000000000000000000000000000000
CGIAR MID-TERM MEETING 1992
Ishtnbul
Summary of Proceedings and Decisions
Consultative Group on International Agncultural Research The ConsultaWe Group on lnternatlonai Agncultural Research (CGIAR) held rts ,Mld-Term Meeting from May 19-22, 1992 at the Sheraton Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey Mr V Rajagopalan, Chairman, presided A summary of proceedings and of the main declsrons reached appears on the pages that follow Verbatim transcripts of proceedIn& may be consulted at the CGIAR Secretanat
Issuedby the CGIAR Sews&mat The World Bank 1818H Street,N W WashmgtonDC, 20433 Phone (l-202) 473-8951 Fax (l-202) 334-8750
July 1992 Contents
Formal Opening ...... 1
Chairman’sRemarks ...... 2
CGIAR Priorities, Strategiesand Resources...... 3
Context and Consultation ...... 3
Priorities ...... 4
Strategiesand Structure...... 6
ResourceAllocation ...... 7
TAC Chairman’sReport ...... 9
CIFOR - ProgressReport ...... 9
External Reviews...... 10
ISNAR ...... 10
ICLARM ...... 11
RegionalRepresentation ...... 11
IntellectualProperty Rights, Biosafetyand Biodiversity ...... 12
Future Meetings ...... 14
Reorganizationof CentersWeek ...... 14
Confirmation of Dates ...... 14
Other Business...... 14
BIOTASK ...... 14
Crawford Fund ...... 15
UNCED ...... 15
Vavilov Institute ...... 15
Closing Remarks...... 15
Annex 1 - Agenda ...... 17
Annex 2 - List of Participants...... 18
Annex 3 - Text of Working Documenton GeneticResources and IntellectualProperty...... 22 Summary of Proceedings and Decisions
CGIAR Chairman V. Rajagopalan inaugurated the 1992 Mid-Term Meeting of the Group on Tuesday, May 19, at the Sheraton Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey.
FORMAL OPENING Looking towardthe future he saidthat Turkey intendsto furtherstrengthen its nationalresearch capacity by meansof a Welcomingdelegates to the 1992Mid-Term Meeting majornew nationalproject. This will be partially fundedby (MTM92), Mr. ErkanBenli, Under-Secretary,Ministry of theWorld Bank andwill cover suchactivities as training, Agricultureand Rural Affairs, Governmentof Turkey, infrastructuredevelopment and the formulationof a 1O-year describedhow CGIAR centershad workedwith their Turkish strategicplan for agriculturalresearch. This new activity will counterpartsto improvedomestic agriculture. undoubtedlyhelp Turkey developfurther its partnership He commendedthe CGIAR systemfor its majorconttibu- activitieswith internationalagricultural organizations. tion to alleviatingworld hunger,and for its effectivesupport to He concludedby announcingthat Turkey was considering the continueddevelopment of Turkey’s agriculture. an invitationto join the CGIAR. He pointedout that agricultureis an importantsector of the The CGIAR Chairmansaid that presentationson Turkey’s Turkish economy. Some41 percentof the country’seconomy agriculturaldevelopment made the previousday at Yalova, is rural based,and agriculture employs 49 percentof the combinedwith the Under-Secretary’accounts of the policy nationalworkforce. It provides17.5 percent of GDP and 18.1 perspectivesthat governthose efforts, reinforced the impres- percentof all exportearnings. Half of all exportsare derived sionthat Turkey is committedto usingits agriculturalheritage from agriculturalmaterial. asthe basisfor growth anddevelopment in the presentand the In keepingwith the economicimportance of agriculturethe future. governmentin 1920established a comprehensiveagricultural Turkey’s agriculturalpolicies and programs, and the strong researchsystem which haddeveloped into the existingstruc- effortsmade by researchers,farmers and policymakers to ture. The variouscomponents of this structuremaintained a strengthenthe farmingsector, provided a fitting contextfor the continuingrelationship with CGIAR centers. MTM92 to be heldin Istanbul. This was madepossible by an Collaborationbegan at the time of the greenrevolution, invitation from the Governmentof Turkey,and by the coopera- whenseveral improved Mexican varieties of wheatwere tion of officials from the Ministry of Agricultureand Rural introducedto Turkey on a largescale. As a result,wheat yields Affairs duringseveral months of planning. The Chairman in Turkey increasedconsiderably in the morefavorable thankedthe Government,the Under-Secretary,Ministry environmentsof the coastalareas. This relationshiphas officials andothers who helpedwith arrangementsfor the expandedand diversified since, to includemany crops and meeting. centers.CIMMYT, CIAT, CIP, ICARDA, IFPRI and The Chairmanadded that successfulcollaboration in ICRISAT areamong Turkey ’s partners.An importantbenefit planningand arranging the CGIAR Mid-Term Meetingwas in of theselinkages has been capacity building. keepingwith the senseof partnershipthat hasdeveloped over He saidthat Turkey enjoysa specialrelationship with severalyears between Turkey ’s nationalagricultural research ICARDA, “our next door neighbor.” Collaborationwith systemand CGIAR centers.Pointing out that severalCGIAR CIMMYT is governedby a formal agreementwhich provides centerswere involved in thesecollaborative efforts, the for joint researchon the developmentof winter wheat Chairmansummarized the highlightsof researchcollaboration germplasm.In the early 1980sICARDA usedTurkish betweenTurkey ’s scientistsand these centers. institutionsin centralAnatolia for advancedtesting of its cereal On the basisof this well-establishedpartnership, he said,it andfood legumegermplasm and since the late 198Os, was fitting that Turkey shouldmove from beinga participantin ICARDA hassupported the efforts in wheatresearch by the andbeneficiary of CGIAR-supportedresearch to becomingan TurkishGovernment and CIMMYT hasprovided support activesponsor of the CGIAR system. servicesin areassuch as pathology, stress tolerance, etc. Turkey is a countrywith a strongagricultural tradition, a The Under-Secretarypointed out that following the emer- growingresearch sector and already with a variety of linkages genceof the new Turkish speakingand neighboring republics with CGIAR centers.Membership in the CGIAR will in no of westernand central Asia, Turkey had madecontact and way reducethe benefitsthat Turkey receivesthrough collabo- attemptedto developresearch linkages with agricultural ration with CGIAR centersbut would intensifyTurkey ’srole institutionsin thoseregions. Turkey would encouragethe in the globalagricultural research community. participationof CGIAR centersand donor agencies in this As the CGIAR continuesto play its role asa catalystof activity. development,the Chairmanconcluded, it mustalso continue to
