied. of reducing budgets everywhere, there are still problems that we must confront, and I do not mean We have to face up to the problems I have out- just those of timeliness, fragmentation, and recog- lined, if we are indeed to empower the staff of the nition of the necessary overhead for projects to centers to exert their fullest capacities for the mis- be executed. sion to which both we and they are committed. I know that you will give these issues your fullest at- There are still issues that are masked by the tention, and that my pleas of our centers’ staff will aggregate figures. Indeed, the aggregate figures not have been in vain. look very good. At 1~~96 the Group approved a I997 research agenda financing plan calling for I, as their ambassador, feel the need to report funding of approximately S325 million and center one more thing. Unstated though it may be, it is still income of $14 million. The estimate of the Finance

CGIAFl ICW97 5 Committee is that these targets will be achieved Partnerships in spite of adverse exchange rate movements. As we move on to consider partnerships and For 1998, funding projections indicate that we the changing paradigm of science, let us remind could meet or exceed the S335million endorsed by ourselves that the principle of partnership was un- the Group at MTM97 in Cairo. Although the current equivocally endorsed in Lucerne. An effective funding outlook is positive overall. there have been system of partnerships must unite all actors: na- some contradictory developments which cannot be tional and international, public and private, South overlooked. First. all centers have not benefited and North. formal and informal institutions of the evenly from improved funding, and the reasons for civil society, at the community level, at the this situation need to be dispassionately examined. grassroots level. The NGOs and Private Sector Second, two centers-ICRISAT and IRRI-had to Committees that we have created are a part of undertake major staff restructuring programs that were that manifestation. painful to the staff affected, their families, and the centers. These painful changes were difficult in the The Global Forum, established with the encour- short-term, but may benefit center programs over agement of the CGIAR, brings together all the ele- the long-term. Third, certain systemwide initia- ments of the global agricultural research system- tives endorsed time and time again still remain the national agricultural research systems, the ad- unfunded. vanced research organizations, the international ag- ricultural research centers, the private sector, non-gov- In addition, all centers, even those that are said ernmental organizations. national and international. to have achieved their targets or exceeded them. regional and lOCal, all are accommodated within the cannot overlook the increasingly complex issue of Global Forum, This is the only organization of its kind, the composition of funding. The imbalance between and the CGIAR has a central role to play within this restricted and unrestricted funding continues to be a global construct. to help make it a reality. During the serious source of concern. More seriously, shifts in course of ICW, you will have an opportunity to discuss such composition can affect continuing programs and the Global Forum’s proposed plan of action, and to commitments to staff, for neither the dollars nor the add to the substance of that proposal. staff skills are fungible. This results in the paradoxi- cal situation of a center having an aggregate amount The concept of partnership; moreover, is inte- of money that matches or exceeds the estimated tar- gral to our fourth challenge: research paradigms. get, but still having to layoff staff and discontinue certain activities. In short, the system is becoming The Shifting Paradigms of Science over-constrained by the fragmentation and the re- strictions on funding. I see a double shift in the research paradigm. The first of these shifts is well-known to all of us, but Please recall that the original intention when m:e has not yet been achieved, and that is the integration moved to the matrix structure was to recognize the of crop specific research, which has been so SLK- fixed and variable overheads and the need for a vec- cessful in the past, into a broader, more holistic v- tor of unprogrammed funding for the centers to func- sion that brings in the concepts of sustainability and tion. That is just not happening. The appeal to ecoregionality and looks to achieving results that will shift as much money as possible to the southeast increase productivity and profitability of complex corner of the matrix has been heeded by some, farming systems at the smallholder level. but many others have found it difficult to do so. The consequences are what we are witnessing The second shift is to utilize the most cutting- now. You will doubtless hear a lot more about edge work associated with genetic mapping, molecu- this from the Finance Committee, but the issues, I lar markers, and biotechnology to accelerate the want to submit to you, are not beyond our ken to breeding process and achieve the promise of all resolve. We can with imagination and dedication that science can do for the poor and the environ- find ways around the restrictions in order to meet ment. Let me say a word about biotechnology the needs of the centers and empower them to before I return to genetic maps and molecular the fullest extent possible. markers.

6 CGIAFCICW97 In Cairo, when we discussed the promise and germplasm in a way that fails to explain its full po- perils of biotechnology, we agreed that these ques- tential. The paradigm needs to shift away from se- tions must be scrutinized in light of reason. in the lecting parents on the basis of phenotypes to evalu- presence of the evidence, and not governed by emo- ating them directly for the presence of useful genes. tion or prejudice. It is only through such scrutiny The tools that make such an analysis possible are that a productive consensus can be fashioned out of molecular maps and the integrative power of QTL the diverse aspects-science, agriculture, law, farm- analysis.” ers’ rights, the working of the civil society, the pri- vate sector, partnerships with NARS. advanced re- Now if we accept this thinking, then it argues for search institutions: and others-all of which impinge the expansion of our efforts at genetic as well as upon a truly complex situation. phenotypical screening and characterization of our germplasm, based on the relevance of the traits for To provide for a more detailed examination of particular agronomic characteristics. Close collabo- these issues, we set up two panels to work under ration with NARS in this area would also be em- the auspices of TAC. One of them is devoting its nently desirable. It is also notable that the work of attention to proprietary science and intellectual prop- this type would benefit from crossing the traditional erty right issues; the other with technical questions. commodity specific lines. We are discovering that Also, as promised in Cairo, several special events in the architecture of the genomes for monocots has October allowed the issues of biosafety and bioeth- much in common across species, an obsen;ation that ics to be examined by a high powered group of ex- also holds for dicots such as tomatoes and potatoes. perts. You will be hearing reports on these develop- ments later on. Thus, not only is there some possible benefit of working across centers, but also of reaching a criti- Let me now set aside biotechnology and return cal mass of CGIAR staff working on the same prob- to genetic mapping and molecular markers: and ad- lems who could beneficially work physically as a dress, first, the changing scientific paradigm implicit group located within a particular advanced research in this area of work; and second, the need for ex- organization that has specialized expertise in this or panded systemic relationships with advanced research another area of advanced research. organizations. As many of you may know, impor- tant work is being done on genomics, genetic map- That paradigm, therefore, opens up a new way ping, and identification of quantitative trail loci in which we can combine resources across centers (QTLs). Th e q uestion about the application of this and tie them with ,4ROs in a new way. The CGIAR knowledge to our scientific mission raises challeng- scientists that could be placed in such an AR0 could ing possibilities that have been recently sketched out also be supplemented with NARS scientists and; in in a paper by Steven Tanksley and Susan McCouch fact, include post-doctoral trainees from around the published recently in Science. The gist of their argu- developing world. This would build bridges across ment is that by locating QTLs in the wild relatives of the system, strengthen the networking of scientists, major crops species and using these in plant breed- and help engage some of the best AROs more closely ing, it will be possible to make major advances on with problems that interest the CGIAR membership. the yield front and other complex characteristics. I invite you to think about this idea. I invite Characterization based on screening exotic the AROs to consider this suggestion and to come germplasm for relevant QTLs, they argue, adds an forward with their proposals. I invite the mem- important dimension that the traditional method of bers from industrial countries to encourage their phenotype-based screening can miss. Genetic link- AROs to make such commitments as a way to also age maps based on molecular markers have made it add to the research effort in a fashion that may possible for QTLs to be identified, studied, and ap- not require additional funding from the same plied in crop breeding, Indeed, Tdnksley and sources that provide the current funding for the McCouch have stated that “using phenotypic evalua- CGIAR. tion to determine the breeding value of an accession is likely to be misleading, especially with respect to Let me hasten to add that the suggestions I am quantitative traits. Thus, we have been screening making do not imply that such AROs would have a

CGIAR ICW97 7 monopoly on the relationships between CGIAR sci- losopher who “gave it as his opinion that who- entists and their colleagues elsewhere. what I have ever could make two ears of corn or two blades suggested would help build systemic links with par- of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where ticularly well-placed AROs, and would help build only one grew before would deserve better of man- teams of scientists around thematic areas, an effort kind and do more essential service to his country where we already know the value of networking. than the whole race of politicians put together.” For instance, experience tells us that the Rockefeller networking programs have been highly We face an even greater challenge, not only of successful, and we would be carrying that idea a growing two sheaves or more where only one grew step further. before, but of doing so in a manner that does not despoil the land on which the crops multiply or di- This is not all. We could also think of building minish the water that sustains them. To overcome other partnerships, as and when appropriate, with new challenges, we must ceaselessly examine the others in developing countries, in the private sector, effectiveness of our science to meet these challenges, and in civil society. That set of partnerships would and have the courage to change our research para- probably be located around the CGIAR centers rather digm when necessary. It is our privilege not simply than AROs, and would strengthen the linkages to help define the new paradigms, but also to guar- through particular research consortia around clus- antee that they can effectively be implemented. ters of problems such as those that I outlined to you in Cairo. Now we can temporize, wait. and let others define our future. Or we can grasp the opportu- If we can properly handle the IPR issues, then nities. courageously using them as the occasion we could envisage the possibility of one day es- for greater renewal, greater effort. greater achieve- tablishing working relations with private sector ment, greater impact. The future beckons. Let us companies, while protecting our commitment to move forward to meet it. Let us fashion it to the KARS and to the world, acting in such a way that, pattern of our dreams, not for ourselves, but for for example, the private sector could pay into a the marginalized millions who are entitled to bet- consortium e,r ante and would share the results ter tomorrows. expost by having patent rights to it only in the Xorth, while the CGIAR centers would have the Thank you for your attention. patent rights: and give them away for free, in the South. II. NEW AND POTENTIAL MEMBERS Such approaches could then begin to radically transform the reality of the international agricultural Kew Zealand, Peru, and Portugal were admitted research system, redefining the role of the CGIAR as to CGIAR membership by acclamation. This brings facilitator and enabler of more open access for the the total number of CGIAR members to 57, of which South, while remaining involved with the best sci- 19 are from developing countries, 21 from industrial ence everywhere in the world. These approaches countries, and 2 from economies in transition. H. E. would, as well, help to build a reality around the Rodolfo Mufiante Sanguinetti, Minister of Agriculture, rhetoric of partnerships and collaboration as we en- led the Peruvian delegation. The delegation from ter the age of the knowledge based society. They New Zealand was led by Jackie Frizelle of the Minis- would enable us to take yet another step in the di- try of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Representatives from rection of harnessing science to serving the needs of Thailand, led by Sompong Theerawong, Director the poor and the environment. I urge you to give General of the Department of Land Development of some thought to these ideas. the Ministry of Agriculture, were welcomed to their first CGIAR meeting. Thailand joined the CGIAR at Envoi MTM97.

\Vhen Gulliver, the fictional character made fa- In statements made to the Group. representa- mous by Jonathan Swift, visited the mythical land of tives from Chile: Morocco. and Vietnam, who were Brobdignag, he encountered a down-to-earth phi- attending ICvC;97 as observers, each declared their

8 CGIAR ICW97 country’s intent to join the CGIAR in the near fu- continue to grow at fairly high rates. Even Sub- ture. Representatives from Turkey and Uruguay Saharan Africa is expected to have positive. albeit also attended ICW97 as observers. Welcoming the very modest, income growth. However, dispari- observers to the meeting, the Chairman expressed ties in income levels and growth rates both be- the hope that all five countries would soon join tween and within countries are likely to persist. the CGIAR. Consequently, poverty is likely to remain en- trenched in South Asia and Latin America and to increase considerably in Sub-Saharan Africa. III. OVERVIEW OF THE WORLD FOOD SITUATION Demand for cereals? roots and tubers, and live- stock products by developing countries is expected The Director General of IFPRI presented a re- to rise by about 58 percent, 56 percent, and 118 port to the Group on the prospects for global food percent, respectively: from 19% to 2020. Among security by 2020, and recent developments and cereals, demand for maize is expected to increase by emerging issues that have the potential to signifi- about 77 percent, for wheat by about 60 percent, cantly affect food security in the future. IFPRI’s analy- and for rice by about 38 percent. Demand for feed sis of a range of factors, including malnutrition. food grain by developing countries is projected to increase insecurity, population growth, poverty, and income by 101 percent from 1993 to 2020, and demand for growth, shows that the outlook for future food secu- cereals for direct consumption by 47 percent. rity has generally not changed in the last few years. For example; it is still estimated that there will be Production increases will have to come prima- about 150 million malnourished preschool children rily from yield increases. Possibilities for area in- in 2020; Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, together creases are very limited, particularly if further degra- home to more than 70 percent of the world’s mal- dation of natural resources is to be avoided. How- nourished children, will continue to have the high- ever, there has been a considerable slowdown in est incidence of child malnutrition in 2020. Like- yield growth of cereals in both developing and in- wise, these two regions will also be home to 70 per- dustrial countries. Yield increases for cereals as a cent of the world’s food insecure people by 2010, whole in developing countries are projected to be when one out of every three persons in Sub-Sa- about 1.3 to 1.4 percent per year, compared to al- haran Africa and one out of every eight persons most 3 percent per year during 1967 to 1982. in South Asia are projected to be food insecure. Food insecurity will also accelerate substantially Developing countries are experiencing an in- in West Asia and North Africa. Global population creasing gap between demand for food and do- is projected to increase by 2 billion by 2020. There mestic production. Rapid increases in cereal im- are still about 1.3 billion people who earn less port requirements by all major developing regions than Sl a day. except Latin America are anticipated, as increased domestic cereal production will not be sufficient Among the key factors that will influence the to meet the expected increase in demand. The global food situation in the future are population projected quadrupling of Asia’s cereal imports will growth and poverty alleviation through income likely be driven by its rapid economic growth. growth. Global population is projected to grow by However, in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is pro- about 35 percent from 1995 to 2020. More than 9j jected to increase its cereal imports by 150 per- percent of the population increase is expected in cent, the gap reflects very limited increases in food developing countries. Absolute population increase production, and is a result, not of growing in- will be highest in Asia, where population is expected comes, but of failing agriculture. Most coun- to increase by more than 1 billion. Relative increase tries in Sub-Saharan Africa may not be able to will be highest in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is pro- generate the necessary foreign exchange to fill the jected to almost double its population by 2020. gap through commercial imports. Moreover, food Prospects for economic growth during the next aid, which is about half of what it was three years quarter century appear favorable, with global in- ago: will not be available to fill this gap. Sub- come growth projected to average 2.7 percent per Saharan Africa is, thus, expected to face serious year between 1993 and 2020. Asia is projected to food deficits.

CGIAFl ICW97 9 ,4griculture is the fastest growing food produc- l Sub-Sahamn Africa. In Sub-Saharan Africa, tion system; during 1990 to 1995, it gre-w at about 11 the population growth rate has exceeded the percent per year globally, considerably outpacing any rate of growth in food production since the other food production system. Marine fisheries. how- early 1970s and the gap is widening, resulting ever, are unlikely to grow due to overexploitation. in declining food production per capita. How- Demand for fish is expected to exceed supply, lead- ever, for the first time in many years, GDP per ing to increases in real prices for fish over the next capita has increased for three consecutive 10 to 15 years. years. The economic recovery in Sub-Saharan Africa is fragile. The question is whether this IFPRI’s analysis shows that a range of factors is the beginning of a new high-growth trend will lead to larger fluctuations in the availability of for Sub-Saharan Africa or a catching-up from food, placing access to food by the poor at increas- past drought years and negative growth. Popu- ing risk. Some factors that will have a large influ- lation growth of the magnitude projected for ence in shaping the future world food situation are Sub-Saharan Africa, however, will severely developments in China, Eastern Europe and the constrain efforts to increase income and im- former Soviet Union, and Sub-Saharan Africa, food prove welfare, and will greatly increase the prices, weather fluctuations and climatic change, need for food. trade liberalization, food safety and genetic engi- neering, and conflicts and food security. l Food Prices. Sharp increases in international wheat and maize prices and significant reduc-

l ChiTza. with one-fifth of the world’s popula- tions in global cereal stocks in 1995-1996 gen- tion and one of the fastest growing and most erated concern about global food security. rapidly transforming economies in the world, IFPRI analysis shows that the price rises were China has the potential to significantly affect a short-run phenomenon and that, overall, global food security. depending on the extent world prices for cereals. meats, and roots and of its future demand for cereals, its capacity to tubers will remain roughly constant over the meet its needs through production, and the next several years, and will decline by 2020. degree to wrhich it will enter world markets to The difference from IFPRI’s report two years satisfy its unmet needs. IFPRI projects that ago is that projections for decreases in real food China will import about 40 million tons of grain prices are considerably less today than were by 2020. However, there are also reasonable projected! primarily an outcome of the increas- scenarios that show China could be a next ing import demand by developing countries. exporter of grain by 2020. There is concern related to the potential volatil- ity of cereal prices. Price fluctuations in the . Eastern Em-opeand the Former Soviet Union. international market, as well as large domestic IFPRI revised its previous projection that East- price fluctuations in lowincome! food-insecure ern Europe and the former Soviet Union would developing countries: can have severe reper- become a next exporter of grain by about cussions at the local level, where the poor are 2002 or 2003. It is still likely to happen. the first to suffer from lack of access to food. but later, by about 2010 to 2012. Since the early 199Os, the former Soviet Union has 9 Weather Fluctuations and Climate Change. moved from a net importer of cereals of Global warming and increasing fluctuations about 40 million tons to virtual self-suffi- in rainfall and temperatures increase risks and ciency. However, for individual countries uncertainties for brmers and consumers in in the region, the transition has been pain- developing countries. El Niiio will cause large ful and policies less than optimal. The tre- fluctuations in rainfall, leading to floods and mendous agricultural potential of the region droughts in many areas of the world. It adds is underutilized, and changes in institutions a major element of uncertainty to agricultural and policies, increased market and trade lib- production and livelihoods. eralization, and investment in rural infrastruc-

ture that could result in rapid production in- l TradeLiberalization. Many developing coun- creases have been very slow. tries have considerably opened up their mar-

10 CGIAR ICW97 kets during the last few years, in response to [IFPRI published its report on the world food the GATT agreement, structural adjustment: situation in December 1997, entitled 7& World Food and market reform. The OECD countries have Situation: RecentDe&lelopments. Emerging Issues,and not kept pace. Structural adjustment in devel- Long-Term Prospects,by Per Pinstrup-Andersen! Rajul oping countries will not succeed if OECD Pandya-Larch, and Mark W. Rosegrant. An advanced countries do not open their markets to prod- copy of the report was distributed at ICW97 as Docu- ucts from developing countries. ment No. ICW/97/09.1

l Food Safety and Genetic Engineering. Dur- ing the last several years there has been a IV. GENETIC RESOURCES AND dramatic increase in concerns about food BIODIVERSITY safety, genetic engineering, and animal rights, particularly in Western Europe and Overview North America. For example, public pres- sure in Western Europe could result in leg- The GRPC reported to the Group on its activities islation that will constrain full use of the since MTM97, highlighting in particular four items: opportunities offered by genetic engineer- the CGIAR’s role in the implementation of the Glo- ing and other tools of modern science for bal Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sus- food production and processing. Should tainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for such legislation be adopted by developing Food and Agriculture: the importance of strength- countries, the consequences for food secu- ening the CGL4R’s work on animal genetic re- rity and nutrition could be severe. Modern sources; intellectual property rights issues, includ- scientific methods offer tremendous oppor- ing the working guidelines adopted by the Group tunities for expanding food production in at ICW96; and ethics and equity issues, particu- developing countries. Great care must be larly in relation to the workshop held in Brazil in taken so that scientific solutions to hunger April. The Group considered draft Ethical Prin- and starvation in developing countries are ciples Relating to Genetic Resources that were dis- not withheld. tilled by the GRPC from the outcome and recom- mendations of the April 1997 Workshop on Ethics

l Co@icts and Food Secwity. Widespread lo- and Equity in the Conservation and Use of Ge- cal, national, and regional instability and con- netic Resources for Sustainable Food Security held flict contributes to poverty, food insecurity. in Fez do Igua@, Brazil. and natural resource degradation. Hunger, poverty, and the misuse of natural resources Report from the Genetic Resources Policy can also cause instability and conflict. Increas- Committee (GRPC) ingly evidence suggests that if countries can manage their natural resources and achieve In the report to the Group from the GRPC, food security, the severity and occurrence of several points were highlighted related to the conflict will decrease markedly. Most con- implementation of the Global Plan of Action. First, flicts occur in poor countries, where there are a report by the CGIAR’s Systemwide Genetic Re- many food insecure people, many malnour- sources Program, submitted to the F-40 Commis- ished children, and where natural resources sion on Plant Genetic Resources, was well received are being exploited. and has been provided to the CBD Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technological, and Technical Advice Neither the goal of the World Food Summit to for consideration. Second, the GRPC reconfirmed reduce the number of food insecure people by 2015, the importance of the Global Plan of Action for the nor the goals of the 2020 Vision Initiative can be CGIAK, urged centers to use the plan as a basis for achieved with business as usual. The appropriate their own actions in the future, and noted the com- action plans are in place. What is needed, and what mitment of the centers to furthering the implementa- is currently missing, is the political will to take the tion of the plan. Third, follow--up meetings to be action required. Failure will affect everyone, not only held in all regions of the world in the next year are the children who will die from malnutrition. now being jointly planned by FAO, the CGIAR, and

CGIAFt ICW97 11 national programs in the various regions, Fourth, Decisions by the Group the GRPC strongly endorsed the need for the cen- ters to continue to work in close cooperation with The broad points made during the Group’s de- FAO to restore genetic resources in those situa- liberations on the draft ethical principles were the tions where they have been lost. Fifth, the GRPC following: urged the CGIAR to continue to examine the role centers can play in the conservation and use of l The draft guidelines provide clarity and iden- underutilized crops, which are important to farm- tify the common ground among CGIAR stake- ers in marginal areas and also as a means of in- holders on important ethical issues related to creasing agricultural diversification, genetic resources.