1 grow with the assistanceof dedicatedand resourcefulnew l TAC’s most recentreview resultedin a preliminary set of members. He looked forward to Turkey becominga member proposalsthat were presentedto the Group at ICW9 1. of the CGIAR and being part of this growth. l Even before that, however,new directions,and a new missionstatement were agreedupon at ICW90, in connec- CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS tion with the expansionof the CGIAR system.
Openingthe businesssessions of MTM92, the Chairman said l Two major issuesraised at ICW90 - ecoregionalresearch that during his short period in office, membersof the Group and linkageswith nationalagricultural researchsystems - had helpedhim to gain insightsinto the workings of the were re-examinedthe following year (Paris,MTM91). CGIAR system. The consultationhe convenedin London l At ICW91, TAC’s proposalson CGIAR priorities were (February 1992) sharpenedhis perceptionof the challenges extensivelydiscussed. Broad agreementwas reachedin facing the systemand the opportunitiesahead. His visits to most areas,but somedifferences of approachor perception four CGIAR centerswere particularly rewarding. were also evident. The interestsand responsibilitiesof IFPRI, ICRISAT, CIAT This record makesit clear, he said, that the examinationat and ICARDA vary. They are neverthelesscharacterized by Istanbulof TAC’s proposedpriorities movesthe Group toward commonalityof purpose,a strong senseof dedicationand an the conclusionof a process. In dealing with theserecommen- immensecommitment to the goals and objectivesof the dations,the Group would in fact be reaffirming principles system. alreadyenunciated and fully discussed.Thus, on the topic of He was pleasedto find that researchat thesecenters was priorities, closurewas possibleand desirable. orientedto addressingpractical problemsfaced by countriesin Strategyformulation would be the obvious next stepfrom different situations. There was clear evidence,too, of that of reafftrming priorities. Strategyformulation was the intercentercollaboration and of interactionbetween centers and subjectof the informal CGIAR consultationat London. A nationalresearch systems. summaryreport on that consultationhas been circulated. Mr. He had seengreat potential for the developmentof agricul- Walter Falcon, who moderatedthat consultation,would report tural strategiesin individual countriesderived from the new further at Istanbul,setting the stagefor a wider discussion knowledgeproduced in the centers. And yet, the Chairman under two broad headings: strategiesand structure,and added,this linkage is not often made. resourceenvelopes for CGIAR centers. Turning to the Mid-Term Meeting the Chairmansaid that, Pointing out that questionswhich involve the inter-linked in keepingwith the wishesof the Group expressedearlier, the issuesof strategies,structure and resourceallocation can be substanceof the agendais issues-orientedand the numberof settledonly with full consultationamong all thoseinvolved, participantsis relatively low. including the centers,the Chairmansuggested that at Istanbul In sucha setting,a vigorous exchangeof views can take the Group might seekto provide TAC with clear guidelines place,leading to “closure” on agendaitems that havebeen on ratherthan attemptto reachdefinitive conclusions.This will the table for sometime, and to clarity on new items. help the committeeto developits recommendationsinto their His commentswere not a requestfor haste,the Chairman final form. said,but for productive useof the time that CGIAR members On the financial resourcesside, too, the Chairmansaid, generouslyallocate to the enterprise. discussionwill be of a preliminary natureprobably leadingto The MTM92 agendawas both interestingand complex. approvalin principle of TAC’s resourceenvelope proposals. Someagenda items were of direct relevanceto shapingthe TAC and the centerswill both feel more comfortablelaunching future of the CGIAR. Theseincluded priorities, strategies, the next round of budgetarydiscussions on that basis. completionof the expansionexercise, resource allocation and If memberscould make more optimistic predictionsfor the the Group’s decisionmakingprocess. Two externalreviews future about their own contributions,TAC would, of course, were up for discussionas well. Other issuessuch as intellec- needto revise its estimatesand will no doubt be pleasedto do tual property rights, biotechnologyand UNCED had implica- tions which extendedbeyond the CGIAR. Both setsof issues so. challengedmembers to define priorities that could determine Two agendaitems, thoseconcerning forestry and fisheries, the impact of CGIAR centersfor many yearsto come,the were part of the CGIAR expansionprocess. Ibe Group would Chairmansaid. receivea report on CIFOR (Centrefor InternationalForestry Describing CGIAR priorities and strategiesas “ the center- Research)from ACIAR (AustralianCentre for International piece of this MTM agenda,”he suggestedit might be helpful to AgriculturaI Research),the agencyappointed to implement all participantsif he placedthe priorities-settingexercise in CGIAR decisionson forestry, and an externalreview of perspectivewith the following brief recapitulation. ICLARM (InternationalCenter for Living Aquatic Resources Management). l In 1987 (Montpellier, MTM87) the Group decidedthat the Considerationof thoseitems (i.e., CIFOR and ICLARM) TechnicalAdvisory Committee(TAC) shouldreview would in effect bring to a close the currentphase of expansion. CGIAR priorities every five years.
2 The decisionto include vegetablesresearch in the CGIAR and numberof questionsthat neededfurther examinationand to recognizethe contribution madeby AVRDC (Asian agreedthat a final set of proposedpriorities shouldbe pre- VegetableResearch and DevelopmentCenter) remains sentedat MTM92. unchangedbut action on this front would take placeonly when Thesefinal proposalswould be presentedin the contextof political circumstancespermit. The CGIAR Secretariathas their translationinto five-year resourceenvelopes, and their beenactive in seekingto bring this matter to closureand no longer-termimplications for the structureof the CGIAR doubt will continue to pursueall legitimatepossibilities. system. Endorsementby the Group of the proposedresource During the past four years,the Chairmansaid, the CGIAR envelopeswould allow preparationof five-year programplans experienceda certain elementof ferment. It went through two by the centers. priority settingexercises - one in connectionwith the Also at ICW91, there was a strong feeling amongall expansionof the system;the other, more formal, now reaching sectionsof the CGIAR systemfor working toward the finality. The system’straditional accenton productivity was redefinition of a system-widestrategy. There was a consensus redefinedto keep it in balancewith environmentalprotection. that a synthesizingexercise by a small group could move the Internationaldevelopments including questionsof trade,the processalong. lossof geneticdiversity and biotechnologyhad thrust them- Consequently,the CGIAR Chairmanconvened a consulta- selveson the CGIAR. The number of CGIAR centershas tion at London in February 1992. A report on that consulta- jumped rapidly from 13 to 16,possibly soonto be 18. All this tion hasbeen distributed within the system. took placeagainst the backgroundof increasedinternational At MTM92, Mr. Walter Falcon who servedas Moderator at competitionfor developmentassistance funds. the consultation,reported on its main outcomes. Changeis usually exciting, but can be dauntingas well. Mr. Falcon said that he would summarizethe major themes Someof the changesthat have takenplace in and aroundthe that emergedfrom the consultationunder 10 points which CGIAR have,therefore, tended to causedisquiet particularly focusedon someorganizational issues, some funding issues, amongCGIAR scientists.Change, and even an elementof somesubstantive issues and somecommunications issues. turbulence,are inevitablein dealing with agriculturewhich is Most of them were actually talked about. Somewere in the relatedto human needsand, therefore,cannot be static. But undercurrentand in the back rooms. Almost all start with the betweenperiods of changeor ferment there must also be phrase“ a concernabout ” or “a concernwith. ” periodsof tranquility in which effective agriculturalresearch . There was genuinelya concernat the London meeting can take place. that “businessas usual” was not going to work any more. After four fairly hectic years,it is time to move away from This is becausethe CGIAR systemwas at a new point in its continuing ferment at the consultativelevel, providing CGIAR history that had to do with the proposedexpansion, and with centerswith breathingspace for continuedresearch efforts, he the fact that the systemwas facing new seriousbudget added. This would provide the CGIAR with more opportuni- constraintsof the kind that it had not dealt with for a very long ties for informal, thought-provokingconsultations of the kind time in its history. Adding to this, was the bureaucratizationof that were experiencedin London. The long-term impact of all the systemand the maturity problemsthat arise when an theseefforts would substantiallybenefit the world’s poor and institution suchas the CGIAR movesfrom a first generationto hungry. a secondgeneration of leadership,at all levels. Under the samerubric of “businessas usualwon ’t work” is CGIAR PRIORITIES, STRATEGIES AND RESOURCES the needto come to grips with environmentaland natural resourceissues: and to define the system’smost effective Context and Consultation relationshipwith environmentalgroups. The systemalso had to take note of the fact that with At MTM92, the Group resumeddiscussion of TAC’s surplusesand declining real pricesof commoditiesin the proposalsfor priorities, strategies,structure and resource developedworld, the CGIAR systemwith its emphasison allocationin the CGIAR system. agriculturalgrowth in developingcountries is a “tough sell” Discussionbegan at ICW9 1 when the Group considered amongdonors. two documentsprepared by TAC, A Review of CGIAR To deal with this concern,Mr. Falcon suggestedthat the Priorities: Advanced Working Draft, which provided a CGIAR systembadly needsa new crisp 15page statement framework for assigningrelative priorities by activities, pointing the way to the future.