The importance of continuing and strengthen- l The draft guidelines. although not exhaustive. ing work on animal genetic resources within the provide a very concise, basic statement of what CGIAR was stressed by the GRPC. In particular. the CGIAR stands for. and as such can serve the CGIAR should support the implementation of to guide the CGIAR centers in their interac- the FAO Global Strategy for the Management of tions with partners on these issues. Farm Animal Genetic Resources, and work in co- operation with the new Intergovernmental Tech- l Unless others know where the CGIAR stands. nical Working Group on Animal Genetic Resources partnerships will either not be possible, or to be established under the FAO Commission to could be misguided. Strong partnerships de- ensure that various approaches and activities are pend on the CGIAR knowing w-hat it stands mutually reinforcing. for and what its partners stand for.

The GRPC reported that centers had found the l The draft guidelines should be viewed as a Draft Guiding Principles on Intellectual Property Pro- work in progress, which the Group can re- tection of Genetic Resources, adopted as interim work- fine, modify, or add to as needed. ing guidelines by the Group at 1~~796, valuable and useful to their work and in helping to guide their inter- l Adoption of the draft guidelines by the Group actions particularly with private sector partners The would demonstrate the importance of these GRPC advised the Group to keep in mind the im- issues to the CGIAR, and would show that the portance of the role of indigenous/local knowl- CGIAR is at the forefront of the international edge in generating new knowledge, and suggested community in dealing with these issues. the CGIAR take the lead in recognizing informal innovation and indigenous knowledge alongside l Centers are currently dealing with ethical issues of a formal recognition of intellectual property. on an individual basis. A statement by the Group is needed to provide an overall framework for The proceedings of the April 1997 workshop on behavior that can guide the centers. ethics and equity held in Foz do Igua& Brazil are available. The GRPC developed a draft set of guiding l The draft raises key considerations when han- ethical principles, circulated at ICVQ7, based on the dling questions of ethics: it is not intended to outcome and recommendations of the meeting. The resolve complex ethical issues. draft ethical principles were prepared to serve as a statement of nrhat the CGIAR stands for, and thus to l Translating the principles into practical codes help guide the CGIAR centers in their work and inter- of conduct would be the responsibility of indi- actions with other actors in the complex area of ge- vidual centers within their own circumstances. netic resources. The draft principles cover equity: trust- eeship of genetic resources; respect, responsibility, and l The final formulation of the ethical principles integrity in science; and social benefits. Once endorsed should be in accord with agreements signed by by the Group, the principles could be used as ethical member countries in other international fora. codes of conduct by centers in their individual work. All CGIAR stakeholders were urged to provide the GRPC l Several issues require more specific language, with feedback on the draft principles. such as issues of compensation, farmers’ rights:

12 CGIAR ICW97 and accountability, responsibility, and precau- CGIAR’s major goals. In addition, reports of impact tionarv action. and evaluation analyses carried out by the IAEG will be presented at MTMs and ICWs on a regular basis. Following agreement that the CGIAR must se- Studies are underway to determine the impact of cure common ground on this issue in incremental CGIAR germplasm improvement work on food pro- steps, the Group adopted the draft ethical principles duction, of CGIAR innovations on poverty and on as an interim statement, on the understanding that natural resources, the adoption of CGIAR agricul- the principles would remain under review in light of tural innovations, and essential data for evaluation. evolving international fora and subject to input re- ceived from CGIAR stakeholders on specific issues. The IAEG commissioned a methodological re- The Group agreed to review the draft ethical prin- view and synthesis of existing expost impact as- ciples at IvlTM98, and amend them as needed. sessments of the centers. The study reviewed 265 documents, of which 87 presented evidence on The Group endorsed the report received from center effects. Systematic review of the 87 stud- the GRPC. ies found that the most common center analyses were on applied research; direct effects of research were addressed much more often than intimated v. IMPACT OF THE CGIAR or indirect effects, the CGIAR is working in good linkage with NARS and with other scientific and Overview research institutions, and more evidence should be provided to support conclusions drawn and to show A significant portion of ICY@7 was dev-oted to the use of CGIAR products by agriculturalists in de- an examination of the CGIAR’s impact. The Group veloping countries. reviewed recent evidence of impact from both a sys- tem-level and center-level perspective. The Group The IAEG recommended that centers adopt a began its deliberations by reviewing the IAEG’s first logical framework analysis format, to assist evalua- annual report on impact-which appraised the tion and impact assessment in the CGIAR, and pro- CGIAR’s impact as a whole in four thernatic areas- posed to develop, in collaboration with the centers and examining progress made by the IAEG on as- and TAC, best practice and common methodologies sessing and evaluating the CGIAR’s impact. Second, for evaluation. the Group reviewed evidence of the impact of each of the sixteen CGIAR centers through a series of cen- The IAEG concluded that progress is being made ter presentations during the week. Finally, at the toward the acceptance of an evaluation culture in end of the week, the Group considered a report pro- the CGIAR, and commended centers for their col- viding peer assessment of the center impact presen- laboration with the IAEG, in investing in and carry tations from a systemwide perspective. ing out the various studies.

Report from the Impact Assessment and Impact of the Centers Evaluation Group The focus of ICW97 was on the CGIAR’s impact. The Group received the first annual report on In keeping with this theme, the CGIAR centers pre- impact from the IAEG Chair, as well as an update on sented highlights of their impacts to the Group as IAEG activities, including studies underway. The well as their recent impact assessment activities. The annual report on impact comprised four short re- following summaries are based on those presenta- ports on the following topics: genetic resources and tions and represent a selective list of the centers’ biodiversity; better plants and animals; natural re- latest impacts. sources and productiv-ity; and stronger national part- ners. It also covered the main findings of an analy- sis of the quality of existing expost impact assess- ments. The IAEG will present an annual report on The strengthened agricultural research capacity impact at each IC\xi that will provide a systemwide in most of Sub-Saharan Africa reflects the major im- record of the progress made toward achieving the pact of IITA. Other major impacts are the improved

CGIAR ICW97 13 productivity of maize, cassava, cowpeas, and other for nearly 500 million people in the developing world. traditional crops grown by small farmers. The breakthrough is expected to save impoverished African farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost In 1775, IITA4distributed more than 500,000 seeds: crops. In 1770, CL4T and IITL4 scientists received the covering nearly 4,000 families of lxoad-based irn- King Baudouin Award of the CGIAR for their collabo- proved populations of cassava. to twenty-one coun- rative work on the cassava mealybug problem. tries in the cassava growing belt of Sub-Saharan Af- rica. IITA has also worked through national qistems CL4T scientists also developed the CGIAK‘s first and such organizations as World Vision International molecular genetic map to combat poverty and hun- to distribute thousands of improved plantlets and ger. This cassava molecular map is an international mini-tubers throughout West and Central Africa. public good that assists breeders in each step of cas- sava improvement. An electronic database on all IITL4 research has increased both yield stability aspects of the map will be available through the plant and overall production, enabling small farmers to genome home page of the 15 Depamnent of Agri- gain substantial benefits. In West and Central Af- culture. rica, o~~erdll maize production has increased by 257 percent since the early 179Os, making it an impor- In cooperation with UNEI’, CL4T has de\& tant cash crop. IITKs soybean utilization project has oped another breakthrough information too-a helped spread improved soybean varieties (crops) set of environmental indicators that will be avail- throughout Nigeria. More than 47.000 people, includ- able electronically to help people make better ing 30,000 women. have been trained on how to decisions about land use and sustainable devel- produce and use soybean in their diets. About 140 opment. CL4T is currently testing the utility of the food products with satisfactory nutritive value and indicators for day-to-day decisionmaking through consumer acceptability were developed, some of a series of projects in Colombia. which have been scaled up to industrial level pro- duction. Enterprises processing soybean for food and livestock feeds have increased from five in 1787 to more than 60 in 1776. Between 1787 and 1794, the use of soybean to treat malnutrition more than ICRISAT’s research has increased the knowledge doubted in Nigeria: in Oyo State 3j percent of hos- base of one of the most fragile ecologies in the de- pitals were using soybean treatment by 1770. veloping world-the semi-arid tropics. Home to a- most 850 million people, including many of the world’s poorest, this region has not attracted con- mercial investments in agricultural technology ini- The international bean improvement program provements because the markets are small and wa- developed by CIAT illustrates how international ter scarcity. coupled with a harsh climate. limits plant CGIAR centers and their national partners can gen- growth. ICRK4T works on the most important food erate significant impact through improved seed. crops in the diets of the poor in these dry areas- CT-AT’s support enabled national programs in Latin cereals: sorghum and millet. and the legumes: ground- America and Africa to improve bean production dra- nut (peanut), chickpea (garbanzo bean). and matically. In Ecuador. for example, new v-arieties pigeonpea. By combining cereals and legumes in account for an additional 30,000 metric tons of pro- their cropping systems, farmers reap sucli benefits duction per year. worth S37 million at 1776 prices- of diversification as increased and stabilized income. a benefit 10 times the total investment in the net- reduced risk. improved soil fertility, the disruption work. Similar benefits have been achieved through of pest cyclq and improved human nutrition and improved seed from CI,4T for rice in Latin America, many others. cassava in Asia. and beans elsewhere in Latin i\merica and Africa. ICRIS,“IT, in collaboration with its national and international partners, has made significant progress Scientists from CIAT and IITA disco\w~ed a preda- in developing technologies that are lifting the living tory mite to control one of the most devastating pests standards of the rural poor. For example, ICRK4T of cassava. the starchy food crop that is a staple food along with ICARD& is making a special effort to meet

14 CGIAFCICW97 the needs of these dryland farmers by developing progress resulting from the expanded knowledge base new technologies for dryland agriculture. Over the created by twenty-five years of effort at ICRISAT. past 25 years, ICRIST partners in 70 countries have released 365 improved varieties based on germplasm ICRISAT has trained 3,200 scientists and techni- supplied by ICRISAT. ICRISAT’s greatest impact to cians from Africa, Asia, Latin America, and other re- date has occurred in India and Sub-Saharan Africa. gions, built an extensive research facility in the Sahel Chickpea impact has been greatest in West Asia and where none existed before, and introduced new crops n‘orth Africa through collaboration with ICARDA; to traditional cropping systems. it has also been substantial in India. Pigeonpea research has had its largest impact in the crop‘s International Ce?zterforARlicultuml Reseambin the home country, India. Concerted efforts are now OF?Areus (ICARDA) in progress to tailor this crop to the needs of East- ern and Southern Africa. ICRISAT’s groundnut ICARDA has developed technologies for poor improvement research in Africa is beginning to farmers in the dry areas that sustainably increase crop show signs that high impact will be forthcoming and livestock productivity. ICARDA partnerships over the coming decade. with national agricultural research systems have contributed to their improved research capacity One of ICRISAT’s most significant achievements and effectiveness. As part of this effort. ICARDA to date has been the introduction of resistance in supplies nearly 2,500 sets of international nurser- pearl millet to the downy mildew fungus that causes ies annually, and more than 440 new crop variet- a disease so severe it threatened to make farmers ies utilizing ICARDA supplied materials have been abandon production of the crop in India. This is a released worldwide. story with many dimensions. including a huge pay- off to strong partnerships among the international, In addition to crop improvement and produc- national, and private sector research communities; tion system sustainability, conservation and enhance- the effective use of the global gene pool to solve a ment of natural resources in agriculture are a high national problem; and the application of cutting-edge priority at ICARDA. Through its collaborative re- science using molecular markers to make major gains search program of On-farm Water Husbandry, in breeding efficiency in the future. In recognition ICARDA is introducing improved water use efficiency of this achievement, the CGIAR granted its highest techniques, including water harvesting and supple- accolade, the King Baudouin Award. to ICRISAT in mental irrigation in nine participating countries. In 1996. its work on preservation of biodiversity, ICARDA holds 20 percent of the CGIAR’s total germplasm Economists measure the benefit streams gener- collection and annually distributes seed from almost ated by new technologies much as a banker would one-third of its accessions for use by national and express interest on cash deposited in a bank-as an international breeding programs. These accessions annual percentage return. The Internal Rate of Re- are of special value for stressful environments com- turn to society generated by ICRISAT’s investments mon in dry areas. in crop improvement. for a number of cases studied to date, range from 11 to 65 percent. These are ICARDA is working throughout the world’s dry extremely attractive rates of return and compare fa- areas on improving agricultural production through vorably to alternative investments in rural develop- improved crop varieties and production practices and ments. A pooling of the income streams estimated by enhancing availability of seeds as part of the de- from the studies of the impacts of just twenty of the velopment of national systems. In China, ICARDA improved crop varieties released to date, yields the helped improve barley lines that resulted in 20 to 25 conclusion that these benefits alone are worth more percent increase in productivity, and faba bean vari- than ten times ICRISAT’s annual budget. This does etal development that raised yields by 30 percent. not take into account the benefits accruing to society Assistance in lentil improvement in Ethiopia has re- from the remainder of the 365 released lines, the sulted in raising yields by 70 percent without costly resource management technologies, the noneconomic inputs, and in Bangladesh new varieties resistant to benefits from sustainability, equity, and other intan- blight and rust have increased national yields by 30 gible gains, nor the global acceleration of research percent.

CGIAR ICW97 15 Wheat improvement in Syria has enabled the legumes into smallholder cropping systems in West country to double its production within five years and Africa. A recently completed adoption study indi- achieve self-sufficiency. The research has contrib- cates that more than 27,000 adopters are realizing more uted to wheat production improvement in the UP- than $22 million net benefits, producing an internal per Egypt, Syria, and Tunisia. which has saved these rate of return of 48 percent from this research. countries an average of ~600 million per year. \%n- ter sown chickpea cultivars, with a potential yield A joint IIT&ILRI research project showed that increase of 60 percent over local spring sown culti- cattle fed diets including cowpea produce an extra val-S. are now planted on an estimated 200,000 hect- 50 kilograms of meat per hectare per year and ma- ares in Mediterranean basin countries. Rangeland nure providing 25 percent more nitrogen. This ma- management and integrated crop-livestock (small rw nure, plus the nitrogen fixed by the conrpea. conl- minants) system research, with emphasis on property bine to support an additional 900 kilograms of maize right and policy: has contributed to improved income grain per hectare per year. of pastoralists and the protection of environment. Although specifically targeted at small farmers in ICARDA’s training programs have benefited some developing countries, ILRI’s research has wider po- 7,500 people from 90 countries, 17 percent of whom tential, with spin-off benefits accruing to the biomedi- are women. cal research community, the CGIAR, and N4RS crop centers. Specific research activities at ILRI include the following:

ILRI works to alleviate the severe problems of l genomics research to identify. develop, and tropical animal agriculture in a holistic Wdy, tackling test genetic markers and genes controlling dis- constraints in both production and health. and ad- ease resistance and other imporTant traits to dressing economic, environmental, and productivity improve breed selection program and the na- concerns. ILRI’s mission is to enhance the well-be- tional herds of developing countries; ing of present and future generations in developing countries through research that improves sustainable l immunology and molecular biology to iden- livestock production. It has major strengths in rumi- tih7 candidate antigens of li\,estock pathogens nant genetics: health and feed resources. and in mixed for developing vaccines to improve control of crop and livestock production systems. The latter livestock disease: includes livestock policy analysis. systems analysis and impact assessment. the livestock and environ- l molecular biology, parasitology, and immu- ment interface, and market-oriented smallholder nology to develop cost-effective tests, particu- dairy@. ILRI’s biosciences program conducts basic larly user-friendly “pen-side” tests, for im- research on animal health, animal genetics, and ani- proved diagnosis of disease; and mal nutrition using biotechnology involving gene identification, characterization, and expression in l plant genomics research to improve the nu- relevant animals, forages, and microorganisms. tritional value of livestock forages and to reduce antinutritional factors, such as Some of ILKI’s research on livestock and the en- tannins and saponins. \%-onment focuses on re-establishing the balance that traditionally exists between ruminant animals and In the last two decades, more than 3,000 stu- savanna grasslands. ILRI research has documented, dents from 80 countries have attended training for example, the ways in which small-scale farmers courses and pursued advanced education at ILRI in can rely on their animals‘ manure to augment and livestock-related research. sustain their cropping. Livestock is the key to im- proving nutrient management in resource-scarce farm- ing systems in dryland areas such as the Sahel.

T\\:enty )roars ago ILRI and national partners Dedicated to improving the livelihood of poor started researching optimal ways to integrate forage people who depend on aquaculture and fisheries,

16 CGlAFt ICW97 ICL4Rbi has pioneered aquatic resource management improvement benefits for thousands of farmers. \Vith research for the last two decades in collaboration improved soil conditions, farmers switch to higher with over 200 government and non-government or- value crops, alleviating poverty, and enhancing #anizations in 45 countries. ICL,4RM has research household nutrition. Environmentally, carbon and sites in the Philippines, the Solomon Islands, nutrient stocks in replenished soil increase Bangladesh. Malawi1 the Caribbean, and Egypt. agroecosystem resilience and decrease soil erosion.

Working with partners in the Philippines and ICR4F coordinates Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Norway with funding from UIiDP and the Asian Agriculture (ASB). a new global initiative that deals Development Bank, ICLARM produced an improved with the causes of smoke crises, like the recent one strain of tilapia, a hardy freshwater fish from Africa, in Southeast Asia. ASB has developed policies to under the Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapia increase the security of land tenure for marginal farm- (GIFT) project. Compared with other farmed strains, ers and control future burning in a way that protects the GIFT tilapia can grow 60 percent faster with bet- the interests of small farmers-both which affect the ter survival rates, and can yield three fish crops per causes of smoke crises. year, rather than two. ICRAF’s new report on the Asian fires recom- Aquaculture is a fast growing segment of the mends that Indonesia revise its forest policies, issue world’s food production. The GIFT tilapia provides fewer government land clearing permits, and con- a means of involving more poor people in aquacul- duct more research on “no burn” land clearing meth- ture production and making fish more affordable for ods. The report predicted that forest fires in Asia them. Tilapia farming in Asia has contributed to a will worsen in coming years unless governments deal rise in overall fish production for the first time in five with corporations’ slash-and-burn agriculture. years. An impact assessment of the farming of GIFT tikdpia done by ICLARVI shows that fish farmers can To promote discussions on these and other natu- expect higher productivity, higher profit, and higher ral resources management issues, ICRAF and the IAEG yield potential, with most benefits going to the rela- are organizing an international workshop on impact tively poor consumers. assessment of natural resources management re- search. ICR4F will convene the workshop on April In other regions, ICLARM has trained local fish- 1998 in Nairobi, Kenya. ers, whose sole source of income is fishing, on alter- native sources of income, such as raising giant clams and blacklip oysters; and the artificial propagation of sea cucumbers. To assist with aquatic resources The mission of CIFOR is to provide the scientific management, ICLARM has developed two important underpinning for forest sustainability for the benefit tools for universities, schools, museums, libraries, fish- of poor forest dependent people. Established in 1993, ery departments, NGOs, donors, and private sector CIFOR was part of a CGIAR initiative to expand its organizations. They are FishBase, an electronic en- research on agricultural commodities into broader cyclopedia on the world’s finfish, and ReefBase, an issues of natural resources management. CIFOR electronic database for information on the world’s works in the tropics of Asia, Latin America, and Sub- coral reefs. Sahardn Africa.

International Centre for Researc-chin Agrofo?-estry One of the newest CGIAR centers, CIFOR has UCRAF1 already significantly contributed to the understand- ing of sustainable tropical forest management and its ICRAF focuses on a broad range of forest man- relationship to the people who depend on these for- agement issues, which could potentially affect the ests. For example, CIFOR’s analysis of the recent lives and well-being of 1.2 billion people in the trop- smoke crisis in Southeast Asia identified poor stan- ics who use agroforestry practices. Two of the most dards for logging, which leave flammable debris and important are soil fertility replenishment and alter- open areas that burn easily, as major causes of the natives to slash-and-burn agriculture. Soil replen- uncontrolled fires. But poorly conceived and man- ishment directly affects food security and similar crop aged forest clearing for agriculture is an even more

CGIAR ICW97 17 serious problem. CIFOR’s work on criteria and indi- International Wheat Information System, a user- cators is helping to improve forest management prac- friendly data management system available on CD- tices and land development policies. It gives special ROM, so that collectors, curators, and breeders world- attention to the public goods values of forests and to wide have a common means of identifying individual the benefits that forests can yield to poor people. varieties of genotypes.

In Central America: CIFOR is part of an initiative CIMMYT has used advances in breeding research led by the Central American Forestry Council to re- and biotechnology to develop maize and wheat cul- view how various policies affect forests and the for- tivars that have higher yield potential, offer produc- est sector and develop policy alternatives. During ers more nutritious grain, and stabilize production the first phase, national seminars in seven Central under adverse growing conditions. For example, American countries and two regional seminars drew CIMMYT researchers have gone back to basics and more than 400 participants. An additional 1 :OOOpolicy created synthetic wheats by recombining the origi- makers. opinion leaders, and forestry professionals nal parents of breadwheat. While these synthetics received CIFOR’s publication on forest policy. are themselves not meant to be used by farmers, they provide an innovative “generic bridge” across As an international agroforestry research center. which researchers can move desirable traits (such as CIFOR is uniquely positioned to provide balanced drought tolerance) from the wild relatives of wheat. approaches to difficult forest management problems This technique allonis scientists to draw almost rou- and deliver its products to decision makers. Bolivia tinely on the genetic wealth of particularly hardy rela- adopted strong forest management legislation after tives of wheat. local decision makers worked with CIFOR. CIFOR has also established an Internet information system CIMMYT‘s research focuses on ways to increase on forest management for international policy mak- productivity with fewer chemical inputs, contribut- ers and forest managers throughout the tropics. ing to the protection of vital natural resources. CIMMYT-related cultivars have built-in genetic resis- tance to pests and diseases. resulting in less need for potentially harmful agrochemicals. A good example is the introgression in wheat of genetic resistance to CIMMYT has been a catalyst in the shift to sci- leaf rust. a devastating disease traditionally controlled ence-based agriculture in developing countries, a in developed countries through heavy use of costly change that has vastly improved the lives and pros- and environmentally dangerous fungicides. CIMMYT pects of millions of the world’s poor. CIMMYT is research has also significantly increased the yield best known as a well-spring of higher yielding, dis- potential of maize and wheat, and this too contrib- ease resistant wheat and maize varieties that have utes to environmental protection by reducing the dramatically increased the productivity of poor farm- amount of land that must be farmed to feed the world. ers in developing countries. More than 80 percent If society had to produce the current yield of maize of the wheat and maize varieties being released by and wheat using varieties and production methods national agricultural partners are based on CIMMYT’s available in the early 1970s; an additional 250 mil- germplasm research. Over 75 percent of the devel- lion hectares of land-of equally good quality- oping world’s total wheat area and about a third of would have to be brought into production. This is its maize area are now devoted to growing CIMi’vlYT- an area roughly the size of France. related varieties. CIMMYT has trained nearly 6.000 researchers who CIMvlYT’s commitment to genetic consen,ation form a cadre of specialists dedicated to bring the is evident in its newly constructed, state of the art benefits of modern agricultural research to poor farm- \XTellhausen-Andersen Genetic Resources Center, ers in developing countries. which contains nearly 150,000 wheat accessions and about 16,000 maize accessions. CIMMYT has helped International Rice ResearchInstitute (IRRI] rescue more than 6,000 endangered samples of farmer developed maize varieties held in thirteen seed banks Rice provides the basic staple food for more than in Latin America. CIMMYT has also developed the half the world’s people, many of them among the

18 CGIAFt ICW97 poorest of the poor. In 1760. IRRI. the prototype IRRI is now working on new projects to help for the CGIAR, was established to help farmers in increase the world‘s supply of rice, including the fo- developing countries grow more rice on limited lowing: land with less water, less labor. fewer chemical inputs, and less damage to the environment. In l developing a new plant type-dubbed “super the mid-1760s. IRRI developed the first semi-dwarf rice” by the media-a new variety yielding 25 breeding lines for rice. IRRI’s “IR8” was a land- percent more grain per hectare thdn existing mark in the history of agriculture. helping to spark types and incorporating genes with durable the green revolution and save millions from famine. resistance to pests and diseases; Currently, IRK1 is developing technologies that reduce farmers’ dependence on chemical pesti- l increasing water-use efficiency in rice cultiva- cides and other inputs. And looking toward the tion because of increasing scarcity of water in future. IRRI established a program of genetic con- rice growing areas: servation to prevent traditional varieties from be- ing lost-multiplying and storing seeds of all l reducing greenhouse gas emissions from rice known varieties for rice scientists anywhere in the fields; world to use.

l improving rice germplasm for poverty stricken When requested, IRRI provides assistance directly rainfed rice ecosystems; and to national governments. working with the Cambo- dian government. IRRI restored its rice productions l applying biotechnology to accelerate rice to levels before the war-torn 1770s and 1980s. In breeding and broaden the rice genepool. 1995-1996. 3.3 million tons of rice were produced, 30 percent more than the previous crop and 30 per- W&-tAfrica Kite DcvelopmerztAssociation (tK4RDA) cent more than the preceding 5 years. By 1776, Cam bodia was not only meeting its own rice needs, but The mandate of qc4RDA is to strengthen Sulk- also had a surplus for exports. Sahara Africa’s capability for technology generation, technology transfer, and policy formulation to increase In India, IRRI played a key role in helping to the sustainable productivity of rice-based cropping establish a strong and sustainable research pro- systems while conserving the natural resource base grzdrn on hybrid rice. Indian scientists received 84 and contributing to the food security of poor rural genetically diverse cytoplasmic male sterile lines and urban households. (female parents) and 232 experimental rice hy- brids and their respective restorer lines. IRRI also \XARI>A has effectively used task forces com- supplied hybrid rice breeding materials adapted prised of national rice scientists to efficiently gener- to tropical conditions. ate and transfer improved rice technologies to small farmers. More than 75 national rice scientists from To extend its assistance, IRK1 relies on partner- seventeen countries serve on nine VXMD-4 task forces, ships. IRRI’s Crop and Resource Management Net- which received over 100 research grants since 1992. work (CREPVINET) is currently working with na- The task force mechanism has contributed signifi- tional research and development organizations to cantly in improving rice production. For example, facilitate the free exchange: participatory evalua- the task force working with mangrove farmers has tion, and promotion of promising knowledge-in- leveraged a dramatic increase in the adoption of tensive technologies and decisionmaking aids for modern varieties with significant economic benefits. more efficient crop and resource management in Today, the mangrove varieties generate about $5.4 rice-based farming systems. In 1995-1996. million a year in added income. CREMNET distributed fifteen chlorophyll meters and 100 leaf color charts that improve nitrogen WAKDA researchers have had a major impact by fertilizer management of rice and trained national crossing African with Asian rice. The 0. C;lnhw~%na staff on the proper use of new techniques in landraces have developed resistance to common Bangladesh, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, the stresses-drought, soil acidity. gall midge, nematodes, Philippines. and Vietnam. rice yellow mottle virus? and a wide range of blast

CGIAR ICW97 19 infections. These characteristics have been success- developing countries is succeeding. CIP distrib- fully transferred into the new interspecific hybrids. uted breeding materials developed by Argentina’s 0. Glaher~?maalso has excellent vegetative growth national potato program to China, where the breed- to suppress weeds, a particularly important char- ing materials are now some of the most widely acteristic for West Africa, where weeding is done grown potato varieties, with annual production ex- manually and weed removal constrains rice pro- ceeding 400.000 hectares. In Peru’s coastal valleys duction because of labor shortages. This progress spreading to the highlands. CIP-developed breeding on rice hybridization is of particular importance materials now dominate much of the production, to women, who are responsible for 80 percent of which is now valued at S70 million annually. rice cultivation. In Asia, farmers produce close to 70 million The potential for worldwide impact from this tons of potatoes today because short duration cereal interspecific hybrid is great: the upland rice grown varieties (the high-yielding, early-maturing rice and on 12 million hectares in Asia and 4 million hect- wheat varieties resulting from IRRI and CIMMYT ares in Latin America face similar stresses. WARDA work) have opened a niche in the cropping calen- is already collaborating on similar work with such dar. As a result. farmers not only harvest more rice partners as ORSTOM in France, Cornell Univer- and wheat: but can sandwich in a potato crop. In sity and the University of Arkansas in the United Bangladesh, farmers grow more than 17 million tons States, the University of Tokyo in Japan, IRRI, and of potatoes this way. CL4T. In Peru, CIP’s true potato seed hybrid is provid- In the humid forest region, W4RDA’s work with ing farmers with a strategic reserw of potato seed farmers cov-ers 1.3 million hectares of rice. Although that can counteract the possible effects of the El Nifio rice production is traditional, with family-oriented emergency on potato seed supplies. Similarly, farm- subsistence plots and traditional varieties, farmers are ers using the new- Chacasina seeds are producing an seeking short (under 110 days) cycled, high-yield- average S4,OOOmore per hectare than farmers who ing, pest resistant, low-input rice varieties with use traditional seed. This is in a region where family interspecifics. incomes average less than S400 per year.

Adopting interspecifics could significantly affect CIP, in cooperation with more than 3,000 farm wkst Africa, which currently imports 2.6 million tons families, has field tested an integrated pest manage- of rice worth 5800 million; by the year 2000, they ment program in southern Peru with excellent re- will import approximately 4 million tons valued at sults. Farmers reduced sprays from six to zero in Sl billion. The adoption of interspecifics, all things two years: equivalent to cost savings of S250 per being equal, will increase production by 120,000 to hectare. 480,000 tons per year. CIP has produced user-friendly, 10~~~cost kits for Intemwtional Potato Center !CIPl detecting potato viruses. It has distributed sets of antibodies to fifteen national programs that tested CIP focuses on increasing agricultural produc- about 400,000 samples for six viruses in the Andean tion while taking into account environmental con- region, four in the rest of the world. cerns and the needs of poor farmers. Impact has been achieved through a combination of yield in- creases, an expansion of area planted, the develop- ment of superior seed systems, and the availability IIMI leads the CGIAR’s systemwide initiative on of technologies that allow farmers to reduce pesti- water management to improve water systems and cide use. Ten case studies of CIP projects since irrigated agriculture. Through its information dis- 1992 show that the majority of new potato variet- semination, 11311strives to improve water resource ies released in developing countries now have CIP systems and irrigation management, strengthen na- parentage. This reflects the value of using locally tional research capacity. and support the introduc- adapted breeding materials and indicates that CIP tion of improved technologies, policies, and man- efforts to broaden the genetic base of potatoes in agement approaches.

20 CGIAR ICW97 There are 250 million hectares of irrigated land Internwtiomal Plant Genetic I&sources Imtitute in the world with an estimated capital value of $5,000 (IPGH] per hectare in terms of replacement cost of irrigation facilities. Total capital value of these facilities is $1.250 IPGRI conducts research on genetic resources trillion. IIMI is working to expand productivity by management and biodiversity, and it directly con- 25 percent so that the more than $300 billion gain tributes to CGIAR’s work on germplasm improve- can be used to increase the welfare of poor and dis- ment and natural resources management research. advantaged groups. IPGRI’s mode of operation, with its strong emphasis on partnership. networking, capacity building, and To meet the challenge posed by the growing catalysis, has made impact assessment particularly scarcity and competition for water, IIMI has devel- challenging. oped indicators of relative water scarcity. IIMI re- cently completed an assessment of water supply and IPGRI has been conducting a specific project on demand for the year 2025 in 118 countries. The impact assessment for almost four years. Outputs analysis shows that demand for water w-ithdrawal include information resources on impact assess- will increase 45 percent. IIMI has also developed ment, a review of economic impact assessment standard indicators that measure crop production for plant genetic resources, and a set of twenty- according to water consumed, land used, and finan- three case studies covering a wide range of the- cial investments. matic and country-level activities. The exercise, particularly through the case studies. has revealed With scientists at Utah State University, IIMI is a number of areas where IPGRI can demonstrate developing the world’s first Water and Climate Atlas, impact upon target beneficiaries as well as high- a global database that integrates the available agri- lighting risk factors to be taken into account in cultural climate data into one computer program and project design and execution. The outcome of represents the most comprehensive, quality-controlled three case studies provide illustrative examples of climactic data set in existence. The atlas is available IPGRI’s impact: on CD-ROM and on the Internet. Germplasm Collecting:. Over 200,000 11&11’s research is instrumental in changing germplasm samples have been collected in over water management and related issues. In Paki- 500 missions, providing a major boost to national stan, IIMI used sophisticated modeling to docu- and international conservation and use programs. ment that increasing the depth of plowing before IPGRI has spearheaded standardization of proce- the monsoon season controlled soil salinity. If dures and strengthening of the scientific base for implemented by farmers. this could result in the locating valuable genetic diversity and making it recovery of millions of hectares of saline! out of available for use. production lands. In Sri Lanka, II-MI developed a program to control malaria through water man- Training. Over 1.800 national program scientists agement. IIMI analysis showed a dramatic de- have been trained by IPGRI. IPGRI trainees show crease in the incidence of malaria in a Sri Lankan high retention and significant multiplier effects village when water policy decisions about an irri- through secondary training. IPGRI trainees are well gation canal were changed. represented among national program coordinators. For example, 54 percent of countries in Sub-Sahara TIM1 promotes the exchange of knowledge and Africa have national program leaders who are ex- capacity building through collaborative research, field trainees of IPGRI. They are also well represented at testing, publications, seminars, and workshops. IIMI key international events; 31 percent of developing has established a global network of leading profes- countries delegations to the International Technical sionals in water resource management and irrigated Conference in Leipzig in 1996 included IPGRI ex- agriculture, resulting in a new kind of “virtual” re- trainees. search and development institute. IIMI‘s in-service training and professional development activities sup- A4usa Germplasm Management. Exchange of port the research capacity of collaborating national :Vlusa genetic resources was virtually non-existent agricultural research systems. before the creation of the International Network for

CGIAR ICW97 21 the Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP). the poor. In Mozambique. collaborative IFPRI re- The wide diversity of healthy MUSU germplasm. now search results were the basis for restructuring the available worldwide, has greatly facilitated global poverty relief program to provide higher cost effec- efforts in genetic improvement of this. the world’s tiveness on behalf of the poor. fourth most important crop. The largest international in-trust ML.t.Wi germplasm collection has been estab- Results from IFPRI research on the role of agri- lished and placed in the public domain. Collabora- culture in broad-based economic growth: food sub tive research has resulted in simple methods for long- sidies, food security safety nets, microcredit. public term i/z zbitro storage (by cryopreservation) and works. famine, and trade liberalization for agricu- germplasm distribution. ture are used in national and international decisionmaking. IFPRI’s work on the interaction The approach taken by IPGRI involving almost between nutrition and agriculture has encouraged all IPGKI staff through the tn-enty-three case studies adoption of nutrition goals into agricultural plan- was extremely useful in making evaluation and irn- ning and policy in developing countries and de- pact assessment a part of the institutional culture. velopment assistance institutions. For famine pre- The timely feedback on ,‘how we are doing” pro- vention. Ethiopia, Sudan. and other countries rely vided the opportunity to learn from past experience on famine prevention research results to prepare so that better projects with enhanced impact can be famine codes. food security monitoring, and policy designed and executed in the future. Two ongoing responses. This research is especially helpful in case studies in collaboration with the MEG are es- designing and implementing preventive measures amining the impact of IPGRI crop descriptors and for El Iuifio. the IAVIBAP International J&XX Testing Programme. These will provide further experience on case study IFPRI‘s 2020 Vision project is a trailblazer in in- methodology. In addition. the logical framework ternational policy. Launched in 1993, the project approach is now being applied to all IPGRI programs has held briefings in twenty-six developed and de- and projects, including the development of impact veloping countries. The impact of the project can indicators and milestones. be gauged by the extraordinary demand for 2020 Vision publications, the extensive media cover- age, and the ongoing demand for presentations around the world. IFPRI works in 43 developing countries to gen- erate new knowledge that will provide the basis for appropriate policies. IFPRI’s research is undertaken in collaboration with national institutions, and any impact is a result of the collaborative effort, which ISKAR seeks to help developing countries bring frequently includes direct participation by govern- about sustained improvements in the performance ment decision makers. In Pakistan and Bangladesh of their national agricultural research systems and policymakers used the results of IFPRI research to organizations. ISKAR does this by supporting efforts change policies related to ration shops, food subsi- in institutional development. promoting appropriate dies, credit programs, and other food and agricul- policies and funding for agricultural research, devel- ture related policies. This resulted in saving S200 oping or adapting improved research management million in fiscal costs, which was used to set up a techniques, and generating and disseminating rel- food-for-education program for children from low- e\-ant knowledge and information. IS.UMI works income households. throughout the world.

In Vietnam, IFPRI research demonstrated that lib- ISMR’s presentation at ICW highlighted through eralizing the export quota system and introducing a few national examples the global nature of its nynn- private traders would generate higher incomes. and date, its commitment to long-term institutional de- these steps were critical to the continued gronth of velopment at the national and subregional levels, and the rice market. AS a result. the Vietnamese govern- the role that it has in promoting the development ment changed the rice marketing system. potentially and use of improved tools for research policy and resulting in large economic gains to the country and management.

22 CGIAR ICW97 In Indonesia, ISNAR helped research leaders Peer Assessment of Presentations on the develop guidelines for strategic planning in the CGIAR’s Impact country’s seventeen new agricultural technology as- sessment institutes. The institutes aim to increase Mr. Jock Anderson, one of the authors of the the relevance of agricultural research by bringing 1984 CGIAR impact study (Science and Food: the scientists closer to farmers and production problems. CGIARand Its Pamzers-s)and currently with the World The availability of planning tools in Bahasa Indone- Bank’s Operations Evaluation Department, provided sia? adapted to the nature of these new institutes. is peer assessment of the IAEG’s work and the center an important step in getting them off to a good start. impact presentations. Mr. Anderson focused on four dimensions: overall outcome in terms of develop- In Kenya, ISNAR was instrumental in the cre- ment effectiveness; sustainability; institutional devel- ation of the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute opment: and performance of key agencies. (K4RI) and in the developing of its first master plan a decade ago. ISKAR continues to collaborate with Mr. Anderson noted the IAEG brings an interest- K4RI in the institutionalization of improved priority ing external perspective. however, he suggested the setting processes and the development of the more IAEG redirect its energies and orientation to focus rigorous tools needed to address new issues. An more on supporting center capability in self-evalua- important intermediate outcome is the establishment tion and impact assessment, rather than to empha- of a priority setting committee supported by trained size externally-commissioned studies. KARI scientists leading to more effective research focusing on the needs of stakeholders in Kenya. In Mr. Anderson found that the center impact pre- the process, Kenya will have developed the impro\Tecl sentations varied in terms of the information pre- data and tools needed to deal with regional research sented. Some gave ample evidence of good, solid and natural resources management issues institutional development and impact performance, and showed high likelihood of sustainability. Oth- In Mali, Senegal, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe, ISNAR ers presented interesting impact statements, but is working to raise the capacity of natiqnal agricul- showed more modest institutional development and tural research system managers, extension manag- less certainty in terms of sustainability. Still others ers, and leaders of farmer organizations to strengthen made interesting program commentaries or presen- linkages between research, technology transfer and tations on conceptual struggles, but did not detail farmers. These four countries are applying the lessons impact. He commended those centers that have taken of research into the linkage process carried out prev- impact assessment very much as a core part of their ously in Ghana, Kenya, and Burkina Faso and demon- programs, and suggested that members should en- strate the role that ISNAR research plays in developing sure that impact assessment by the centers is well improved approaches for research management. funded.