agroecologies,regions, production sectorsand commodities: l There was a generalconcern that the successstories, of and a secondpaper which was a summaryof the first. which thereare many, had not been told well enough,widely After a searchingdiscussion* of TAC’s draft proposals,the enoughand clearly enough. Group reachedbroad agreementon severalthemes, raised a The whole questionof impact in telling that story better is a ‘For a full account, seeInternational Centers Week 1991, Summary major conclusionof the London group, and it is probably a of Proceedings and Decisions, CGIAR Secretariat, December 1991. focus that externalmanagement and program review teams needto deal with much more than they have done in the past. former Soviet Union in the CGIAR orbit. There wasa long
l There was concernabout the administrativestructure of discussionabout livestock,as well, and about the needfor the system. clarity in upstream/downstreamissues.
Pointing out that there was great unhappinessat ICW91 on l There was a concernabout strategicresearch. This was this score,Mr. Falcon suggestedthat someof the problems most evidentduring discussionson the ecoregionalconcept. It noted could be handledby the establishmentof an executive was generally felt that clarity was neededon how the existing committee. centerswould and should take on the ecoregionalresource and In the absenceof an executivecommittee, everything falls environmentalsystems questions. to TAC. TAC doesfive-year planning and strategy,annual l There was concernabout communication. reviewsof programs,budget allocationsand so on. To say this The really good thing about the consultationat London was is not to condemnTAC. Alex McCalla and his colleagues that 25 people arounda table for three days in an information perform exceptionallywell, but they are caught up in the settingcould really go at the issues. They found that a lot of wrong structure,with too many functions. apparentdisagreements were simply due to the fact that they If an executivecommittee is not in the cards,he asked, did not understandone another. would the Group think about at leastcreating five standing Extendingthis experienceacross the system,it is clear that committees,to deal with key functions suchas strategies, in termsof impact analysis,in terms of ecoregionalcontact, in programs,fund raising, resourceallocation and public aware- termsof organizingmeetings and of externalrelations, much ness? That would streamlineTAC and permit it to be more of needsto be done. Communicationwithin the system,and in a technicaladvisory group. externalrelations, is crucial.
l There is a concernwith InternationalCenters Week, Delegatescommended the Chairmanfor conveningthe particularly with the size of this undertaking. It is not centers London consultation. They complimentedMr. Falcon both for week any more, it is approachingcenters month. In termsof his written report on the consultation(distributed in advanceof participation,it is very hard to get abovepro-forma set MTM92) and for a succinctpresentation at Istanbul. speeches.Given the growing importanceof regional activities, In severalinterventions, support was expressedfor restmc- and the growing importance,potentially, of the regional turing CGIAR meetings,and for new approachesto dissemi- developmentbanks, and the fact that someof the ecoregional nating information about the CGIAR. activitiesare going to have to be done on a regional basis Somedelegates regretted the omissionof relationswith perhapsthe answeris to hold a couple of parallel sessions nationalresearch systems in the highlights of the consultation running by region at ICW. presentedat the Mid-Term Meeting. l There was greatconcern on funding levels, and on the In this connection,it was emphaticallysaid that several needto developprocesses that match supply and demandfor donorswould be unableto continuecontributing to the CGIAR funds. systemunless specific requests for funding were madeby Uniformly, the urgent needwas recognizedto matchplans beneficiarycountries. and budgets. There was also a feeling, that it is not possibleto cut center Priolith budgetsor hold them constantin real termsor add centers,and expectthe centersto do more on a net basis. At MTM 92 the Group adopteda comprehensiveset of l There was concernabout resourceallocation processes. priorities arrangedby activity, region, production sectorand It was hopedthat the envelopesystem planned by TAC commodity. Thesepriorities will guide the evolution of the would move toward an equitableprocess. It was agreed,as system’sprograms over the next decade. As a by-product,the well, that the continuedrole of the World Bank as “donor of Group endorseda new approachto priority settingdeveloped last resort” is essential. by TAC and describedin its report, Review of CGIAR l The seventhpoint was the role of the private sector. There was generalagreement that much could be learnedfrom the Priorities and Strategies - Part I. This sectionof the report private sector,and that this issueneeded to be exploredfurther coversTAC ’s analysis,conclusions and recommendationson perhapswith an in-depth discussionat ICW. priorities. Part II of the report dealswith the impact of CGIAB priorities on strategies,structure and resourceallocation. l There was concernabout substantivefocus. There was absolutelyno doubt on two fundamentalpoints: A summaryof TAC’s analysisfollows: germplasmis one pillar on which the systemrests, and sustainabilityis the second. To be quite clear, it was under- Activities. TAC’s analysisshowed that the current stoodthat to talk about sustainability,without talking about constellationof activities in the expandedCGIAR is largely productivity, was irrelevant congruentwith presentand future researchand research-related Other mattersdiscussed under substanceincluded the activity needs,but that much greateremphasis still needsto be possibility of including EasternEurope and nationsof the given to naturalresource conservation and management.
4 TAC listed five clustersof activities and maderecommen- The reviseddocument was not very different from the dationsfor each. versiondiscussed at ICW91. The methodologyand general approachare unchanged.Some numbers are different, Conservationand Managementof Natural Resources.TAC however,partly becauseof new pricing data,but also because recommendedan increasein this area,with approximately projectionswere made(in the revisedversion) for 17 centers, equalweight for ecosystemconservation and management, not 13 asbefore. and germplasmcollection, conservation,characterization Mr. McCalla said that a major recommendationfrom TAC and evaluation. was that there shouldbe a substantialincrease in priority allocationto the conservationand managementof natural Fermdasm Enhancementand Breeding. CGIAR centers resourcesincluding germplasmconservation, and an increased have an establishedrecord of successin this activity, and emphasison socioeconomic,public policy and public manage- TAC recommendeda slight increase,particularly in Asia ment research.These emphases, he added,were endorsedby where researchcould help to raisethe yield ceilings of food the Group at ICW91. crops. He remindedthe Group that at ICW91 TAC had said that on the basisof its analysisit could not find compelling reasons DeveloDmentand Managementof ProductionSvstems. for a continuedadjustment of CGIAR resourcesin the direc- TAC recommendeda reduction in theseactivities over the tion of Africa and away from Asia. Further analysishad long term, as national researchsystems should take over confirmed that view. much of this work which is location specific. In the broad areaof commoditiesresearch, TAC was not recommendingmajor changes,he added. TAC’s analysis Socioeconomic.Public Policv and Public Management suggestedthat therewas overinvestmentin livestockresearch. Research.TAC recommendedincreased priority for these This issuewould be re-examined,however, on the basisof the activities for which there is an increasingneed in all externalprogram and managementreviews of ILCA and developingregions. Among the issuesthat needto be ILRAD, and the livestock study led by Winrock International. addressedare land use,sustainability, poverty alleviation Mr. McCalla remindedthe Group that they were engagedin and self-reliancein food. a sequentialprocess. They had to move on from setting priorities to defining strategiesand structureand allocating Institution Building (including Training. Information, resources. Organizationand ManagementCounselinrz: and Networks). The Chairmandrew attentionto this point as well, remind- TAC emphasizedthe needfor supportinginstitution ing the Group that becauseproposals for strategies,structure building in developingcountries, but recommendeda and resourceallocation were basedon priorities, it would be reductionin someof theseactivities, particularly technical difficult to move aheadwith further discussionuntil agreement assistance. was reachedon a set of priorities. Agroecologies. TAC recommendedan emphasison Delegatescommended TAC for the thoroughnessof its tropical agroecologicalzones, and the cool subtropics.For approach,for its transparencyand for establishinga priority- forestry, priority was recommendedfor tropical zones. settingmethodology which someCGIAR membersmight even Regions. For the long term, TAC’s recommendationis that wish to adopt in their own institutions. the emphasisbe shifted from Africa to Asia. The shift will They were living through a period of stringencyin the begin in the short term, and evolve to the proposedlevels over availability of overseasdevelopment assistance funds. Efforts, time. suchas thoseundertaken by TAC, to place ODA funding on a Production Sectors. TAC indicatedthat the magnitudeof rational basishelped to bring about clarity in donor countries value of production is greatestin agriculture,followed by and institutions. forestry, then by fisheries. New initiatives in forestry and TAC’s analysiswas uniformly well received. TAC’s fisheriesshould not be at the expenseof agriculturalresearch. recommendationfor re-emphasizingnatural resource manage- Commodities. A detailedanalysis of commodity priorities ment was fully endorsed.l%e needto devisenew and concrete was presentedfor agriculture,forestry and fisheries. This researchmethodology in this areawas accepted.At the same includedincreased emphasis on root and tubers,oil crops, time, it was viewed as a high priority for the CGIAR, perhaps vegetables,bananas and plantain, and forestry researchthrusts requiring reorientationand innovationat centers. endorsedby the 1988 Bellagio Task Force on Forestry. Concernwas expressedthat livestock researchmight be Reviewing this final versionof TAC’s recommendations downgmdedin the CGIAR, despiteits importanceto the presentedfor discussionat MTM92, Mr. McCalla said that farming sectorin many developingcountries. The interaction they reflectedviews expressedby CGIAR membersat ICW91 of livestock with other aspectsof farming shouldalso be as well as calculationsresulting from updateddata. considered,in the view of somedelegates. There was generalacceptance of the principlesunderlying and incisive commentwould help TAC as it reviewedits own TAC’s approachto national systems.It was stressed,however, proposalsand as it continuedits dialogue with centers,the that linkagesbetween CGIAR centersand national systems leadersof national systemsand others. shouldnot