ISNAR continued to collaborate with IFA4D and Mr. Anderson pointed out the need for focus FAO in strengthening the voice of developing coun- particularly on poverty reduction achievements. He tries in the global forum for agricultural research. In also noted the diverse set of products donor repre- 1996, ISNAR cosponsored a series of regional fora sentatives require from the CGIAR to share with their that culminated in the Global Forum held in con- various constituencies, not all of which are impact junction with 1~~796. Since then, ISNAR has worked studies. with the individual subregional organizations and with the Global Forum itself to develop the structures and Decisions by the Group the support to institutionalize their role in setting the research agenda for the CGIAR system. In Central The following points summarize the Group’s dis- America, ISNAR supported efforts to establish a new cussion: regional entity for agricultural research. the Central

American System for Agricultural Technology (SICTL4). l The CGIAR system must nurture an evalua- This xvi11 become an important subregional forum tion culture. For this, evaluation must be har- allowing the region to participate fully in the emerg- monized across centers and the use of com- ing global system. mon methodologies encouraged. n/lethodolo-

CGIAR ICW97 23 gies for evaluation should be integrated into of biotechnology as a means to accelerate research project design so that Ed post evaluation is efforts. improved. &?Ypost ev-aluation findings must be incorporated into e.~ aute thinking. Biotechnology is a research tool and is. there- fore, a means the centers can employ to achieve the

l The CGIAR has a need for different outputs, CGIAR’s goals. It is not an end in itself. Biotechnol- which it is looking to the IAEG to fulfill. ogy comprises a broad continuum; some aspects of hIembers need short: pithy information on biotechnology are widely accepted and considered CGIAR impact to aid decisionmaking within mainstream within the CGIAR, while other aspects their own agencies. Members also would remain controversial. Hence? the comfort level of like the MEG to demonstrate the direct links CGIAR stakeholders with different aspects of bio- of agricultural research with the develop- technology varies. The challenge for the CGIAR is ment objectives of donor agencies (such as to advance consensus within the system so that the poverty alleviation). These should be pur- full potential of science is employed by the CGIAR sued in parallel. for the benefit of the world’s poor. This can only be accomplished if the Group discusses the relevant is-

l The difficulty in identifying and developing sues openly. reaching consensus where possible, and appropriate evaluation methodologies was ac- widening the common ground incrementally. Key know-ledged. The IAEG was urged to con- issues include the following: tinue its work to flesh out the most appropri-

ate methodologies, in collaboration with the l interaction and collaboration with the private centers, TAC, and other institutions. sector;

l The CGIAR should focus on those areas where l intellectual property; quantitative analysis is feasible and enhance

this with qualitative analysis to provide rich- l harmonization with global agreements: ness and breadth. The difficulty of identify-

ing and interpreting the assumed correlations l protection and promotion of international with any degree of rigor should be acknowl- public goods: edged.

l flow of products to beneficiaries in develop- The Group endorsed the report received from ing countries: the MEG.

l biosafety;

VL BIOTECHNOLOGY IN THE CGIAR l ethics;

Overview l benefit sharing; and

At ICY@7 the Group continued its deliberations l public awareness and perception on the issue of biotechnology research at the centers and widened the common ground attained at MTNI97. Five reports presented at ICW97 provided con- The consensus reached so far forms the basis for a text to the Group’s deliberations. The Group re- system-level strategy and overarching policy frame- ceived interim reports from the two expert panels work that will continue to evolve in light of the constituted at MTM97 and convened under the aus- Group’s future discussions on this issue. The con- pices of TAC: the Expert Panel on General Issues in sensus will guide centers in a broad and complex Biotechnology and the Expert Panel on Proprietary area of science, which is rapidly advancing and holds Science and Technology. These two panels will great promise to help address the pressing challenges present their final reports to the Group at MTM98. faced by developing countries, but also carries po- The Group was also briefed on the study of the World tential risks. At the heart of the issue is the extent to Bank Panel on Transgenic Crops, the outcome of the which centers should intensify and expand their use Biotechnology and Biosafety Forum held in con-

24 CGIAR ICW97 junction with the Fifth Annual world Bank Confer- sues for the CGIAR in the area of proprietary science ence on Environmentally and Socially Sustainable De- in the context of ongoing deliberations in interna- velopment, and recent advances in the development tional fora; provide advice and recommendations on of apomictic maize. immediate and long-term needs; and prepare a draft strategy for addressing proprietary issues in the In two parallel sessions focusing on scientific is- CGIAR, including a suggested framework for future sues and intellectual property rights issues, respectively, proprietary negotiations. The panel intends to look the Group examined the relevant issues in greater de- at how the CGIAR can continue to operate on the tail. Following the parallel sessions, the Group dis- basis of free exchange of germplasm and to produce cussed the various issues in plenary. Consensus was public goods in a rapidly and radically changing glo- reached on a range of points (elaborated below). bal environment that is becoming increasingly pro- prietary. The panel will examine current CGIAR Reports on Biotechnology policy related to the control of knowledge and ma- terials the CGIAR holds in trust, and explore options &per-t Panel on Gene& Issues in Biotechnology for ensuring thzat access by the poor to CGIAR tech- nologies is maintained in the future, for example, The Expert Panel on General Issues in Biotech- through protecting CGIAR technology. The panel nology will identify the issues of major concern to will analyze a range of related issues, including ac- the CGIAR related to biotechnology that will facili- cess by CGIAR centers to the proprietary technology tate the positioning of the CGIAR in the global re- of others and the ramifications of using such tech- search system; provide perspective on immediate and nologies to develop new CGIAR products, the ex- long-term needs with respect to these issues; and tent of the CGIAR’s responsibility to provide devel- outline a draft strategy for biotechnology in the oping countries with technologies that are free of CGIAR. The panel is in the initial stages of its work. obligation, the CGIAR’s role in influencing decisions Consensus was reached at the panel’s first meeting taken in international fora, and how the CGIAR can on the definition of biotechnology (i.e.. that it covers promote cooperation among technology owners to a spectrum of technologies from genomics and use proprietary technology for the benefit of the poor. bioinformatic software to genetic engineering) and that The panel has held its first meeting. It plans to form biotechnology is a set of tools: as well as a body of subgroups to address various issues. and will exam- knowledge. Driven by massive investments by both ine specific cases in detail. It also intends to consult the public and private sectors, the information base in widely with both CGIAK centers and external ex- this field is developing and evolving rapidly, which is perts. and to liaise with the Expert Panel on General changing both the opportunities as well as the tech- Issues in Biotechnology. The panel may need spe- nical and intellectual approaches to be used in the cific legal advise on a number of questions. The future. These developments raise important concerns panel will present its final report to the Group at for the CGIAR, but also present exciting opportunities MTM98. to accelerate germplasm enhancement via a more stra- tegic research effort. The panel has already begun to define this strategic role, by identifying and categoriz- ing relevant issues. The panel intends to consult widely The World Bank Panel on Transgenic Crops, as it carries out its mandate? both within and outside of chaired by Henry Kendall. considered both the real the CGIAR, to gain the perspectives of CGIAR mem- and perceived problems with, and benefits to the bers and centers, outside experts, civil society, and developing world of. transgenic crops. The panel the small farmer. It also intends to coordinate with examined the role of bioengineered crops both in the Expert Panel on Proprietary Science and Technol- increasing crop yields and in decreasing variation in ogy and the CGIAR System Review Panel. The panel food production in developing countries, which will will present its final report to the Group at MTNI98. be important factors in meeting future food require- ments given the expanding global population. Bioengineering is one aspect of agricultural biotech- nology. Important traits for gene transfer include The Expert Panel on Proprietary Science and insect and disease resistance, herbicide tolerance, Technology will identify and examine the vital is- drought tolerance, salt tolerance, and improved nu-

CGIAFl ICW97 25 tritional quality. The panel examined specific con- must be built was clarified and narrowed. The need cerns in the scientific community related to bioengi- for continuing dialogue was confirmed. neering, including gene flow in plants--genes mov- ing from crops to weeds or vice versa-and the con- sequences of this: weeds becoming worse problems; the extinction of wild crop relatives: the dev-elop- A joint CIMMYT-ORSTOM project that is devel- ment of new virus strains; the unintended effects of oping apomictic maize presents a good case study insecticidal crops: and low efficacy. of patenting CGIAR technologies and the implica- tions of such patenting on relationships with the pr- The findings of the panel included the impor- vate sector and on funding long-term research. As tance of funding high quality research programs that the private sector is diverse, however, each case that exploit the favorable potential of genetic engineer- develops will be different. The CGIAR would. there- ing for the benefit of the developing nvrld. and fore, benefit from legal expertise on intellectual prop- the need for surveillance and regulation. especially erty rights. CIMMYT and ORSTOM are co-owners of early warning mechanisms that provide feedback a patent for apomictic maize, which was filed to pro- as problems arise. The panel recommended the tect access to apomictic maize by resource poor farm- Bank increase its support of biotechnology re- ers and to ensure that the CIMMYT-ORSTOM project search at the CGIAR centers, that the Bank adopt can continue its research on apomixis. Two private a broader perspective on biotechnology, that re- companies expressed interest in providing financial search emphasize the development of agricultural support to the project, however, under conditions products and processes that are unlikely to be that were unacceptable to CIMMYT and ORSTOM. provided by the private sector, and that any in- As royalties are needed to support the long-term re- creased investment in new agricultural biotechnol- search effort: CIMMYT and ORSTOM are willing to ogy be accompanied bv significant investment in reach an agreement with the private sector; how ecological and sociological research to ensure that ever, the challenge is to reconcile the goals of both the new products and processes support safe and sides. For CIMMYT and ORSTOM the goal is to help sustainable food production. The findings and rec- the poor; for the private sector. it is profit. CIMMYT ommendations of the panel are detailed in a report and ORSTOM are currently exploring various options, entitled “Bioengineering of Crops.” such as retaining ownership of the technology, while granting private companies exclusive license for us- ing it in countries or crops that are not included in CIMMYT’s or ORSTOM‘s mandates. A Biotechnology and Riosafety Forum was held on October 9-10, 1997 as an associated event to the Parallel Session I: Scientific Issues Fifth Annual WTorld Bank Conference on EnviroII- mentally and Socially Sustainable Development. The Chair: Fernando Chapparo (Colombia) forum engaged a wide cross-section of stakeholders Rapporteur: Robert Bertrdm (United States) from academic, scientific, international, and national Secretary: Manuel Lantin (CGIAR Secretariat) research organizations, the private sector, and ci\,il society from developed and developing countries in The Session Chair challenged the group to re- a dialogue on biotechnology and biosafety issues spond to the scientific issues laid out in the five pre- relevant for the poor. the environment, and the safe sentations. He reviewed the opportunities of ern- application of products and processes. Contentious playing biotechnology in the CGIAR’s efforts in sup- issues were discussed openly, with the objective of port of food security, poverty alleviation, and envi- building consensus where possible. Topics included ronmental sustainability. He also recognized the basic scientific issues! the benefits and risks of bio- challenges that are evident in areas such as risk as- technology and genetic engineering, the role of in- sessment and management: socioeconomic impacts. ternational organizations and of public policy, and and ethical and cultural considerations. He urged recommendations for action. Areas of agreement the group to view the discussion as an important emerged and those areas where there is comfort level opportunity to bring its concerns to the two expert for biotechnology to move forward were identified. panels convened under TAC, particularly. the panel The range of contentious issues on which consensus charged with scientific issues.

26 CGIAR ICW97 Role and Place ?f Biotechnolqg~ cussed. Their comprehensiveness and thoughtful- ness reassured the group, as did the clear stance on There was broad consensus among the partici- broad consultation. Several speakers endorsed the pants that biotechnology represents an important area need for the consultation to encompass the NARS. A of endeavor for the CGIAR. and one that is clearly panel member noted that the panel is open to sug- here to sta):. Nevertheless, the group noted that bio- gestions on its membership and operations. technology is not a new subject for the CGIAR, and that considerable effort had been made in analyzing the opportunities and challenges associated with bio- technology. Some participants expressed concern A major topic of the discussion was the strategic that biotechnology, although of great interest to the stance the centers should adopt in incorporating bio- CGIAR, should be kept in perspective as one part of technology into their programs. Underlying the dis- the broadly integrated programs of the centers. .As cussions were concerns associated with costs and with all activities at the centers, tradeoffs will occur the comparative advantage of the centers. Possible when choices are made. It is important that these engagement strategies emerged as a spectrum, rang- tradeoffs be understood. ing from “laying back while others invest in a poten- tially relevant technology or methodolog):,” to com- The group agreed that biotechnology is highly peting with advanced research organizations and the relevant across a range of CGIAR activities. Too of- private sector. There was little support for the latter, ten the focus of discussion is almost entirely on op- although situations might arise where involvement portunities associated with crop improvement, yet a of the centers could help focus the attention of col- major aspect of the CGIAR‘s work with animals is laborators or competitors. directly related to applications of biotechnology, of- ten directly linked to cutting-edge science. Micro- A clear emphasis on partnerships emerged. A bial organisms were also noted in the discussion, key strength of the centers is their network of re- particularly with respect to plant-soil relationships search collaborators across wide areas of the world. and other natural resource mzmagement areas. This provides them with the almost unique ability to study, understand, and utilize genotype x environ- Several areas were emphasized where the ment interaction, an asset which is of considerable CGIAR has specific responsibilities, including the interest to their partners in advanced research orga- need for centers to understand and assess how nizations and the private sector. In considering rela- biotecl~nological innovations affect agroecosystems, tionships with these and other collaborators. and in and the importance of keeping the needs of the judging their engagement stance overall. it is ex- poor, and poor farmers in particular, in clear view tremely important for the centers to be aware of the when considering scientific and related sociocul- implications of intellectual property. Of particular tural issues. concern is the assurance of ‘.freedom to operate,” which in some cases would require astute under- Operatiorz of the CGIAR Panel standing of the proprietary claims and expectations. In some cases, sharing research advances with in- The group welcomed the panel’s emphasis on tended beneficiaries could require that centers pro- consultation, and in particular endorsed the panel’s tect their contributions. intention to consult broadly with the CGIAR centers, including with scientists coming from activities and disciplines where biotechnology represents one path among several open to researchers. Consultation is It became evident in the discussion that a range eSpeCkdy important, particularly with respect to in- of biotechnologies exists. Man): activities elicit little clusion of members from the South and representa- concern (for example. micropropagation, genetic tion of the social sciences? given the perceived nar- markers and molecular breeding, and fermentations); row composition of the panel. other applications, such as genetically engineered organisms, are more controversial. Pending the ad- The mandate and objectives of the panel, and vice on CGIAR guidelines fol-thcoming from the two the framework established for the panel, were dis- panels and TL4C; the NGOC Chair suggested that the

CGIAFt ICW97 27 CGIAR declare a moratorium on releases of in collaborative research with the CGIAR centers as transgenics, citing transformed crops with the Bt (Ba- an important means of strengthening their ability to cik thuringensis) gene in particular. The Session engage more effectively with many partners beyond Chair invited comment from center representatives, the CGIAR. who urged instead a case-by-case approach on the question of transgenics, recognizing that circum- stances and the judgments they lead to vary. It was also emphasized that all work is done in full compli- The group believed that the above subjects and ance with legal and regulatory requirements. Some concerns need to be taken into account by the ex- participants were concerned that arbitrary approaches pert panel. However. it also recognized that some could slow or damage important research efforts, and of the particularly challenging issues would likely be that such efforts were usually collaboratively man- considered by the entire CGIAR membership. Those aged, often in conjunction with NARS partners. issues include make-up of the expert panel, recogni- tion of the different responses to different types of Several NARS representatives also commented on biotechnologies, and a moratorium on the release of the issue of a moratorium, emphasizing the stake of transgenics. the KARS in continued and unimpeded collabora- tion with the CGIAR centers. Interest in working Parallel Session II: Intellectual Property with the centers already encompasses many areas of Rights Issues biotechnology. NARS representatives urged that this collaborative work be accelerated rather than slowed. Chair: Carl-Gustaf Thornstrom (Sweden) Nevertheless, it was recognized that continual judg- Rapporteur: William Dar (The Philippines) ments will have to be made as to what is relevant Secretary Rosina Salerno (CGIAR Secretariat) and appropriate, which will require XARS to strengthen their means of developing criteria against The session was well attended and character- which potential investments can be judged; as well ized by a large number of interventions, which cov- as strengthening risk-assessment capacity. ered a wide range of stakeholder views. To help guide the deliberations, the Session Chair outlined Other concerns expressed included whether a the evolving CGIAR policy positions on genetic re- moratorium would slow the provision of useful ma- sources and intellectual property rights. This was terials and benefits to poor farmers, and what the followed by reflections on proprietary science by IPR impacts of such a slowdown would be. A morato- Expert Panel Chair Tim Roberts. The subsequent rium could be seen as an abrupt deviation from the discussion focused on a range of issues, including usual CGIAR mode of deliberate and careful consid- present access regimes in operation at centers; pos- eration of scientific and policy issues. There was sible implications, if centers increasingly apply pro- also concern expressed that deployment is an inte- prietary protection to the products or technologies gral part of understanding and anticipating ecologi- they generate; future access by centers to protected cal issues. technology; and center access to post-CBD material (e.g.: landraces/wild relatives) from developing coun- tries. The discussion covered ethical. political, and legal implications of intellectual property rights on In a broad sense, capacity building with respect the CGIAR’s work, showing the complexity and the to biotechnology was emphasized, reflecting the fact importance of the issue. that. for many N’ARS: biotechnology is a major con- sideration in their strategic research planning. As The session identified the following priority is- such, concerns were expressed about the costs of sues that need to be specifically addressed by the inaction in the face of major needs and opportuni- expert panel: ties. It is important for NARS to develop, not only research capacity! but research assets that would l taking stock of the present situation of IPR strengthen their position in collaborating and bar- among CGIAR centers, especially as regards gaining with a range of research partners in the pub- patents (e.g.: ILRI and CIMMUT), including an lic and private sectors. The NARS view participating analysis of center experience in the use of the

28 CGIAFt ICW97 IMaterial Transfer Agreement instrument and lar, more experience from the South. This the modalities of partnership with the private will provide a better balance of experience sector; on the panels than is presently the case. The panel chairs should address this need in com-

l further strengthening the systemwide IPR munication with TAC. guidelines, while allowing for flexibility at the

center level. Different genetic materials and l The efforts by the panels to gain the perspec- technologies may require different proprietary tives of multiple components of civil society protection; are important to enriching the results of the panels’ deliberations and the dialogue within

l a legal and technical advisory mechanism op- the Group. erating at the system level;

l The CGIAR must exercise caution on how it

l more policy research within the system (by approaches biotechnology activities. While IPGRI and IFPRI) to provide the CGIAR with the ultimate responsibility for the release of a technically and biologically well informed genetically modified organisms into the envi- basis for decisionmaking; ronment rests with the national systems, the CGI.AR has a responsibility to look beyond the . the CGIAR actively engaging in shaping the generation of technology and its transfer to emerging IPR global system and to further the structures and regulations needed at the position itself in the rapidly changing interna- national level, and the potential downstream tional IPR context: effects and ecological impacts of new tech- nologies.

l further defining the CGIAR’s role in NARS IPR

capacity building; l Centers must abide by the highest standards of biosafety in carrying out their work, includ-

l defining the CGIAR’s role in a multilateral ing standards in place at the national level. agreement for access and exchange of genetic Centers have a role to play in bringing to the material for food and agriculture; and attention of NARS collaborators the latest de- velopments in the area of biosafety.

l supporting farmers’ rights and to clarify the

CGIAR’s position in terms of access and com- l The free flow of knowledge, information; and pensation. Options for benefit sharing in technology from CGIAR centers to NARS must multiple downstream innovation (e.g., pedi- continue (and not be slowed down), because gree of a crop variety) need to be explored. the CGIAR and its NARS partners must move forward as science and technology progresses. Consensus Reached by the Group There is a real cost to falling behind, given the speed with which other actors are staking Following the in-depth consideration of scien- claims to the future knowledge base. tific issues and intellectual property rights issues in the parallel sessions: the Group reconvened in ple- l The CGIAR stands for the free flow of nary session to discussed the conclusions of the par- germplasm and it has no profit motive. How- allel sessions and the broad issues associated with ever, it may have to consider defensive pat- moving biotechnology forward in the CGIAR. The enting, to ensure access to new technologies Group reached consensus on the following points. by poor farmers. This consensus will guide centers until the conclu- sions of the two expert panels are available and the l The CGIAR should continue to be actively en- Group has had the opportunity for further delibera- gaged in shaping the emerging IPR global SJJS- tion at MTM98. tern.

l The composition of the two expert panels l The CGIAR is not well equipped at present to should be broadened, to include, in particu- deal with the legal issues and ramifications of

CGLAR ICW97 29 proprietary science and the complex partner- perience. what constitutes an invaluable in- ships that have arisen. The CGIAR should ternational asset that has an important con- seek top expertise to provide advice on these tinuing role, and what is less necessary for complex issues. the future. though it Kkdy have been signifi- cant in the past?

VII. REVIEW OF THE CGIAR SYSTEM l Where is science headed in the twenty-first century? What are the areas of scientific Overview research that will be most relevant to pov- erty alleviation. environmental protection, The Group considered progress made by the and food security in the future? Which of system review panel since MTM97. when the third these areas should international research review of the CGIAR system was formally launched. address and: of those, on which should the Review Panel Chair Maurice Strong apprised the CGIAR concentrate? Group of the panel’s approach. modus operandi. and timetable, and the revised structure and composition l What will the future role of the CGIAR be in of the specialist panels. and introduced panel mem- the global agricultural research system? Where bers to the Group. will its comparative advantage lie, and what are likely to be the priority areas for CGIAR ICTx’97, which marked the first formal meeting research? of the review panel, provided an opportunity for panel members to personally interact with CGIAR l V(ihat will the boundaries between interna- stakeholders) receive their feedback and guidance tional and national research be in the future? on the direction the panel is taking, and hear their How will these shifting boundaries affect the concerns and views on a range of issues. The panel CGL4R’ engaged in an open dialogue with the Group in ple- nary session. and held smaller meetings with various l How can the CGIAR best enhance collabora- subsets of CGIAR stakeholders during ICW. The re- tive bridges and partnerships among all stake- view panel will likely present its findings and rec- holders, which will be essential in the global ommendations to the Group at ICW98. In the in- agricultural research system of the twenty-first terim, it is anticipated that the panel will update the century? Group on the status of its work at MTM98.

l What will the CGIAR look like in the future? The panel has taken as a basic premise the con- How is it likely to be structured. governed, tinuing need for an international agricultural research and financed? system and has accepted the renewed mission of the CGIAR. The panel will focus first on scientific issues The work of the three specialist panels has been before it considers issues of governance, structure, consolidated into two panels; one on science and and finance, as the latter set of issues nil1 be influ- strategy, co-chaired by Bruce Alberts and M. S. enced by the conclusions the panel reaches on sci- Swaminathan, the other on governance. structure, entific issues. The review will focus in particular on and finance, co-chaired by Emil Salim and Whitney how the CGIAR should position itself in the global MacMillan. The two panels will analyze relevant is- system in the future. the areas of research the CGIAR sues in-depth and draw conclusions for consider- should concentrate on? the structure and governance ation by the main panel. The revised composition mechanisms needed to carry forth the CGIAR~s man- of the system review team is shown in Table 1. date into the next millenniumz and the partnerships that will be critical to the CGIAK:s future success. The panel plans to engage in consultations with Key questions which the review will seek to answer a wide range of stakeholders both within and out- include the following: side of the CGIAR. To facilitate this. the panel will hold meetings in various locations around the world

l What has been learned from the CGIAR’s past that provide opportunities for the panel to consult twentyfive years of experience? Of that ex- and interact with a representative cross-section of

30 CGIAR ICW97 Table 1. T&e Revised Composition of the SystemReview Team

System Review Chair: Maurice Strong (Canada)

System Review Panel: Bruce Alberts (United States) Kenzo Hemmi (Japan) Yolanda Kakabadse (Ecuador) Klaus Leisinger (Germany) Whitney MacMillan (United States) Bong&e Njobe-Mbuli (South Africa) Emil Salim (Indonesia) M. S. Swaminathan (India) Specialist Panel on Science and Strategy (Panel I): Bruce Alberts, Co-Chair M. S. Swaminathan, Co-Chair Gelia Cast& (The Phiiippines) Bernard Chevassus-au-Louis (France) Jacqueline McGlade (United Kingdom) Pat Mooney (Canada) Jozef S&e11 (Belgium) Ren Wang (China)

Specialist Panel on Governance, Structure, and Finance CPanel 2): Emil Salim, Co-Chair Whitney MacMillan, Co-Chair Graham Blight (Australia) lMayra Buvinic (Chile) Mohamed El-Ashry (Egypt) Antonio Quizon {The Philippines)

Secretariat: Mahendra Shah, Executive Secretary (United Kingdom) Bo Bengtsson (SW-eden) Michel Griffon (France) Vo-Tong Xuan (Vietnam)

Resource Persons: Clement Dorm-Adzobu (Ghana) Johannes Bouma (The Netherlands) Angela Cordeiro (Brazil) Tewolde Berhan Egziabher (Ethiopia) John Farrington (United Kingdom) Xoeleen Heyzer (Singapore) itlonica Opole (Kenya) Peter Rossett (United States) R. B. Singh (India) Scott Spangler (United States) Wilfried Thalwitz (Germany) Peter W&h (Denmark)

CGIAR ICW97 31 stakeholders and external constituencies. Seven Netherlands, Mexico (21, Italy, Brazil, Sri Lanka/ meetings are currently planned, to be held in the Kenya, and Switzerland. as shown in Table 2

T&de 2. SystemReview Meeting Schedule

Meeting 1 January 3-8, 1998 The Hague Panel 1 Meeting 2 February 26-28, 1998 Mexico Panel 2 Meeting 3 March l-5, 1998 Mexico Joint Meeting 4 April 27-May 1; 1998 Rome &fain Panel plus Joint Meeting 5 May 22-24, 1998 Rio Joint (MTM98) Meeting 6 July l-6> 1998 Colombo/Nairobi Joint Meeting 7 September (first or Geneva Main Panel plus Joint second week), 1998 Presentation October 26-30: 1998 Washington, DC ICW98

Discussion by the Group l the diversity of the tasks, roles: functions. and responsibilities currently being carried out by The Group welcomed the preliminary work of the CGIAR and their importance for the future; the system review panel and broadly endorsed the panel’s planned work program. The Group empha- l the extent to which the science practiced by sized the importance of an open, participatory, and the centers should be expanded or changed: transparent process: to ensure that the panel gains a full understanding of the views of CGIAR stakehold- l new ways for the CGIAR to operate, develop ers, the relevant issues on which the panel should partnerships. and conduct research; focus. and the accumulated experience gained by the CGL4R over the past quarter-century This will l the future structure of the system and role of also help to ensure that the outcome of the review CGIAR committees; meets the expectations of CGIAR stakeholders and external constituencies. l how to reduce transaction costs and simplify and improve governance at the system and The Group expressed some concern related to center levels; the panel’s approach and its composition, which was less representative of the range of constituents than l how far the CGIAR can expand in terms of anticipated. The Group stressed that the review including new constituencies and partners and must be driven by the CGIAR’s mission. as deter- the implication of further expansion; mined in Lucerne. The importance of reaching out to a broad constituency to ensure an open l the extent to which funding affects the hear- process in which all viewpoints are heard and land of the research agenda: taken into consideration was emphasized. The panel was urged by the Group to tzzke particular l the CGIAR’s dependence on development as- care to hear the voices of IYGOs, women, and sistance budgets and the implications of this NARS, especially from Sub-Saharan Africa. in the future; and

The Group indicated that the panel should focus l how best to manage change. on those key issues on which the future vitality and impact of the CGIAR will depend. Some of the pri- The Group emphasized that the system review ority issues suggested by members for the panel’s panel must keep the CGIAR’s ultimate develop- consideration included the following: ment purpose in mind, as the CGIAR will be judged by its impact on poverty alleviation. environmen-

l how to maximize economic benefits to the tal protection, and food security in developing poor: countries.

32 CGIAR ICW97 VIII. FINANCING THE 1998 RESEARCH . At the sector level there is less congruence. AGENDA Investments in livestock and water manage- ment research are well below recommended Overview levels. Kihile research on fish increased as proposed, livestock decreased, when it should Continuing the deliberations begun at MT&l97 have increased. Crops increased in share over- on 1998 funding requirements, the Group took deci- all, rather than decreased as endorsed at sions at ICW97 on the 1998 financing plan, the allo- MTM97. In terms of the commodity profile, cation of the \Vorld Bank’s 1998 contribution, and five crops were on trend, eight below trend. the provision of special relief to centers in crisis. The and six above trend. Of special concern are Group also revisited the progress made in develop- short-tfdlls in funding for banana and plantain, ing a program of work in Central Asia/Caucasus. The groundnut: millets. and sorghum. Group was guided in its deliberations by the recom- mendations of the Finance Committee, which re- l Four centers have high levels of unidentified ported to the Group twice during ICVC’. First, on its funding: ICRISAT: ICARDA, ILRI, and IIMI. If preliminary assessment of the 1998 financial outlook, currently unidentified funding is not attained, both at the aggregate level and at the level of indi- projected investments will be well below ap- vidual centers. Second, on its recommendations to proved levels. the Group.

l Kew projects were broadly certified by TAC, At MTM97, the Group adopted a financial plan- with the exception of three projects that did ning target of 5335-340 million for the 1998 research not seem to meet the criteria for inclusion in agenda and commissioned the preparation of center the research agenda. TAC’s endorsement of financing plans for approval at ICW97. Following projects already included in center medium- MTM~~, centers engaged in bilateral funding discus- term plans was reaffirmed. sions with members to prepare their individual fi- nancing plans. Center plans to implement the 1998 The Finance Committee consulted widely with research agenda are based on projected funding lev- members and centers during ICW97 before making els of $365 million, comprising S300 million in iden- its final recommendations to the Group. Strong sen- tified funding from members and other donors, $30 timent was expressed both for fulfilling the commit- million in matching funds from the KVorld Hank (of ment made in Jakarta to allocate world Bank funds the Bank’s $45 million annual contribution, on a 10 on a matching ratio up to 12 percent and for provid- percent matching basis as agreed to at MTM97), and ing special relief to centers to help resolve severe S34 million in unidentified funds. financial problems. In its recommendations the Fi- nance Committee’s objective was to reach a balance TAC reviewed center financing plans prior to between these conflicting sentiments. ICW97 to determine if, in the aggregate, the overall CGIAR financing plan remained consistent with the The Finance Committee took the stance that. as priorities and allocations approved by the Group at advised at MlM97, gap filling would be unhealthy MTM97. TAC made the following observations to and reintroduce the perverse incentives that the the Group: modified financing arrangements endorsed in Jakarta sought to eliminate. Nonetheless! there was need to

l The centers are to be applauded for their ef- take a system perspective when allocating \Vorld Bank forts to improve the quality of their plans and funds, rather than strictly relying on market forces to provide comprehensive information, which through the matching mechanism. The Finance Com- enhances transparency in decisionmaking by mittee, therefore; considered special relief for cen- the centers and the system. ters facing very serious financial difficulties based on a structural adjustment approach. The criteria ap-

l Overall, the 1998 financing plans of the cen- plied by the Finance Committee to centers request- ters are consistent, at the level of undertak- ing special relief were clear evidence of a severe ings: with the research agenda approved by financial problem that would warrant special inter- the Group at MTi’vI97. vention; a realistic operational plan to respond to

CGLAR ICW97 33 the problem; TAC’s concurrence that the proposed The Finance Committee did not recommend spe- actions are consistent with the CGL4R’s priorities and cial assistance to IITA and KTARDA. both of which strategies; and the level of reserves at those centers requested additional support at ICW97. However: facing difficulty. members were urged to increase their provision of unrestricted funds to IITA and to increase their sup- The Finance Committee made the following rec- port to \X4RDA to resolve its capital fund problem. ommendations to the Group for 1998: The Group reviewed the status of progress to

l approve an overall financing plan of $345 mil- expand collaboration in Central Asia/Caucasus since lion and endorse center financing plans at the MTM97. when it had endorsed the expansion of col- identified level: laborative activities by the centers in the region as part of the 1778-2000 medium-term planning pro-

l increase the matching ratio of \7ciorld Bank sup- cess. Since then, the Finance Committee noted no port from 10 percent to 11 percent; impediments to expanding activities, particularly as the countries concerned were deemed eligible for

l provide $3.5 million in special relief to ICRISAT, Official Development Assistance by the OECD De- Lvhich continues to face a serious financial velopment Assistance Committee in 1996. Although crisis, after having substantially donrnsized its ISKAR and ICARDA are developing a CGIAR pro- operations and drawn down its reserves in gram that would draw on all centers with relevant 1997. The center was requested to elaborate expertise, currently some center activities seem un- in a note to the Finance Committee and TAC coordinated, which could lead to confusion among before MTM98 how it plans to manage its fur- collaborators. The Finance Committee recommended ther downsizing and how funding reductions that centers take a systemwide approach in develop- will affect its programs. ing and implementing a program. As well, the Bank could play a helpful role in widening the base of

l provide $2 million in special relief to ILRI for financial support for activities in the region among the Systemwide Livestock Program, which is relevant authorities in CGIAR member countries, in jeopardy because of continued significant beyond those traditionally represented in the CGIAR. underfunding. Decisions by the Group

l set aside $4 million to be allocated at MTM98, when center financing for 1998 will be clearer. The Group adopted the recommendations of the Options for the distribution of the set aside Finance Committee on the financing plan for the 1998 funds could include providing additional spe- research agenda. Center financing plans were en- cial relief to centers; providing additional dorsed at identified levels, and an overall CGIAR fi- matching world Bank funds to centers: if funds nancing plan of $345 million was approved. This currently listed as “unidentified” in the financ- comprises $333 million in funding identified by cen- ing plans materialize; or putting aside funds ters in their financing plans (including an increase in in reserve. ICARDA and IIMI, which requested the matching ratio of Kiorld Bank support, from 10 special relief at ICYU97, were invited to keep to 11 percent, totaling S3 million). S5.5 million in the Finance Committee informed of fillancial crisis funding for ICRK4T ($3.5 million) and the developments and present comprehensive Systemwide Livestock Program at ILRI (S2.0 million), proposals responding to the criteria for review $2.5 million for expenses associated with CGIAR by the Finance Committee and T&4C prior to partnership committees and the system review. and MTM98; and $4 million in set aside funds, to be allocated at 1MTM98 following a further review of the financial circum-

l prop-ide $2.5 million for the system review and stances of centers. The \Vorld Bank will disburse 50 CGIAR partnership committees. Members percent of the matching amounts early in the year. were urged to provide special funds for the system review, as it is now drawing on unre- Members were urged to give special attention in stricted funds that would otherwise be pro- their funding allocations to the needs of the water vided to the centers. and livestock sectors and to commodities whose

34 CGIAR ICW97 shares are below those endorsed by the Group at directional changes planned by centers to ensure their MTM97; to disburse funds as quickly as possible; and consistency with CGIAR priorities and strategic di- to provide funds with as few- restrictions as possible. rections for 1998-2000 approved at MTM97. TAC As well, members were requested to contribute spe- plans to work on the basis of a projected funding cial funding for the system review. Centers were level of $350 million for the 1999 research agenda. directed to plan for 1998 on the basis of identified funding. The Group will review updated 1998 cen- Decisions by the Group ter financing plans at MTM9S. The Group commissioned the preparation of the The Group confirmed that the countries of Cen- 1999 research agenda by the centers: which will be tral Asia/Caucasus should be treated in the same viewed in the context of the 1998-2000 center me- manner as developing countries, because of their dium-term plans endorsed by the Group at MTM97. eligibility for ODA under the DAC criteria. Centers Center proposals will be screened by TAC for their were urged to take a coordinated approach to work consistency with CGIAR priorities and to ensure that in the region, and it was suggested that ESDAR in change is taking place within the broad strategic di- the World Bank could work to ensure the continua- rections endorsed by the Group for CGIAR activities, tion of a coordinated approach. These measures commodities, production sectors, systemwide pro- should provide impetus for implementing the Lucerne grams. and other priority areas. decisions regarding CGIAR research in the region.

X. PROGRESS ON STRENGTHENING THE IX. 1999 RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND GLOBAL FORUM FUNDING Report from the Global Forum Steering Overview Committee (GFSC)

The Group began its deliberations on 1999 re- The Group received a report from the GFSC Chair search directions and funding at ICW97, in keeping on the progress made to operationalize the Declara- n;ith the cycle of decisionmaking endorsed at MTM95, tion and Plan of Action approved by the Global Fo- under which the proposed research strategy in two rum at ICW97. Two coordinating mechanisms have years time is given preliminary consideration by the been established, the GFSC and the NARS Steering Group at ICW of the current year. Specifically, the Committee, each with its own secretariat. The GFSC Group reviewed the process planned for the devel- Secretariat is also the secretariat of the GFAR, and is opment and analysis of center proposals for 1999 located at the World Bank’s ESDAR. The KARS Steer- that will take place prior to MTM98, and w-as ap- ing Committee Secretariat is being established at FAO. prised of the Finance Committee’s preliminary rec- A proposed program of work for the next three years ommendations for the allocation of World Bank funds has been developed, based on the principles of in 1999 and beyond. At MTM98, the Group will make subsidiarity, complementarity, additionality, openness decisions on the 1999 research agenda and funding and transparency, involvement of all stakeholders, requirements, and adopt a financing plan for 1999 at and quality of the projects and the participating in- ICW98. stitutions. The program of work will continue to evolve. [The document was restructured and revised The TA4CChair, in outlining the 1999 framework, in December 1997. It is now entitled “Global Forum noted that centers will prepare their program and on Agricultural Research: Plan of Action 1998-2OOO:‘l budget proposals for 1999 on the basis of guidelines A support group has been established, to facilitate that the CGIAR Secretariat will distribute in Novem- intellectual, technical, and financial interaction be- ber 1997. The proposals will be reviewed by TAC at tween the Global Forum and the donor community its meeting in March 1998 and by the CGIAR Secre- on the implementation of activities. The support tariat. With medium-term plans now on a rolling group will meet in Rome in early 1998 to decide on three-year basis, TAC will also review initial program financial support to programs of work of the Global and budget proposals from the centers for 2001 at its Forum Steering Committee and the NARS Steering March 1998 meeting. TAC will primarily examine Committee.

CGLAR ICW97 35 The GFL4R has five objectives: to develop and implement appropriate processes and structures, to articulate a work program, to facilitate

l to facilitate the exchange of information among interaction among key stakeholders: and to establish stakeholders related to agricultural research; the credibility of the Forum. The importance of moving from a process oriented approach to an ac-

l to foster cost-effective: collaborative research tion oriented approach, of focusing on substance and and development partnerships among the vari- prioritizing areas of activity. was emphasized. As ous stakeholders related to agricultural re- well: ensuring the full participation of key stakehold- search: ers, particularly IKGOs. was stressed.

l to promote the integration of NARS in the sub- regional and regional fora and the implemen- XI. REPORTS FROM CGIAR COSPONSORS tation of the concept of KARS; AND COMMITTEES

l to facilitate the participation of all stakehold- Cosponsors ers in the various priority setting processes available, including subregional, regional, and The Group received a report from the CGIAR global fora; and cosponsors on their deliberations and decisions since MTM97. Cosponsors endorsed the work program

l to enhance amrareness among policymakers and budget of TL4C and the IAEG. and donors of the need to secure a long-term commitment to agricultural research. Cosponsors identified individuals for TL4C mem- bership to fill five vacancies. Approval of their ap- The program of work for 1998-2000 includes pointment to T,4C will be sought from the Group on activities supported by the GFSC secretariat and those a no-objection basis as soon as the nominees have supported by the NiZRS Steering Committee secre- been contacted and their availability is known. Lucia tariat. The GFSC secretariat will focus on institu- de Vaccaro’s service as a TL4Cmember was extended tional activities (e.g.> the organization of the Global for one term (two years). Forum meeting every three years): information and communications activities at the global level (e.g.. Cosponsors also considered candidates to fill an electronic information exchange system): promot- vacancies on the MEG, and determined that the can- ing and developing research partnerships: technical didate base should be broadened. As a result, the activities (e.g., studies on issues such as biotechnol- period of the search process was extended. It is ogy): and facilitating coordination with the secretari- expected that individuals will have been identified ats of the CGIAR and the system review panel. by mid-December 1997 to fill the vacancies. Co- sponsors recommended a candidate for appointment The NPlRS secretariat will promote collaborative by UNDP as IAEG Executive Secretary. Thdt nomi- research projects: strengthen regional and global nation will no-w go through LNDP‘s official appoint- cooperation through subregional and regional fora; ment process. strengthen NARS; systematize and extrapolate knowl- edge gained from case studies of successful partner- In the interests of greater outreach, transparency. ships and strategic alliances in an action-oriented and participation, cosponsors are reviewing the nomi- approach; promote information and communication nation process and selection criteria for the Nyle C. at the subregional and regional levels; and contrib- Brady Award. Therefore, the award was not con- ute to the dialogue on biotechnology and biosafety. ferred at ICvC:97. ,4 call for nominations based on revised guidelines and criteria will be made in early Discussion by the Group 1998, the selection of the winner will be made by cosponsors at MTM98, and the award conferred at The Group Qrelcomed the report received from ICW98. the GFSC. and commended the GRSC on the mo- mentum that has carried forward since the Global The Group endorsed the report received from Forum convened at ICWC)~ and the progress made the cosponsors.

36 CGIAR ICW97 Oversight Committee (OC) evolved from a relatively simple operation that generates knowledge at centers around the world. The Group received a report from the Oversight to an enterprise involved in many activities. The Committee Chair focusing largely on issues of center CGIAR’s governance is also affected by the increas- and system governance. Other issues covered briefly ing number of members, expanding relationships were the development of the Global Forum and its with a range of partners, increasing transaction relationship to the CGIAR, biotechnology, the sys- costs, changes in financing, and the increasing in- tem review: and the role, function. and work pro- volvement of the CGIAR in political debates in gram of the OC. international fora.