be weakened.More ways shouldbe found - Somecenters have begun to play a strongerecoregional through networks,for instance-by which the centerscould role. They would benefit from the Group’s endorsementof benefit from their interactionswith national systems. that role and from suggestionsfor how best it shouldbe carried The importanceof the relationshipwith national systems out. An importantelement of ecoregionalactivities at CGIAR was emphasizedby both the representativesof board chairper- centersshould be interaction with national systems.Endorse- sonsand centerdirectors. The latter would be meetingwith 46 ment and clarification of this connectionwould be helpful, the leadersof Sub-SaharanAfrica for a two-day meetingin June. Chairmansuggested. Mr. McCalla took note of the views expressed,and said that In a brief overview, Mr. McCalla said that an important TAC would continueits examinationof someof theseissues. characteristicof Chapter 13 was that it fleshedout with even The Chairmanobserved that broad consensushad emerged greaterdetail than before the parametersof ecoregional on TAC’s proposals. The priorities recommendedby TAC and research,particularly the specificrange of expectedoutputs, endorsedby the Group could, therefore,serve as the basisfor a the relationshipto natural resourcemanagement and linkages discussionof strategiesand structure. with nationalprograms. The current iteration would not satisfy everybody,Mr. Strategiesand Structure McCalla said,but it was a further stepforward. The next setof responseswould be from the centerswhich were closely The Group completeda first round of discussionon TAC’s examiningthe conceptitself as well as the operationalaspect of proposalsfor strategiesand structure,contained in Chapter 13 the concept. The centers,Mr. McCalla suggested,were better of the Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies - Part II. suitedthan TAC to provide definitions in detail. The Group agreedthat TAC’s proposalsshould serveas the Mr. McCalla also sharedwith the Group the processby working basisfor further elaboration,clarification and develop- which TAC selecteda set of ecoregionsfor concentration. ment. This will be done in consultationwith the centersand TAC’s conclusionswere basedon a match betweenthe needs other stakeholders. of ecoregionsand actual or potential activities in existing TAC’s approachto strategiesand structureflows from its centers. medium- and medium/long-termvision for the evolution of the TAC had undertakena careful analysisof institutional CGIAR systemwhich was presentedto the Group when it was optionsfor the activities it had recommended;in effect, engagedin expandingthe CGIAR system. TAC definesthe exploring what structurewas best suitedto the strategies medium term as covering five years,the medium/longterm as envisaged.TAC did not presenta fixed set of recommenda- 20 yearsand the long term as extendingtoward a horizon about tions on structure,however, because the relationshipbetween which detaileddiscussion is not practicable. strategiesand structurewould have to be carefully reviewed In the medium/longterm, TAC envisionsthe CGIAR with the centersand othersbefore a definitive setof options systemundertaking two separatebut complementaryresearch was presented. activities- global and ecoregional. Mr. McCalla pointed out that the linkagesbetween Global programswill concentrateon strategicresearch on ecoregionaland global activitieswere complementaryin terms an agreedslate of commoditiesand subjects. Global research of conceptand must be complementaryin terms of operation. will be conductedwith closeattention to regionalrequirements That critical set of linkageswould be at the core of TAC’s and programs. Ecoregionalactivities will cover strategicand applied future consultations. researchon natural resourceconservation and management, Mr. EugeneTerry, Chairmanof the Center Directors production systemsand location-specificaspects of commodity Committee(CDC), said that his colleagueswould be proactive improvement. TAC proposedthe establishmentof six in meetingthe challengesposed by the need for ecoregional ecoregionalprograms -. two in Sub-SaharanAfrica, one in the research.He saidthat someof the issuesthat confrontedthem West AsiaJNorthAfrica region, two in Asia and one in Latin as they moved forward with this task were the needto define America. clearly partnershipmechanisms with nationalsystems; the TAC went on to offer somepreliminary ideason the needfor additionalresources; the needto maintain a judicious institutionaland structuraloptions for carrying out these balancebetween crop researchand natural resourcesmanage- activities; the capacitiesavailable and thoserequired for the ment research;and ensuringmaximum flexibility in putting future. TAC stressedthat the relationshipsbetween global and togetherthe institutionsrequired. ecoregionalmechanisms would he “entirely complementary.” TAC’s proposalsformed the basisof a vibrant discussion, The Chairmanreminded the Group that TAC’s proposals covering conceptualissues as well as mattersof operational shouldbe consideredas being in the form of a draft. Vigorous detail. TAC’s proposalsrepresented a “first cut,” and it was