Change is now a part of the CGIAR, and the On other issues) the OC found progress made effective management of change is something with by the Global Forum encouraging. The relationship which the CGIAR system must come to terms. There between the Global Forum and the CGIAR and its are stresses on all components of the system associ- centers should be clarified as the Global Forum ated with change, particularly on the centers, and evolves and grows. Fears and concerns related to the management of change had posed considerable an expansion of the CGIAR‘s effort in biotechnology difficulty for some centers. It would be useful for must be addressed and allayed through further analy- the system review- to provide guidance to the CGIAR sis and discussion by the Group. The CGIAR should on the management of change and how the CGIAR examine how its changing agenda influences its re- can better equip itself to handle change. lationships with its partners. The OC requested feed- back from the Group on the issues it should focus The CGIAR’s efforts to develop an evaluation on in the future. culture and systems and models for measuring im- pact are critical. The CGIAR must be able to prove The Group endorsed the report received from that it is spending money sensibly and that it is hav- the Oversight Committee. ing an impact on poverty alleviation, environmental protection, and food security. in order to maintain Finance Committee (FC) its financial support. ,4s the process of technology transfer and adoption involves many other actors. The Group received a report from the Finance the CGIAR must assess to what extent it is able to Committee Chair on the expected 1997 financial out- influence these partners to use CGIAR technologies come. At the aggregate level, the 1997 financial out- and knowledge for the benefit of the poor and the come is positive. At ICW96, the Group approved a environment. funding estimate of $325 million for the CGL4R re- search agenda. With additional contributions from The OC reflected on the broad issue of gover- Finland, Spain, Brazil, South Africa, and Thailand, nance in the CGIAR, as an input to the system re- the actual financial outcome for 1997 is expected to view. It concluded that the purpose of governance be $330 million. Lagging disbursements from mem- in the CGIAR is to improve performance and to bers in 1997 have created serious cash flow prob- move the agenda forward. The OC defines gov- lems resulting in high financial costs. ernance as the manner in which authority and in- fluence are exercised in the management of the At the individual center level, most centers are affairs of the CGIAR system. Governance should on track, either meeting or surpassing their financ- be efficient, effective: transparent, accountable, ing plans for 1997. Some centers, however, face fi- and participatory. Since its inception the CGIAR nancing gaps, and several systemwide programs re- has followed a community-based governance struc- main underfunded, notably the Systemwide Livestock ture, and operated by the principles of member Program. As well, despite meeting funding targets, sovereignty, center autonomy, consensus some centers face difficulty because of limited ac- decisionmaking, and independent technical advice. cess to unrestricted funding. The CGIAR should assess whether the community- based governance structure is still appropriate for The FimnCe Committee Chair also reported to the system, and how governance can be both sim- the Group on financing the 1998 research agenda plified and made more efficient. The CGIAR has [see pages 33 to 351 and on 1999 funding as part of a

CGIAR ICW97 37 broader discussion on 1977 research directions [see TAC has identified three sets of strategic issues page 351. of importance to the CGIAR system, which it plans to examine: The Group endorsed the report received from

the Finance Committee. l the likely changes in international public goods in the future as science, law, and economics Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) change and the implications for the CGIAR;

The TAC Chair reported to the Group on TAC’s l the role of the CGIAR in strengthening NARS; activities since MTM97, including the two expert pan- and els on biotechnology and intellectual property rights:

respectively. convened under the auspices of TAC; l the options for collaborative arrangements, and studies and external reviews TAC has initiated; its the circumstances under which each works nrork on project milestones and the development of most effectively. a new logical framework: and external reviews of centers, both those currently underway and those In a continuing pursuit of transparency and ac- planned in the near future. countability, work by TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat continues on a new logical framework for center The two expert panels were convened follow- proposals in 2000. ,4s part of this effort, in December ing MTM97, and both provided interim reports to 1997, ‘IXC will review the project milestones centers the Group at ICYV97 on the major issues that should are currently using in the medium-term planning pro- concern the CGIAR as it formulates policy and on cess and will provide feedback which centers will be the process through which the panels plan to carry able to incorporate in their 1999 proposals. out their work. 1~~6~97 provided an opportunity for the panels to interact with CGIAR stakehold- The Group endorsed the report received from ers to further refine the major issues identified The TAC. panels will examine the issues within the context of the CGIAR’s goals and will recommend options NGO Committee (NGOC) for the Group’s consideration. Final reports are expected at MTM98. on which TAC will present a The Group received a report from the NGOC commentary. [For further information on the ex- Chair detailing the committee’s activities and its fu- pert panels in the broader context of the Group’s ture plans. Since 1MTM97, the committee has en- deliberations on biotechnology in the CGIAR, see gaged in a range of activities, including national and pages 2-i- to 30.1 regional consultations, a thematic workshop on soil fertility replenishment in Africa. and interactions with TL4C has initiated a study on the efficacy of the centers, TAC, the system review panel, and GRPC. ecoregional approach in linking research on natu- ral resources conservation and management with NGOC members organized national consultations efforts to increase productivity, and an external in Cameroon and Mali, and regional consultations review of the Systemwide Genetic Resource Pro- on the Andean region (in Peru) and on the Latin gram. A study on Latin America will include an American Region (in Colombia). The consultations assessment of the relationships among CGIAR cen- provided a venue for CGIAR centers, NGOs, farmer ters with regional associations and of the pros- organizations, NARS, and universities to come to- pects for more collaboration among KARS. A study gether to discuss research challenges, define priori- on marginal lands will be extended to analyze the ties, and explore concrete opportunities for collabo- relationships between poverty and land type and ration. The NGOC cosponsored a workshop on “Ap- between poverty and its implications for the health proaches to Replenishing Soil Fertility Depletion in of natural resources, using the taxonomy devel- Africa: NGO Perspectives.” Held at ICRAF, work- oped in an earlier phase of the study. External shop participants represented IiGOs. local universi- reviews of CIMMYT, IFPRI, and IRRI are under- ties, NARS, private sector. international organizations, way. Reviews of CIFOR and ICR4F are being com- and farmers from thirteen African countries. The missioned. workshop examined more holistic approaches than

38 CGLAR ICW97 use of chemical fertilizers to restoring soil fertility. A ing interaction by the Group with Brazilian NGOs in draft action plan for soil fertility replenishment in conjunction with MTM98. Africa is now being prepared. NGOC members vis- ited IITA and interacted with ISN_4Ron strategic plan- The Group welcomed the report received from ning, IRRI on a regional initiative in Vietnam, and the NGOC. IFPRI on the world food situation. Private Sector Committee (PSC) The NGOC urged for greater balance in the com- position of the system review panel and the two ex- The PSC reported to the Group on its member- pert panels on general issues in biotechnology and ship and activities. The PSC comprises twelve mem- on proprietary science and technology convened bers, six representing the South and six the North. under the auspices of TAC. The inclusion of more The two Co-Chairs are being replaced by a Chair representatives from the South and of NGOs would and a Vice-Chair. As the PSC is a small committee enrich and bring a broader perspective to the delib- with limited resources, and given the very heteroge- erations of the three panels. neous makeup of the private sector, suggestions and feedback from CGIAR stakeholders on PSC initiatives The IKGOC cautioned that biotechnology, while is critical. an important research tool, promotes reductionism and genetic homogeneity, and thus urged that alter- The PSC is working to identify areas of common nativres to biotechnology that are more appropriate interest and complementarity between the CGIAR to the small farmer and more in tune with traditional system and the private sector that will enhance agri- practices be explored by the CGIAR. The committee cultural research and development. The PSC is look- recommended a moratorium on transgenic crops until ing at improved strategies for the effective transfer proper guidelines emanating from the work of the and dissemination of appropriate technologies, to expert panels convened under the auspices of TAC achieve best agricultural practices, As a follow-up to are in place. [For more details of the Group’s delib- a PSC questionnaire to centers, the PSC is currently erations on biotechnology in the CGIAR, see pages exploring various models for partnership to foster 24 to 30.1 partnerships between the centers and the private sector on issues of mutual interest and benefit. The NGOC is studying the impact of CGIAR re- search on poor farmers, to ascertain if poor farmers The PSC will focus its efforts on four areas in the benefited from technological advancement. The immediate future: committee advocates that the CGIAR move toward

a new paradigm of development in which poor l continuing to contribute to the CGIAR in the farmers are at the center. In this new paradigm area of biotechnology. The PSC paper on KARS, universities, NGOs, the CGIAR, and other ‘Strengthening CGIAR-Private Sector Partner- institutions cooperate to address needs as identified ships in Biotechnology.” presented at MTM97, by the farmers, and research is driven by those ex- has been submitted to the system review panel. pressed needs. The PSC welcomes feedback on the paper from CGIAR stakeholders; The NGOC plans to focus its efforts on support-

ing the implementation of concrete projects between l emphasizing and promoting networking be- centers and NGOs, initiating an African and Asian tween centers and the private sector on re- NGO-NARS consultation process, encouraging the search and development, particularly between Global Forum to support NGO case studies and the center and corporate research managers; scaling up of successful initiatives, conducting the-

matic workshops aimed at capacity building, cospon- l examining the areas of postharvest and ap- soring a workshop on international convention agree- propriate technologies, including extension; ments with the private sector: providing input into and the two expert panels under TAC, the system review,

and the IAEG, working closely with TAC to conduct l defining specific partnerships that can be suc- research on sustainability case studies. and organiz- cessful, which can demonstrate that partner-

CGIAR ICW97 39 ships between the public and private sectors issues, particularly at the system level, which should can work. The range of possible case studies be considered by the system review. in particular, will be broad and inclusive, drawing on all the discord between system funding and system gov- stakeholders in the global private and public ernance. On issues of science and strategic advan- sectors, including small private enterprises in tage, it is imperative that the system review move developing countries. from detail to the broader questions of concern to the CGIAR, such as the role and positioning of the The Group welcomed the report received from CGIAR in the global effort, the desired impact of the the PSC. CGIAR, and the form needed to achieve that impact. The review panel should also study the evolution of Committee of Board Chairs (CBC) the CGIAR system and its research agenda. The CBC has established a small ad hoc group to facilitate in- The CRC Chair presented a report to the Group teraction between the system review panel and the on the CBC‘s deliberations on a range of issues, ill- CBC, and urged the panel to have regular interaction &ding gender staffing, impact assessment and evalu- with the CBC. The CBC continues to be concerned ation, biotechnology. the system review, and the with information flow both into and out of the sys- CGIAR’s finances. The pap& commissioned by the tem review panel. CBC and prepared by the Gender Staffing Program to provide guidance to center boards in fulfilling their The CBC is particularly concerned with financial governance responsibilities with respect to gender issues related to delays in disbursements from mem- issues, particularly regarding policies that support bers and the increasing proportion of restricted fund- diversity in staffing, will be revised in light of com- ing being provided to the centers. ments and recommendations received from the CBC. The initial draft was well received by the CBC. The Group endorsed the report received from the CBC. The CBC discussed issues which need to be ad- dressed in relation to the IAEG: including the coher- Center Directors Committee (CDC) ence of IAEG activities within the CGIAR system and feedback to research design and priority setting; the The Group received a report from the CDC Chair adequacy of MEG activ-ities in serving the needs of which highlighted issues pertaining to collaboration the CGIAR; the real need at the center level for work- among centers and with stakeholders and partners, able methodologies for measuring and evaluating the system review. a proposal for the establishment impact and sharing experience and competence: and of a center secretariat, the CGIAK’s financial health, the role of the IAEG in providing peer review and ecoregional research. biotechnology, and the CGIAR ensuring objectivity. Monitoring the plan of work of Gender Program. the IAEG for its relevance to system and center needs should be an integral part of the process. Centers are actively seeking ways to work to- gether more effectively with each other and with part- The CBC looks forward to the recommenda- ners and stakeholders: as part of their recommitment tions of the two expert panels convened under to the concept of a truly global agricultural research the auspices of TAC. The CBC supports the ef- system. Centers plan to work more actively and forts of the CGIAR Chairman to move biotechnol- collaboratively on the environmental and ogy to the forefront of the CGIAR agenda. The biodiversity objectives of the Group, which cen- CGIAR’s position on biotechnology and its under- ters believe are not adequately reflected in the lying rationale should be better articulated to all current vision of the CGIAR. As well. centers are CGIAR partners. pursuing opportunities to make greater contrihu- tions to the work of TAC and to other special com- The CBC has provided input to the system re- mittees and stakeholder groups within the CGIAR. view panel through four papers related to center and Individual Center Directors have been identified system governance, financial issues, and future di- as contact persons for such committees and for rections in science, which it either prepared or con- major issues that require a collective response from [ributed to preparing. There are serious governance the centers.

40 CGIAR ICW97 The CDC has prepared a submission to the sys- Public Awareness and Resource Mobilization tem review on most aspects contained in the Committee (PARC) review’s terms of reference. Center participation in the system review is critical, and should be In a report to the Group, the P4RC Chair high- mainstreamed as part of the review process, to lighted progress made in implementing the Public ensure that the review panel produces the type of Awareness Campaign. the development of a product that will lead to practical recommenda- systemwide strategy on public awareness, CGIAR tions in keeping with the basic goals and objec- participation in public awareness events! and sup- tives of the CGIAR. port to the development of national support organi- zations. The CDC is considering the establishment of an executive secretariat for the centers, to increase The Public L4wareness Campaign, which seeks center capacity to support collaborative activi- to promote greater awareness of the issues related to ties, such as systemwide programs, public aware- agriculture, agricultural research, international agri- ness. and stakeholder contacts. The CDC plans cultural research, and the role of the CGIAR in par- to develop a proposal for a center secretariat by ticular, was launched on October 1 with the appoint- MTM98. ment of PAC Director of Operations Barbara Rose. The campaign will be based on a series of pillar stud- The appearance of financial well-being at the ies that link agriculture and agricultural research with system level in recent years does not reflect the hard key current issues, such as peace and stability, realities at the center level. Inflation and the shift to sustainability, economic growth: population, and restrict funding have led to a substantial reduction in health and nutrition. Preeminent institutions around unrestricted funding for many basic parts of the the world will be commissioned to carry out these CGIAR research agenda. studies, and their results will create public aware- ness opportunities for the CGIAR. High profile am- More rapid progress in methodological and mana- bassadors for the campaign will also be used to gerial aspects of ecoregional research are required generate impact. Centers are currently providing to meet concerns for poverty, environment, and the bulk of the financial support for the campaign. natural resources management. Centers are re- Members were encouraged to provide additional sponding to opportunities related to biotechnol- support. ogy. Centers are developing appropriate capacity through increased linkages with specialized ad- A systemvvide public awareness strategy is un- vanced research organizations and national sys- der development by PARC and the PAA, which seeks tems. Centers have been particularly attentive to to elaborate the specific roles and responsibilities of training and research needs of NARS and sensi- the various actors involved in public awareness in tivities related to sharing and husbanding of ge- the CGIAR system, including PARC, the PAA, CGIAR netic materials and knowledge. Centers see the members and centers, and the CGIAR Secretariat. need for more support to the development and PARC anticipates that the strategy will be circulated adoption of biosafety regulations in developing to the Group for comment at MTM98. countries. The CGIAR has participated in several public The CDC considered the future scope of gender awareness events, including the Epcot Gardening related activities when the present phase of the Gen- Festival on Gardening for Food Around the World der Program ends in 199X. The CDC supported the exhibition at DisneyWorld (for the third year in a integration of the gender analysis component into row), the Japan Day of International Cooperation, the Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and the United Nations General Assembly Special and Gender Analysis. A workshop to be held in Session on Sustainable Development (Rio + 5). May 1998 will provide an opportunity to plan next steps for the Gender Program. The Crawford Fund will host, with support from PARC. a conference in April 1998 in Bellagio, Italy to The Group endorsed the report received from explore the possibility of establishing other national the CDC. support organizations in interested countries.

CGlAR ICW97 41 The Group endorsed the report received from Week1997 in Mashington, DC, unanimous& PARC. adopted the following resolution:

‘Tw.recognition of his vision, leade&@, and XII. HONORS CONFERRED major hole he played in the founding of the CGIAR. his continued strong leadership that Chairman’s Excellence in Science Awards has mobilized widespread mppo fit ~for ime?*- national ag~?cultuual?*esearch, resolute com- Outstanding scientific achievement was recog- mitment to the cause of developmelzt. and nized and commended through the Chairman’s Ex- abiding concew for improving the lhes of cellence in Science Awards, which honored spe- the world’spoorfarmers, the members of the cial achievement in the following three catego- CGIAR family wish to F*ecol-dtheir deepe

42 CGIAR ICW97 Ernest Corea interim basis, following the departure of George Rothschild. The Group unanimously adopted a resolution to honor Ernest Corea, on the occasion of his retire- Departing PSC Co-Chairs Andreas Biichting and ment from the CGIAR Secretariat, for his service Alejandro Rodriguez @due were recognized for to the CGIAR as the Secretariat’s Senior Informa- their service to the committee. Sam Dryden will tion Officer. Expressing his personal appreciation assume the chairmanship of the PSC effective Janu- to Mr. Corea, whom he referred to as a friend, close ary 1, 1998. and Assia Bensalah Alaoui the vice- collaborator, and “soulmate~” the Chairman pre- chairmanship. Eugenia Muchnik de Rubinstein sented Mr. Corea with a plaque on behalf of the departed from the IAEG. C. H. Hanumantha Rae? Group during a special ceremony at ICW97, in E. F. Henzell, Sir Ralph Riley, P. M. Tigerstedt, and recognition of his contributions to the CGIAR, his Mzia Jose de Oliveira Zimmermann’s departed as unremitting commitment to its mandate of pro- members of TAC. moting sustainable agriculture for food security in the developing countries, his concern for improv- Barbara Rose was welcomed as the Director of ing the lives of the world’s poor farmers, and his Operations for the Public Awareness Campaign, and unflagging support for the renewal effort of the Shirley Geer as the CGIAR Secretariat’s new Senior CGIAR. Information Officer.

In accepting the plaque, Mr. Corea paid tribute Future Meetings to Mr. Serageldin, for providing inspiration as a men- tor and friend, and to his colleagues on the Informa- The dates and locations of future CGIAR meet- tion Team of the CGIAR Secretariat. and urged the ings -will be as follows: Group to “stay the course.” 199s MTM May 25-29 Brasilia, Brazil 1cw Oct. 26-30 X’ashington, DC! USA XIII. OTJXER BUSINESS 1997 MTM May 24-28 To be determined Personnel Changes IC’XJ Oct. 25-29 Vt’ashington, DC: CSA

The Group paid warn-i tribute to those who had 2000 MTM IMay 22-26 To be determined recently left the CGIAR or for whom this would be ICYV Oct. 23-27 Washington, DC, USA their last CGIAR meeting in their current capacities, and welcomed new appointees to ICW97. Kunio Nakamura was recognized for his dedicated service XIV. CGIARCHAIRMAN ‘S SUMMATION as the former representative of Japan to the Group. YVanda Collins stepped down as CBC Chair and IPGRI An Overview Chair to assume her new position as CIP’s Deputy Director General for Research. VC’alter Falcon be- \Ve have had an interesting, significant? and came the new CBC Chair and Martin Pineiro the productive International Centers week. Before I committee’s Vice Chair. Geoffrey Hawtin, who get into the substance of our decisions, let me stepped down as PARC Chair, succeeded Hubert thank all those who helped us. I thank the man- Zandstra as CDC Chair. Hubert Zandstra is the new agement of the Preston Auditorium, the technical PARC Chair. staff who have given us audiov-isual and photo- graphic services, the staff assistants who have Marcio de Miranda Santos assumed the chairman- worked ceaselessly before and during the meet- ship of IPGRI. Martha ter Kuile departed as Chair of ing, colleagues in the CGIAR Secretariat who de- CIP. Adrian Fajardo-Christen assumed the chairman- signed this meeting to satisfy our interests and ship of CIP on an interim basis. Shawki Barghouti convenience, and the interpreters who made us was welcomed to his first meeting as ICRISAT Direc- understand each other. Please acknowledge their tor General. In January CIAT Chair Robert Havener contributions, and particularly the outstanding efforts will assume the post of IRRI Director General on an of the Secretariat.

CGIAR ICW97 43 At this year’s ICW we engaged in some inward even later, is part of what we have been doing this looking exercises somewhat like a cat that gathers week. itself into a compact body before it springs. The purpose of our creative introspection was to prepare Fourth. we put the ‘cc” back in ICW: International ourselves to confront the enormous challenges that Centers Week, by spreading the sixteen center pre- motivate us all, the challenges that were so eloquently sentations throughout the business meeting, not hav- and effectively described by Per Pinstrup-Andersen ing them all lumped together into a single day and in his magisterial opening presentation on the state then taken off the program: as it were. Listening to of the world’s food outlook. the center presentations was an enriching experi- ence. We are indebted to the Center Directors and If I reflect a bit on our discussions in that con- their colleagues for having enhanced our delibera- text, I see a number of unique features about the tions in this fashion, and for giving us a glimpse of meeting now drawing to a close. the work that is so inspiring and motivating, espe- cially to those of us who have had the pleasure and First, the evolution of the CGIAR from a rela- the privilege of visiting the scientists in the fields tively small and clubby group of dedicated donors and observing how they work side by side with farm- to a broad coalition of equal, like-minded partners, ers, KARS, and others. is going well, perhaps even beyond expectations. It is a coalition of the caring. Like all coalitions, this, Fifth, we recommitted ourselves to our purpose too, has tensions, variability, some differences. and and our mission of harnessing science to serve the a range of accommodations that are required to make world’s poor. Everybody here is motivated. If there it work. Kevertheless, the membership of the Group is any self-questioning within the system, it is not on is certainly broadening and the call for inclusion made whut we seek to do: but on hoz~ best to do it. It is in in Lucerne has clearly resonated across the interna- this sense that an inward looking orientation at ICW97 tional community. has been like the gathering of the muscles of the cat. Kow, the questions are) where do we go next? How Second, while taking pride in our sense of inclu- do we get there? Well, we should expect that Maurice sion, we realized that we also need to ask ourselves, Strong and his colleagues on the system review panel. in terms of structure; do we have too much of a now broadened to include more members in the good thing? Do we have too many committees? Is it subpanels and resource persons as well, will guide us. time to revisit the question of an executive commit- tee which has been put on [he table several times? With those preliminary reflections, let me try to These questions surfaced directly and indirectly dur- revisit the four themes that I outlined to you in my ing our deliberations. Grappling with them is part opening statement. and see how far we have pro- of ensuring that, as the membership of the Group gressed on each of them. grows, we will continue to do business in ways that both challenge and engage us all. Major Themes

Third, in terms of approach, recall the concern I expressed about what I saw as a possible drift to- ward an either/or instead of a both/and perspective. This was the first theme I examinedz and we have or to-ward balancing various considerations in a po- certainly had movement in this very important area. litically correct fashion at the expense of excellence. Nobodv can sav that nothing is happening. h lot is I hasten to emphasize that the potential drift is not a happening. There is a significant debate taking place foregone conclusion. We can go for the both/and and our preceding speaker, Jock Anderson, gave us perspective, and certainly there is no reason to doubt an excellent and succinct addition to that debate, in that while doing so. we can, as well, match diversity his summary of impact evaluation. I will not repeat with excellence. The question then arises. with size his comments which are still very fresh in our and quantitative change, do we also need change in memory, but I would like to recall some of the ob- process and practice? Looking at all of these ques- servations that I made earlier, because I think they tions, sometimes in only a preliminary m-ay. with fur- will help us to sort out conflicting statements and ther discussion anticipated at iMTM9S in Brazil and contradictory views.