6 felt that the Group had a long way to go before reaching processshould be transparent,and relatedto the missionof the finality on someof the issues. For that reason,the opportunity CGIAR. to participatein the developmentof TAC’s proposalswas Commodities. The emphasison ecoregionalactivity welcomed. Overall, the Group supportedTAC ’s approach, shouldnot detractfrom commodity activities,an areain which while suggestingareas in which further elaborationor clarifica- the CGIAR hashad great successand in which it hasa well- tion are required. establishedcomparative advantage. Moreover, commodity The following major subjectareas were coveredin the improvementremained so significant a factor in food produc- discussion. tivity that its neglectwould meana loss to the international Ekoregional Research. The ecoregionalconcept was community. There was a clear sensethat naturalresources overwhelmingly re-endorsed,with both TAC and CGIAR managementresearch and commodity researchwere not centersbeing encouragedto move from conceptto operations. mutually exclusive. They had alreadybeen accepted as twin The needfor the CGIAR systemto intensify researchinto the pillars of the systemthat would foster increasedfood prcxiuc- managementof natural resourceswas deemedto be crucial. tivity through sustainableagriculture. It was pointed out, as There was generalappreciation of the seriesof efforts that had well, that sustainabilityconcerns should not be restrictedto beenmade to add substanceand working detail to the concept marginalor fragile areas. High potential areaswere of equal as originally presented.At the sametime, it was acknowl- importancebecause they would be the sourceof increased edgedthat the responsibilityfor defining more specificswould productivity in the foreseeablefuture. continueto challengethe systembecause there were no Structure. Streamliningthe CGIAR systemwas seenas, establishedguidelines for naturalresources management potentially, a positive development. The point was made, research.Elaborating the specificswould necessarilyinvolve however,that proposalsmade so far appearedmore likely to working out measurementsby which the impact and successof preservethe statusquo than to usherin changes.If a large ecoregionalresearch could be determined. numberof optionswere presentedto existing institutionsit National Systems. While acknowledgingthat ecoregional was likely that eachwould pick an option with which it felt researchpresents the CGIAR systemwith a strategicresearch comfortable;usually, an arrangementclosest to its existing challengeof internationalsignificance, there was general methodof operations. The questionof structure,therefore, agreementthat the tasksfacing the systemcould be effectively neededfurther scrutiny, on the basisof practicality and carriedout only in full collaborationwith national systems.A systemicjudgement. Where changeswere required,they rangeof responsibilitiesthat might fall on national systemswas shouldbe real and not cosmetic. Old waresshould not be described.They includedparticipation in settingout the repackaged.Many variationswere possibleas the system agendafor natural resourcesmanagement research, elaboration soughtthe most appropriatestructure to work on agreed of criteria governingecoregional research and full participation priorities. Somecenters might be able to conductboth in researchactivities. Capacitybuilding in national systems ecoregionaland global research.Existing experiencewith would have to proceedconcurrently with collaborationin intercentercollaboration should also be reviewed for any research.Innovative forms of collaborationwould be required. institutionaloptions it might suggest.Notions concerningthe In this connection,the useof networks was supported. Some amalgamationof existing centersshould be cautiouslyeval- national systemshad proposedthat CGIAR centersshould uated. Final proposalsshould be basedon a m-examinationof work through nationally managedsubstations. TAC was optionsby TAC and the centers. encouragedto review theseissues in consultationwith national Mr. McCalla, taking note of the points made,said he systemrepresentatives as well as within the system. interpretedthe thrust of the discussionas an authorizationto Selectivity. In severalinterventions, the CGIAR system move aheadinto the next phaseof consultation. He will report was cautionedagainst attempting to do too much. There are back to ICW92 and againat ICW93. many actorsin the arenaof agriculturalresearch, and the CGIAR shouldnot seekto accomplishmore than what its ResourceAllocation resourcesand its critical massof expertisepermitted. In this connection,TAC ’s suggestionthat, at leastinitially, the system The Group accepteda recommendationfrom TAC which shouldconcentrate on a few agroecologicalregions was links priorities to resourceallocation. It endorseda set of 1998 commended.TAC could rethink the regionsit selected- resourceenvelopes as the startingpoint to guide the centersas basedon suggestionsat MTM92 or at other consultations- they draft new five-year plans and for budget-relateddiscus- but the principle of selectivity shouldremain paramount. TAC sionsamong TAC, the centersand the Group. and the systemwere urged to choosecarefully what activities TAC’s recommendationsare basedon a translationof shouldactually be undertaken;and to choosescientifically. priorities into program efforts acrossthe system,and on an Theseactivities, it was felt, shouldbe transferablein termsof assumptionof constantfunding with someadditionality for concepts,principles and methodology. Similarly, the selection agroforesuy,forestry and fisheries.