44 CGIAR ICW97 The overriding principle that characterizes our post evaluation, promote critical peer reviews, influ- approach to impact evaluation is the existence of ence project design, and provide the setting for con- multiple strands: multiple needs) multiple products, tinuous monitoring and feedback. multiple methodologies. Unless we are clear on what it is that we are trying to look at, and recognize that There are many other complexities to contend we need more than one type of product? we will not with, such as the linkages between what we do, and be able to make significant progress. seek to evaluate, and the work of many, many oth- ers that is required before the impact of our efforts is The first type of product we need consists of actually felt in farmers’ fields and the homes of poor short, pithy pieces that can be used to reach consumers. We noted the need for case studies and decisionmakers and, by implication, the public. That for broad assessments of the whole effort; and the was the plea of Ernest Loevinsohn (Canada). The need to enrich evaluation both by quantitative and plea is appropriate and was endorsed by many oth- qualitative data. Let us always remember the wise ers, all of whom need to ensure that that non-scien- words of Wally Falcon (Chair of CIMMYT) that, while tist interlocutors in their home agencies are not turned we should never be complacent, we are indeed off by what is presented to them. And there we among the very best in the world on this topic. frequently run into problems of impatience with subtleties and nuances. We have to struggle against We were very appropriately reminded by Michel that tide, finding ways of communicating accurately, Petit (World Bank) and others this morning of the convincingly, n~zd succinctly, when we make the case risks of pushing evaluation and impact assessments of why it makes sense to invest in the activities we to the point of creating perverse incentives that would espouse. lead to the appropriation of credit at the expense of partners, move us toward the short-term and the vis- In this connection! let me share with you a fact ible, and stifle the creative contrarian view that is so from a fascinating study by Kiku Adatto of Harvard necessary for the advancement of science. These University who found that the average time allowed are all apt cautions: and I leave them with you: as I for a sound bite on television by a Presidential can- move to the next theme I addressed. didate in the United States dropped from 42.3 sec- onds in 1968, to 9.8 seconds in 1980, and to 8.4 sec- Center Cmcems onds in 1992. Anton Checkov argued in the 19th century that “brevity is the sister of talent.” In today’s The second broad theme of my opening state- sound bite world, brevity is talent. ment was the set of concerns I have encountered at CGIAK centers. I tried to articulate the feelings of Another set of issues concerns the harmoniza- center staff and of the Center Directors. I will not tion of approaches across the CGIAK System in areas repeat them here. They are spelled out in my open- such as cost/benefit analysis. What is included in ing address and are now available in writing for you the cost stream, what is included in the benefit stream, to take back and mull over. I want to say that we and how these are defined should be more or less cannot find a more committed, motivated, and dedi- agreed on among the centers. We must, however, cated group of outstanding scientists than those we accept differences. And, yes, IFPRI and ISNAR have have, and I hope that we will show them our confi- very different sets of considerations in doing cost/’ dence, reiterate our support, reaffirm our commit- benefit analysis. Whether one goes for footprints or ment, avoid micromanagement, and create the space head counts, there are still going to be very difficult in which their imaginations can soar. I know that questions ahead. Perhaps what we can do is to en- we can and that we will. courage the use of best practices so that what is to- day the best practice of the few becomes tomorrow Finwnce the standard practice of many. The third theme was finance, and after much We move on, then, to the compelling need for debate and some misgivings, we adopted the Finance promoting and nurturing an evaluation culture Committee’s recommendations to distribute 11 per- throughout the system, an internal function of qual- cent of World Bank funds on a matching grant basis ity enhancement, This would link ex ante and ex and to attend to particular needs with the rest. I

CGIAR ICW97 45 have been assured that there is a $4.2 million re- be made to seek additional sources of expertise from serve still held for the system. many areas. including Sub-Saharan Africa.

We also welcomed the promises of some mem- N’e agreed, as well, [hat the justifiable concerns bers-for instance. the Lnited States, Sweden. Fin- for biosafety issues should guide the committees. %le land. and others-to increase their support. I thank asked for a broader interpretation of risk, which them all, and others who have agreed to accelerate would involve an assessment of the potential clown- their disbursements. I thank, in particular. Japan for stream effects of biotechnology, and more support that. I thank, as well. a11members-such as the Eu- for NARS on hiosafety procedures and regimes. All ropean Commission and Nigeria-which have un- this should be done while the centers are held to the dertaken to clear arrears that have accumulated for highest inrernational standards and full compliance institutional reasons. In all of that, we have seen a to all national regulations, hut not by a moratorium reiteration of the commitment of members to the on research. SVStem. While acknowledging that the issues of intellec- tual property rights are urgent and their resolution requires very specialized expertise, we suggested that My fourth and final theme was the need to make the system as a whole may want to help the centers :I double shift in the science paradigm, and new part- to identify reliable legal expertise from several coun- nerships. tries; that there is a risk of delays in this area leading to the appropriation of some technologies by the The first of these shifts dealt with the integration private sector and. thereby, blocking them from ac- of crop specific research, which has been so suc- cess to the poor and to others; and that some pre- cessful. into a broader, more holistic vision which emptive moves to patent for keeping “open access” encompasses the concepts of sustainability and may be needed. The case of the OKSTOM/CIMM\T ecoregionality, and looks to achieve results through apomictic gene research was highlighted in this area. increasing the productivity and profitability of con- plex farming systems at the smalll~olcler level. I think Finally, in everything that we will do in this com- we halie made progress in nccqM?zg the paradigm? plex area, we will continue to be guided by the prin- hut not so much in discovering Inou~ to cope n-ith ciples that the CGIAR has long stood for-open ac- it. Is it a lens through which \ve view problems cess, free flow of germplasm and information, and and are able to define them in a way that makes no commercial profit to the centers from these ac- them researchable? Are these problems research- tiT,ities. able products in their on;n right? Or are we talk- ing about a combination of both? \Ve are strug- V$‘e will look forward to the reports of the tn’o gling with that. panels. and we will certainly look forward to an ex- citing debate in Brazil at MTM9S. So muc11 more The second shift was to bring to bear the most remains to be done, yet we have advanced a lot in cutting-edge \vork associated with genetic mapping. this last week. \Ve have pulled together partner- molecular markers, and biotechnology to accelerate ships as never before. I think our colleagues from the breeding process and achieve the promise of all the NGO Committee and from the Private Sector that science can do for the poor and the environ- Committee are certainly fully integrated into our dis- ment. There were limited concerns about genetic cussions. 1 want to report to you that I have already mapping and markers. On the issue of biotechnol- had two specific proposals in response to the cha- ogy. we have had a whole range of reports and a lenge in my opening statement to advanced research major debate in two parallel sessions and in plenary. organizations to participate with us more fully in cre- and \ve reached conclusion around three topics. ative forms of partnership.

YVeagreed that efforts should be made to broaden Toward Hope...And Beyond the membership of the panels set up under the aus- pices of TAC after our discussions at MTM9~ in Cairo. So, where do we go from here? \Vell. Graham Toward this end, we suggested that efforts should Greene once said that in every life “there comes a

46 CGIAFt ICW97 moment when the door opens and we let the future As we look through that door to the future, we in.” What lies beyond that door-complexities, cha- see there are vistas out there. Will these vistas re- lenges, advantages, problems-who can tell? But main dotted with despair or will we work together the future certainly has to be met and that is part of to help transform them into landscapes of hope? For life’s reality. millions now deprived of the right to the most very basic needs of life, to lose hope is to lose will, and For us, perhaps that special moment came in that must not happen. New Delhi when we opened the door for renewal and let the future in, and we encountered challenges The Indian writer Satish Kumar, in his moving and change and opportunities and, indeed, prob- plea on behalf of all the world’s deprived people, lems. We grasped opportunities, and now so much said: more lies ahead and we open a new door and we go through it. The system review will help us to repo- Lead nzeft-om death to l$e, f?om falsehood to sition ourselves in the future: and who knows be- tmtt5. tween now and then what else we will encounter? As I have said before, without challenges, science Lead mefi-om despair to hope, a?zdf%omfear dies. to WL‘Lst.

At every stage, this Group has faced challenges In our special area of focus. we must recommit and opportunities boldly, as well as with compas- ourselves to do our best to offer hope, trust, and sion and a profound sense of caring. You have come indeed life to the neglected and the unconnected. together in periods of difficulty, and it was a sense In the future, as in the past, let us do so with undi- of family that was reflected in Jakarta when we en- minished commitment, abled some of our centers that were in deep crisis to overcome them. I have seen this happen time and Thank you, each and every one: and I look for- time again. ward to seeing you in Brazil next year.

CGIAR ICW97 47 48 CGIAR ICW97 Acronyms and Abbreviations

AR0 Advanced Research Organization CBC Committee of Board Chairs, CGIAR CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CDC Center Directors Committee, CGIAR CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research DAC Development Assistance Committee, OECD ESDAR Environmentally Sustainable Development Agricultural Research and Extension Group, World Bank FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FC Finance Committee, CGIAR GDP Gross Domestic Product GFAR Global Forum on Agricultural Research GFSC Global Forum Steering Committee GRPC Genetic Resources Policy Committee, GRPC IAEG Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group, CGIAR ICW International Centers Week, CGIAR IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IPR Intellectual Property Rights MTM Mid-Term Meeting, CGIAR KARS Kational Agricultural Research System(s) NGO Non-governmental Organization NGOC NGO Committee, CGIAR oc Oversight Committee, CGIAR QDA Official Development Assistance OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ORSTOM Institut Francais de Recherche Scientifique pour le Developpement en Cooperation QTL Quantitative Trait Loci PAA Public Awareness Association CGIAR PAC Public Awareness Campaign, CGIAR PARC Public Awareness and Resource Mobilization Committee, CGIAR PSC Private Sector Committee, CGIAR TA4C Technical Advisory Committee, CGIAR UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme s All financial data are given in US dollars

CGIAR ICW97 49 50 CGIAR ICW97 Annex I ICW97 Draft Agenda

MONDAY, OCTOBER 27

Opening Session i. Chairman’s Opening Statement ii. Discussion iii. Chairman’s Announcements iv. Adoption of the Agenda

Overview of the World Food Situation i. Presentation by the Director General of IFPRI ii. Discussion

Reports from CGIAR Cosponsors and Committees i. Report from the Cosponsors ii. Report from the Oversight Committee (0’2) iii. Report from the Finance Committee (FC) iv. Discussion

Genetic Resources and Biodiversity i. Report from the Genetic Resources Policy Committee (GKPC) -Draft Ethical Principles Relating to Genetic Kesources ii. Discussion

Impact of the CGIAR u. Introduction by the Chairman b. Annunl Kepor; on CGIAK k Impact i. Report 1,); the Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group (IAEG) ii. Discussion

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28

Impact of the CGIAR (cont.) c. Impact of the Centeu i. Presentations by IITA, CIAT, ICKISAT, ICARDA ii. Discussion

Biotechnology in the CGIAR a. Iliscussio~z in Plenmy i. Chairman’s Introduction ii. Report from the CGIAR Panel on Biotechnology iii. Report from the CGIAR Panel on Proprietary Science and Technology iv. Report from the W’orld Bank I%nel on Transgenic Crops v. Report on the Outcome of the \Vorld Bank ESSD Forum on Biotechnology and Biosafety

CGIAR ICW97 51 vi. Report on Advances in Developing Apomictic Maize vii. Discussion

Biotechnology in the CGIAR h. Discussion in Parallel Session

Parallel Session I-Scientific Issues i. Discussion ii. Conclusions on Next Steps

Parallel Session II-Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Issues i. Discussion ii. Conclusions on Next Steps

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29

Impact of the CGIAR (cont.) c. Impact qf the Centers (c0nt.i i. Presentations by ILRI, ICLAIM. ICR4F. CIFOR ii. Discussion

CGIAR System Review i. Introduction by Review Chair Maurice Strong ii. Discussion

Parallel Sessions of CGIAR Committee Meetings and CGIAR System Review Panel a. Meetings of Standing Committees qf the CGIAR b. Consultations u+th the $ystem Review Panel CDC CBC NGOC Regional Representatives and Representatives of NARS

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30

Impact of the CGIAR (cont.) c. Impact of the Centers (cont.1 i. Presentations by CIMMYT. IRRI, WARDA: UP ii. Discussion

CGIAR Research Agenda a. 1999 ResearchDi?*ections i. Presentation by the Chair. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) ii. Discussion 6. Financing the 199s ResearchAgenda i. Report from the CGIAR Finance Committee (FC) ii. Discussion

52 CGIAR ICW97 Reports from CGIAR Cosponsors and Committees (cont.) v. Report from the TAC vi. Discussion

Biotechnology in the CGIAR (cont.) c. Reportsf?orn Parallel Sessions i. Report from Parallel Session I on Scientific Issues ii. Report from Parallel Session II on IPR Issues iii. Discussion iv. Chairman’s Summary of Kext Steps

Reports from CGIAR Cosponsors and Committees (cont.) vii. Report from the Private Sector Committee (PSC) viii. Report from the NGO Committee (NGOC) ix. Discussion

Progress with Strengthening the Global Forum i. Report from the Global Forum Steering Committee (GFSC) ii. Discussion

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31

Impact of the CGIAR (cont.) c. Impact of the Centers (cont.) i. Presentations by IIMI, IPGRI, IFPRI, ISNAR ii. Discussion

Reports from CGIAR Cosponsors and Committees (cont.) x. Report from Committee of Board Chairs (CBC) xi. Report from Center Directors’ Committee (CDC) xii. Report from Public ,4wareness and Resource Mobilization Committee (PARC) xiii. Discussion

Presentation of Chairman’s Awards

Impact of the CGIAR (cont.) d. Conclusions and Next Steps i. Report on the Outcome of Presentations on CGIAR’s Impact ii. Discussion iii. Chairman’s Summary of Next Steps on Impact Assessment

Other Business

Closing Session i. Future CGIAR Meetings ii. Chairman’s Summation

CGIAFc ICW97 53 54 CGIAR ICW97 Annex II List of Documents

DOCUMENTS ISSUED PRIOR TO THE MEETING

Document Number Document Title

ICW/97/01 Administrative Arrangements

ICW/97/02 Draft Agenda

ICWi97/03/Rev. Schedule of Events

ICW/97,/04,/Rev. List of Documents

ICW/97/05 1998 Financing Plan-TAC Observations

1c~/‘97/06 Future CGIAR IMeetings

ICW/‘97/07 Report of the Genetic Resources Policy Committee

ICW/‘97/08 CGIAR Systemwide Genetic Resources Program (SGRP) Report to the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

ICW/97,‘09 The World Food Situation: Recent Developments, Emerging Issues. and Long-Term Prospects

ICW/97/10 Report of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research

ICW/97,/11 Biotechnology in the CGIAR: Reports from the Parallel Sessions

ICW/97/‘12 Report of the PARC

1cw/97/15 Finance Committee Report

DOCUMENTS ISSUED AT THE MEETING Report of the Global Forum Steering Committee Meeting Declaration by the Representative of Vietnam, Professor Do Dingh Thuan CGIAR System Review Panel-Terms of Reference The CGIAR Private Sector Committee ICW97 Status Report Added Information on Biotechnology in 1997, Tz4C Chair Biotechnology in the CGIAR-Reflections for Consideration! German Delegation Report from the Center Directors Committee Report from the Committee of Board Chairs Evolution of Agroecologicdl Technologies and Strategy of Adaptive Plant Breeding, V. S. Shevelukha CGIAR Private Sector Committee ICW97 Status Report, Dinguri Nick Mwaniki

CGIAFt ICW97 55 56 CGIAEt ICW97 Annex III List of Participants

CHAIRMAN Gabrielle J. Persley Executive Director Ismail Serageldin Aus-Biotech Alliance Vice President Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Austria Development The World Bank Group Alfred Just Washington, DC Counselor Federal Ministry of Finance

DELEGATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE Werner Betzwar CONSULTATIVE GROUP Consultant

African Development Bank Belgium

Aklilu Afework Luc Sas Senior Agricultural Economist CGIAR Officer Belgian Administration for Development Frank S. Kufakwandi Cooperation (BADC) Senior Forestry Officer Brazil Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development Albert0 D. Portugal President Ismail T. El-Zabri Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuarid Director, Technical Department (EMBRAPA)

Mervat W. El Badawi Francisco Reifschneider Deputy Director, Technical Department Head of SC1 EMBRAPA Asian Development Bank (ADB) Jamil Macedo Eustace A. Nonis Coordinator, SC1 Director, Agriculture and Social Sectors EMBRAPA Department (West) Marcio Port0 Australia Director, Research and Development EMBRAPA-CNPMF Ian Bevege Principal Adviser Canada Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACI4R) Ernest Loevinsohn Director General, Food Aid Centre Tony Fischer Canadian International Development Agency Research Program Coordinator (CIDA) ACIAR

CGIAR ICW97 57 Iain C. MacGillivray M. Aslam Aziz Senior Adviser for Agriculture. Policy Branch Minister Counselor CIDA Development-Delegation EC V(ashington, DC Derek Eaton Economist. Food Aid Centre Gerasimos Apostolatos CIDA Principal Administrator DG VI Colombia Vi’illem van Vuure Luis Arango Executive Secretary Adviser to the Minister of Agriculture European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development (EIARD) Fernando Chaparro Osorio Director General Food and Agriculture Organization of the Instituto Colombiano para el Desarrollo de la United Nations (FAO) Ciencia y la Tecnologia (COLCIENCIAS) Henri Carsalade Alvaro Uribe Assistant Director General, Sustainable Departamento xacional de Plan Development Department

Jaime Triana Louise 0. Fresco Director General Director, Research. Extension and Training CORPOICA Division

CBte d’Ivoire Finland

Kassoum Traore Armi Heinonen Director of Research Minister-Counselor, Embassy of Finland

Denmark Aino Mirjami Elfvengren Ministry of Foreign Affairs Klaus Winkel Head of Department Ford Foundation Danish International Development Assistance (Danida) E. ‘Lvalter Coward, Jr. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Senior Director Office of the Vice President, Assets Program MYP~ France Abdel Salam Gomaa Supervisor, Agriculture Research Centre Gilles Saint-Martin Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries, Head of the French Delegation and Land Reclamation Ministry of National Education, Higher Education and Research European Commission (EC) Maurice Izdrd Alain Darthenucq Charge de Mission Principal Scientific Officer &IinistPre de la Cooperation DG XII

58 CGIAF’CICW97 Dominique Maroger Edgardo Moscardi Charge de Mission, Multilateral Division Executive Secretary, Regional Fund for Ministry of Foreign Affairs Agricultural Technology

Germany International Development Research Centre (IDRC) H. Jochen de Haas Head, Agricultural Division Joachim Voss Federal -Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Research Manager Development (BMZ> Kathleen Clancy Ekkehard Kiirschner Program Officer Coordinator International Agricultural Research Ralph E. Cotterill German Council for Tropical and Subtropical Consultant Research (ATSAF) YUilliam Edwardson Jiirgen Friedrichsen Head, Foodlinks Head of Agricultural Research German Agency for Technical Cooperation Chusa Gin& CGTZ) Team Leader, Sustainable use of Biodiversit) Program &hard K&ken Director Donald G. Peden Gerrndn Foundation for International Senior Program Specialist Development (DSE) Eva Rathgerber Indonesia Regional Director

Toga Silitonga Eglal Rached Director General, Forestry Research and Chief Scientist for Food Security Development Agency Ministry of Forestry Bill Edwardson

B. I? XVinato Lori Jones Senior Staff, Forestry Research and Research Officer Development Agency Ministry of Forestry International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) I? Xatigor Siagian Agricultural Attache Abdelmajid Slama Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia Direcor, Technical Advisory Division

Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Shantanu Mathur Technical Adviser Ruben G. Echeverria Sustainable Development Department Sam Olowude Lead Adviser

CGIAR ICW97 59 Ireland Kenya

Philomena Murnaghan Njoroge \X’amatu Counselor, Development Cooperation Permanent Secretary Division Ministry of Research Department of Foreign Aid R. M. Kiome Italy Deputy Director Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) Gioachino Carabba Senior Expert D. Mbabu Directorate General for Development KARI Cooperation Korea Marina Puccioni Direttore Agrario Young Sang Kim Instituto Agronomica per l‘oltremare Director General, International Technical Ministry of Foreign Affairs Cooperation Center Rural Development Administration Japan Luxembourg Nobuhito Hobo Director! Multilateral Cooperation Division. Norbert Goffinet Economic Cooperation Bureau Assistant to the Executive Director for Ministry of Foreign Affairs Luxembourg International Monetary Fund (IMF) Nobuhiko Kaho Deputy Director, International Cooperation Mexico Planning Division, Economic Cooperation Bureau Jorge Kondo Lopez Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Director General Instituto National de Investigaciones Forestales Nobuyoshi Maeno y Agropecuarias (INIFAP-SARH) Director General Japan International Research Center for The Netherlands Agricultural Sciences UIRCAS) Theresa Fogelberg Yasuhiro Mitsui Head, Special Program on Research Multilateral Cooperation Division, Economic Ministry of Foreign Affairs Cooperation Bureau Ministry of Foreign Affairs Robert-Jan Scheer Rural Development Adviser Masahisa Nakano Ministry of Foreign Affairs International Research Coordinator, International Research Division Henri E. J. Jorritsma Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Head. Biodiversity and Forests Division Council Secretariat Ministry of Foreign Affairs

60 CGIAR ICW97 E Neuman The Philippines CGIAR Liaison International Agricultural Center (IAC) William D. Dar Wageningen Executive Director Philippino Council for Agriculture, Forestry and New Zealand Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD) Jackie Frizelle Agricultural Economist Rockefeller Foundation Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Robert W. Herdt Michael \x’. Dunbier Director for Agricultural Sciences Chief Executive New Zealand Institute for Crop and Fund Gary Toeniessen Research Deputy Director, hgricultural Sciences

Nigeria Russia

Bukar Shaib Victor Shevelukha Chairman Deputy, State Duma National Advisory Committee on Agricultural Federal Assembly of Russian Federation Research (NARCA) South Africa Adamu Aliyu Director, Department of Agricultural Sciences Bongiwe Njobe-Mbuli Federal Ministry of Agriculture Director General National Department of Agriculture (RSA) Muhtari Aminu Kano Assistant Director, Department of Agricultural Mishack B. Molope Sciences Chief Director Federal Ministry of Agriculture RSA

Norway Mike C. Walters Director Ruth Haug Agricultural Research Council (ARC) Plant Director of Research Protection Research Institute Norwegian Center for International Agricultural Development (NORAGRIC) Maridna Purnell Counselor, Agricultural Science Peru Embassy of South Africa

H. E. Rodolfo Munaiite Sanguinette Spain Minister of Agriculture Jesus L. Miranda Josefina Takahashi President Chief, UGECI Instituto National de Investigaciiin y IMinistry of Agriculture Tecnologid Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA)

Milton M. van Hesse Adviser IMinistry of Economy and Finance

CGIAFl ICW97 61 L. Jo& Milas United Kingdom Consejero Technic0 IlUIA Andrew J. Bennett Chief Natural Resources Adviser Alfonso Pin0 Department for International Development Agricultural Attache (DFID) Embassy of Spain Ian H. Haines Sweden Deputy Chief Natural Resources Adviser DFID Goran Hedehro Head of Division Guy Poulter Swedish International Development Senior Natural Resources Adviser Cooperation Agency (Sida) DFID

Carl-Gustaf Thornstrijm John C.A. Moncrieff Senior Research Adviser. Agriculture Higher Executive Officer Sida DFID

Erik Skoglund United Nations Development Programme Senior Adviser. Natural Resources RJNDP) Sida Roberto L. Lenton Switzerland Director Sustainable Energy and Environment Division Paul Egger (SEED) Head. Agricultural Division Swiss Agency for Development and Chinwe M. Dike Cooperation (SIX) Project Management Officer

Christine Grieder Philip S. Reynolds Deputy Head, Agricultural Division Senior Program Adviser SDC SEED

Peter Trutmann Gana J. Fofan Executive Manager Regional Program Manager Swiss Centre for International Agriculture Peter J. Matlon Thailand Chief, Food Security/Agriculture

Sompong Theerawong Director General United Nations Environment Programme Deparrment of Land Development @JIVEI’>

Pichet Soontornpipit Franklin Cardy Director General Executive Coordinator, NatUrdl Resources and Department of Technical and Economic Director, Land Development (DTECj Prime Minister’s Office

62 CGlAR ICW97 Daniel V. R. Claason Christine Bergmark Chief, Environmental Information Networking Science i\dviser. Office of Agriculture and Food (EIN)iGlobal Resource Information Security Database (GRID) USAID

Claudia Heberlein Carole Levin Project Manager, UNEPiGRID Arendal NIanagement Adviser. Office of Agriculture and Food Security s. Otto USAID Program Manager, UISEP/GRID Arendal Harry Rea Sven Tveitdal Aquatic Resources Adviser, Office of Director, LJNEP,/GRID Arendal Agriculture and Food Security USAID United States David Atwood Chief, Productive Sector Growth and Sally Shelton-Colby Environment Divison, Bureau for Africa Assistant Administrator for Global Programs USAID Field Support and Research United States Agency for International Josette Lewis Development (USAID) Biotechnology Adviser! Office of Agriculture and Food Security Emmy Simmons USAID Deputy Assistant Administrator, Center for Economic Growth and Agricultural World Bank Development. Global Bureau USAID Michel Petit Director, Environmentally Sustainable John V. Lewis Development Agricultural Research Director. Office of Agriculture and Food Department (ESDAR) Security. Center for Economic Growth and Agricultural Development, Global Bureau Russ Freed USAID ESDAR

Harvey Hortik Douglas Forno Chief, Sustainable Technology Division, Rural Development Office of Agriculture and Food Security USAID Pamela George ESDAR Robert Bertram CGIAR Program Coordinator, Office of Uma Lele Agriculture and Food Security ESDAR USAID Representing Africa (Burkina Faso and Dana Dalrymple Zimbabwe) Research Adviser. Office of Agriculture and Food Security IXtomband Regina Gata USAID Executive Director, Department of Research and Specialist Services Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Water Development Zimbabwe

CGIAR ICW97 63 Representing Asia and the Pacific (Malaysia and TAC Secretariat Nepal) Shellemiah Keya Saharan Haji Anang Executive Secretary Deputy Director General Pvlalaysian Agricultural Research and Guido Gryseels Development Institute (MARDI) Deputy Executive Secretary Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Amir Kassam Representing Europe (Estonia and Slovenia) Senior Agr. Research Officer

Toivo Palm Expert Panel on General Issues in Head of Department Biotechnology Ministry- of Agriculture Estonia Sam Dryden Member Representing Latin America and the Caribbean (Nicaragua and Paraguay) Expert Panel on Proprietary Science and Technology Jaime Mauricio Salazar Diaz Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Timothy XV. Roberts Agriculture UICA) Chair NicaKqKi Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group Ricardo R. Pedretti CIA=) Coordinator Ministry of Agriculture W. Jim Peacock Paraguay Chair

Representing the Middle East and North Africa Carlos Zulberti (Egypt and Syria) Principal Officer UNEP Abd-El-Salam A. Gomaa Director. Agriculture Research Centre Tim Heal\: Ministry of Agriculture. Livestock, Fisheries and Operations Manager Land Reclamation Cairo, Egypt NGO Committee

Miguel A. t\ltieri ADVISORY BODIES AND PARTNERSHIP Chair COMMITTEES Kamla Chowdhry Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Member

Donald VC’inkelmann Bernd Dreesmann Chair Member

Richard R. Harwood Yuexin Du Member Member

Sir Ralph Riley Carmen Felipe-Morales Member Member

64 CGIAR ICW97 Julian Gonsalvec Radha Ranganathan Member Assistant

Jeffrey McNeely Member SYSTEM REVIEW PANEL

Jeanot Minla Mfou’ou Main Panel Member Maurice Strong Assetou Kanoute Chair Member Bruce Alberts Carlos Perez Member Kenzo Hemmi

Didier Pillot Klaus Leisinger Member Whitney MacMillan Rzmil SenanaJiake Member Bongiwe IYjobe-Mbuli

Private Sector Committee Emil Salim

Andreas J. Biichting M. S. Swaminathan Co-Chair Science and Strategy Panel Pramod Agrawal Member Gelia Castillo

Assia Bensalah Alaoui Bernard Cheuassus-au-Louis Member Jacqueline B. McGlade Eduardo Alvarez-Luna Pat Mooney Carol Amardtunga Member Governance, Structure, and Finance Panel

Bernard Auxenfdns Mohamed El-Ashy: Member System Review Secretariat Sam Dr)iden Member Mahendra Shah Executive Secretav Mohamed hdel El-Ghandour Member Bo Bengtsson

I3ngur-i Nick %Iwaniki Michel Griffon Member Vo-Tong Zuan

CGIAR ICW97 65 OBSERVERS Waldo Espinoza Executive Secretary, Procitropicos Arab Organization for Agricultural Development (AOAD) Guillermo Grajales Regional Coordinator Yahia Bakour Northern Regional Center (NRC) Director General Clara Solis Argentina Director, Executive Technical Secretariat

Jose Molina Morocco Minister of Agricultural Affairs Mohammed El Mourid Mariano Ripari Head, Dryland Agriculture Center Agricultural Adviser Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique Embassy of Argentina (INR&)

Chile Special Program for African Agriculture Research (SPAAR) E. Santos Embassy of Chile Moctar Tourit Executive Secretary Ethiopia Harry Palmier Tadlle Teferra Institutional Development Specialist Economic and Financial Affairs Counselor Embassy- of Ethiopia Turkey

Forum on Agricultural Research in Africa Dursun Murat Ozden (FARA) Research Section Director General Directorate of Rural Services Moise Houssou Director Cemalettin Gucer Injtitut National de la Recherche Agricole ELI Agricultural Engineer Benin (INRAB] General Directorate of Rural Services Benin Naci Sevinc Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agricultural Engineer Agriculture (IICA) General Directorate of Rural Services

Carlos E. Aquino Gonzalez Uwiwv Director General Sergio Prosper Enrique ,4larcon Projects Unit Director Director Plan Agropecuario Institution Science and Technology Eduardo Indarte Larry Boone Director Deputy Director General Instituto National de Investigaci6n Agropecuaria (IiSL44)

66 CGIAR ICW97 Vietnam Grant >I. Scobie Director General Thuan Dinh Do Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Jacqueline Ashby Projection Director, niatural Resources Management Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (VLARD) Rupert Best Head, Rurdl &q-oenterprises

CGIAR SCIENCE AWARD WINNERS Juan A. Garafulic Financial Controller Marianne Banziger Promising Young Scientist Jennifer Green

Marco Antonio Rond6n Peter Jones Outstanding Locally Recruited Scientific Agricultural Geographer Support Staff Carlos Lascano Anurudh Kumar Singh Animal Nutritionist Outstanding Locally Recruited Scientist Kirit K. Pate1 Kenya Agricultural Research Institute and ILK1 Outstanding Scientific Partnership Douglas Pachico Director, Strategic Planning

CGIAR ACTIVITIES/PROGRAMS Nathan Russell Head, Communications LTnit Gender Program Aart van Schoonhoven Hilary Sims Feldstein Director. Genetic Resources Program Leader, Gender Analysis Lincoln Smith Deborah Merrill-Sands Entomologist Program Leader, Gender Analysis Louise Sperling Public Awareness Campaign for Agriculture Bhuwon Sthapit Barbara Rose Director of Operations Richard Thomas

Alvaro Uribe INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTERS Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Centro International de Agricultura Tropical CC=‘0 Gill Shepherd Chair Robert Havener Chair Jeffrey Arthur Sayer Director General

CGIAFt ICW97 67 Sharmini Blok Jo& Valle-Riestra Director of Communications Deputy Director General

Dennis P. Dykstrd Roger Cortbaoui Deputy Director General, Research Director for International Cooperation

Norman A. MacDonald Edward Sulzberger Deputy Director General, Finance and Senior Adviser to the Director General Administration International Center for Agricultural Research Bambang Soekartiko in Dry Areas (ICARDA) Director. External Relations Alfred Bronnimann Centro International de Mejoramiento de Maiz Chair yTrigo(CIMMYT) Julie A.C. Noolan Walter P. Falcon Board Member Chair Adel El-Beltagy Timothy G. Reeves Director General Director General Surendra Beniwal Tiff Harris Regional Coordinator, Highland Regional Director of External Relations Program

David Hoisington John Hamilton Dodds Director, Applied Biotechnology Center Assistant Director General (Research)

Prabha I’ingali John Noisette Director, Economics Program Director of Finance and Administration

Claudio Cafati K. Houda Nourallah Deputy Director General, Administration and administrative Officer Finance Mohan Saxena Anne Starks Acosta Assistant Director General Donor Relations Officer Mahmoud Solh Graham Jenkins Director of International Cooperation Consultant Mekhlis Suleimenov Centro International de la Papa (CIP) Central Asia Liaison Officer

Adrian Fajardo-Christen Aden Abdullahi Aw-Hassan Acting Chair Coordinator-Dryland Pvlanagement Project

Koenraad Verhoeff International Center for Living Aquatic Board Member Resources Management (ICLARM)

Hubert G. Zandstra Kurt J. Peters Director General Chair

68 CGlAR ICW97 Joan Joshi Shawki M. Barghouti Board Member Director General

Meryl J, Williams Jugu Abraham Director General Head, Donor Relations

Peter Gardiner Cynthia Bantilan Deputy Director General, Programs Principal Economist

Joanna Kane-Potaka International Food Policy Research Institute Program Leader (IFPRI)

Roger Pullin Martin Pineiro Program Leader Chair

Roger Rowe G. Edward Schuh Deputy Director General, Africa and West Asia Board Member

International Centre for Research in Per Pinstrup-Andersen Agroforestry (ICRAF) Director General

Richard Beahrs Raisuddin Ahmed Board Member Division Director

Pedro A. Sanchez Lawrence Haddad Director General Director, Food Consumption and Nutrition Division R. Bruce-Scott Deputy Director General Peter R.B. Hazel1 Director Fiona Chandler Executive Officer Rajul Pandya-Larch Coordinator, 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, Michael Klass and the Environment Director of Finance Celeste Regan Anne-Marie Izac Chief Financial Officer Director of Research Stacy Roberts Anne Stroud Special Assistant to the Director General African Highland Initiative Program Coordinator Sherman Robinson Division Director International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Martin van Weerdenburg Director of Finance and Administration Ragnhild Sohlberg Vice Chair

Mariam Sticklen Board Member

CGIAR ICW97 69 International Irrigation Management Institute Hugh T. Murphy mm Director of Administration

Zafdr Altaf International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Chair (IPGRI)

David W. Seckler Wanda Collins Director General Chair

Mariam Fusch-Carsch Gelia Castillo Consultant Board Member

David A. Governey Geoffrey Hawtin Director, Finance and Administration Director General

Jacob Kijne Dick van Sloten Staff Associate Assistant Director General

James K. Lenahan Mass Iwanagd Head, Communications and Donor Relations Deputy Director General

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Jan Engels (IITA) Director, Germplasm Maintenance and Use

Enrico Porceddu Gary Fowler Chair Senior Adviser to the Director General

Lukas Brader Ruth Raymond Director General Public Awareness Officer

Robert Booth Jane Toll Deputy Director General Coordinator, Systemwide Genetic Resources Program (SGRP) Michael \V. Bassey Director, International Cooperation Emile Frison Director Felix I. IYweke International Ketwork for the Improvement of Agricultural Economist Banana and Plantain (INRAP)

International Livestock Research Institute Hugo L. Pun @Jw Director Sustainable Production Systems Program i%eville I’. Clarke Chair International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)

Hank A. Fitzhugh Roelof Rabbinge Director General Chair

Ralph van Kaufmann Kenneth S. Fisher Director, External Relations Deputy Director General. Research

70 CGIAR ICW97 Glenn L. Denning Bernard Bachelier Director for External Operations Director General

Kobert D. Huggan Gilles H. Barr Communication Specialist Henri Rouille d’Orfeui1 Edward N. Sayegh Director, External Relations Treasurer and Director for Finance Pierre-Luc Puliese International Service for National Charge de Mission Agricultural Research (ISNAR) AGROPOLIS, France Amir Muhammed Chair Michel de Nuce de Lamothe President Stein W. Bie Director General Guy Hainnaux

Howard J. C. Elliott Institut national de recherche agronomique Deputy Director General (INRA), France

Christian H. Hoste Michel Larbier Senior Officer Mediterranean Relations Manager

C. A. Kramer Natural Resources Institute (NRK), United Director, Administration Kingdom

Filemon Torres Richard J. Cooter Consultant Head of Department

West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) L’Institut francais de recherche scientifique Just Faaland pour le developpement en cooperation Chair (ORSTOM), France

Kanayo F. Nwanze Marie-Anna Aufeuvre Director General International Relations

Michael Goon Gerard Fabres Deputy Director General (Designate) Head of Research Unit

Robert I. Ayling Christian blentin Consultant Head of Research Unit

PARTNERS Francois Vicariot International Relations Advanced Research Institutions (TARIs)

Centre de cooperation internationale en recherche agronomique pour le developpement (CIRAD)

CGIAR ICW97 71 Farmers’ Organizations Bruce Bedford Associate Managing Director Sergio Sauer Michigan State University National Farmers’ Confederarion (COYTAG) Brazil Isabelle de Keyzer Secretary General Foundations Ketwork of European Agricultural cniversities and Scientific Complexes Alex Buchanan Related with Agricultural Development Executive Director (D;ATURA) Crawford Fund Hillary S. Egna National Agricultural Research Systems Director PD.:‘ACRSP (NARS) Oregon State University

Lindsay Falvey Executive Secretary University of Melbourne Conference des Responsables de Recherche Agricole en Afriyue de 1’Quest et du Centre Lowell Wardin (CORAF) Emeritus Professor Purdue University 13.J, Ndunguru Director General Catherine Iv-es Southern African Centre for Cooperation on Managing Director Agricultural Research (SACCAR) Michigan State University

Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) Gerald Klonglan Associate Dean Hilda Kigutha Iowa State University CARE, Kenya Gigi Manicad Andres Yursek-ic Editor, Biotechnology and Development Executive Secretary Monitor CLADES University of Amsterdan

Private Sector Ibrim M. Maredia Associate Professor John B. Lunde Michigan State University Manager Applied Sciences M&M/Mars Bent Schmidt-Nielsen President Jeff Morgan NATURA Director, Raw Material Research M&Ahl,~~‘Mars Philip Serafini Director of Program Development Universities University of Arkansas

Ana G. Ahejuela Asian Regional Centre for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA)

72 CGIAR ICW97 George Schaefers Executive Director, CICP Hayden W. Blacles Cornell University Executive Director

Jennifer Taylor Sir Neville Nichols Virginia Tech President, Caribbean Development Bank Chair, CARD1 Donor Support Group I,. George Wilson Coordinator of International Agricultural Samsunder Parasram Problems Director, PROCICARIBE North Carolina State University Don-i M. Agostini Other International Agricultural Research Senior Administrative Secretary Centers Tropical Agriculture Research and Higher Asian Vegetable Research and Development Education Center (CATIE) Center (AVRDC) Frank Ben&u% Guy C. Camus Chair Board Chair Ruben Guevara-%loncada Paul M. H. Sun Director General and Chief Executive Officer Member Juan Jose Cueva Declan Walton Consultant Board Member Markku Kanninen Samson C. S. Tsou Director of Research Director General CIRDES S. Shanmugasundaram Saydil M.K. Toure Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences (CAB) Director General International Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cohn P. Ogbourne Cooperation (CTA) Deputy Director General Rodney Cooke Robert J. Williams Director Deputy Director General, Science International Board for Soil Research and Tim J. Hard-wick Management (IBSRAM) Book Publisher Richard L. Sawyer Jeff Waage Chair Director, International Institute of Biological Control Steve Thompson Vice Chair Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI) Eric T. Craswell Director General Eric Armstrong Chair CGIAR ICW97 73 Gary D. Myers Frits Penning de \‘ries Board Member Director of Research Amit H. Roy Chalinee Niamskul President and Chief Executiv-e Officer Director of External Relations Henk Breman Constantina Rothschild Director, IFDC-Africa Observer Daniel F. Waterman International Centre for Insect Physiology and Development Officer Ecology (ICIPE) International Foundation for Science (IFS) .Vorman Lindsay Innes Chair Bjorn Lundgren Director Deborah Merrill-Sands Board Member Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme (TsBF) Hans Herren Director General Michael John Swift Director Jason Kap-Kirwok Projects Administrator Winrock International

Traore Kassoum Robert L. Thompson Director President and Chief Executive Officer

C. J. Matabwa Richard A. Cobb Director of Agricultural Research Vice President, Programs Ministry of -4griculture and Livestock Development Pierre Antoine Director, Onfarm Programs Vinod Tandon Director Manager Francis C. Byrnes Senior Associate Akke van der Zijpp Deputy- Director General. Research z4vtar bLl1 Director, Forestry and Natural Resource Scott Miller Management Consultant Henk C. Knipscheer International Fertilizer Development Center Director, Agriculture (IFDC) Sarah J. Tisch vi:‘. David Hopper Director, Leadership and Human Development Chair

74 CGIAR ICW97 OTHER PARTICIPANTS Donal O’Hare President, O’Hare -4ssociates Inc

Elias W. Belayneh John E. Riggan Director President and Chief Executive Officer, Africa Chamber of Commerce The Conservation Company

Ralph Cummings, Jr. Susan G. Schram Senior Economist President. Association for International TJSAID Agriculture and Rural Development Washington, DC Chris Bonte-Friedheim Member, International i\dvisory Committee Jeremy Stone (ISAC) President. Federation of American Scientists

Curtis Farrdr Michael Strauss Former CGIAR Executive Secretary Program Director American Association for the hdvancement of Richard Fraenkel Science Food Policy Division Chief USAID Lori Ann Thtupp Director of Sustainable Agriculture Fred L. Gould World Resources Institute World Bank Panel on Tfdnsgenic Crops Edward Tyrchniewicz Dale Hathaway Senior Fellow, International Institute for Director Sustainable Development National Center for Food and Agricultural Canada Policy, Washington DC Pankaj Venugopal Allan J. Hruska The Conservation Company Head, Zamorano Honduras Monty Yudelmdn World Wildlife Fund Mike Lesnick Meridian Institute CGIAR SECRETARIAT Donna R. Stauffer Director Alexander von der Osten Office of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Executive Secretary Democracy USAID Jock Anderson, Operations Evaluation Department World Bank Kristin Kerrigan Network Coordinator> CGNET Services Salah Brahimi Consultant Quentin Kubick Trade Policy Liaison, APHIS-PPQ Ernest Corea IJS Department of i\griculture (USDA) Consultant

George Lindsey President, CGNET Services

CGIAR ICW97 75 Shirley Geer Heidi Ivlarinaccio-Opet Senior Information Officer Consultant

William Grundy Kristen Naah Conference Officer Consultant

Kelly GUtI?Xn Selcuk Ozgediz Consultant Management Adviser

Richard Gutrndn Jean-Claude Prot Consultant Director, Research Program, ORSTOM

Frona Hall Pammi Sachdeva Conference Officer Management Specialist

Sarwat Hussain Rosina Salerno Information Officer Consultant

Jean-Pierre Jacqmotte Ravi Tadvalkar Senior Operations Officer Principal Financial Officer

Manuel Lantin Shey Tata Science Adviser Financial Officer

Danielle Lucca Heinrich van Loescb Information A4nalyst Consultant

Gordon MacNeil Waltraud Wightman Senior Financial Officer Consultant

CGIAR ICW97