7 Theserecommendations are presentedas indicative ranges Among the questionsraised on mattersof detail were the of 1998core funding for the centersin Chapter 14 of Review reasonsfor a holdbackby TAC, the perceptionthat “older” of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies - Part II. An indicative centerswould suffer most, the needto find a place for net- resourceenvelope is presentedfor eachcenter, and centers works within the CGIAR systemand the dangerthat centers were askedto submit to TAC budgetproposals and program would play off “core” against“ complementary”programs and plansat both 10 percentabove and below the resourceenve- could therebysubvert the allocationprocess. lope figure. A very strongpreference was expressedfor the continued Openingthe discussion,Mr. McCalla outlined the process role of the World Bank as “donor of last resort” by which TAC had moved from a system-levelreview of On behalf of the centers,Mr. Terry said that centersviewed funds,with 1991as a point of reference,to individual recom- the issuesrelating to the reducedfunding envelopesin termsof mendationsfor eachcenter, consistent with the priorities a broaderproblem, that of declining contributionsto the adoptedby the Group. CGIAR system. Centerdirectors are sensitiveto this problem. In defining resourceenvelopes, he said,TAC was mindful They want it to be known that they will be proactive in terms of the fact that they were dealing with real well-established of their efforts to mobilize more resources. institutions(the centers),each with its own programs. The He pointed out, too, that the centershave “ many masters” question,therefore, was how to establishthe most reasonable suchas donors,boards and partnersin nationalprograms. In interfacebetween a new set of priorities and functioning whateverdirection the centersmove - whether it be in terms centers. Mr. McCalla commendedhis colleaguesfor the effort of resourceallocation or any other activity - their actions they had put into the exercise. haveto be sanctionedby boardsrelevant to the needsof Mr. McCalla pointed out that the resourceenvelopes partners,attractive to donorsand consistentwith CGIAR representedonly an overall number. Translatingthose priori ties and strategies. numbersinto specificprograms and budgets,within the As the discussionevolved, two issueswere raisedfor framework of establishedstrategies, would be up to each responseand action: center. The next stepswould, therefore,have to be takenby the centersin the context of their medium-termplanning. TAC l the specificsfor ensuringthat TAC and the centerswould will presentits final funding recommendationsto the Group at move in tandemtoward a final definition of allocations: ICW93. l mechanismsby which program thrustscould be reported At this point, he said, TAC soughtpreliminary general both by budgetarycategories and program categories,thus endorsementof the resourceenvelopes. That would trigger the making it possiblefor the CGIAR to presenta strong next phaseof planning, and TAC-center consultations.Each externalprofile on, for instance,its environmentalactivities. centercould argueits casefor more, and TAC would consider thesesubmissions in relation to the criteria on which resource In responseto the first point, Mr. McCalla outlined the envelopesare basedas well as the overall funding situation. following schedule:center directors, the TAC Chairmanand The Chairmanreminded the Group that what was expected otherswill hold preliminary discussionsin June;a TAC- from them was a closescrutiny of TAC’s proposals,and a nominatedpanel would conducta system-widereview between preliminary response.This would help both TAC and the June 1992and May 1993of existing ecoregionalactivity; and centersto move the processalong. an open workshopwill be held at PuertoRico immediately TAC was commendedfor its systematiceffort to move after MTM93. Thesearrangements would provide for a high sequentiallyfrom priorities through strategiesand structureto degreeof interactionand input. resourceallocation, and for providing guidelineswith which On the secondissue, Mr. McCalla undertookto examine the centerscould proceedwith the task of reconciling TAC’s methodologiesat the World Bank and at USAID that could calculationswith their requirements.The centerswere living facilitate sucha reporting mode. institutionsand should not be expectedto approachthis Reviewing the discussion,the Chairmansaid that conver- responsibilityin a mechanisticway. gencewas achievedon threebroad fronts: In this connection,there was a senseamong some donors (l)The Group endorsedthe financial assumptionsfor the that the guidelinesprovided shouldbe amplified and made 1994-1998planning period, which maintainscore funding more explicit. Unlessthat was done,it was felt, the centers at the current level in real terms,augmented by additional would find it difficult to move from Chapters12 and 13 of the resourcesfor agroforestty,forestry and fisheries. TAC paperto Chapter 14. It was acknowledgedthat the resourceallocation process (2)The Group endorsedthe resourceenvelopes recommended was evolving, and that the situation would becomemore clear by TAC as startingpoints for five-year planning by asconsultations progressed between TAC and the centers. centers. Therewould be convergingcoherence from this process. (3)The Group agreedthat extensiveinteractions among TAC, Nevertheless,further clarification was consideredappropriate the centersand othersshould precede final decisionsat by somedelegates. ICW93.
8 TAC CHAIRMAN’S REPORT At MTM92, Mr. Bevegepointed out that developments toward the establishmentof CIFOR were basedon wide Mr. McCalla,reporting on TAC mattersnot on the MTM92 consultationsboth within and outsidethe CGIAR system, agenda,drew the Group’s attentionto four issuesthat had including especiallythe internationalforestry researchcommu- engagedthe committee- plant geneticresources, biosafety, nity. He thankedthose who had madeprogress possible. intellectualproperty rights and the strategicplanning process He said that the internationalinterest shown in the imminent for the InternationalPlant GeneticResources Institute (IPGRI), establishmentof CIFOR was encouragingbecause it indicated the nameby which IBPGR will be known when it reachesfull the new institution would begin life with strong support. The independence. intensity and level of interestshowed that expectationsof what CIFOR and the CGIAR could achievewere high - at a time TAC had reviewed an IBPGR paperon plant genetic of great concernover forestry issues. He hopedthat CIFOR resources- as distinct from intellectualproperty rights and would not be the sourceof overexpectation. biosafety- in which much greaterintercenter cooperation was Settingup a new internationalcenter required sponsorship undertakenin responseto changesin global perspectiveson of the proposedinstitution by severalcountries and this plant geneticresources. process,despite legal complications,was underway. ACIAR He had suggestedthat this paper shouldbe discussedby had held discussionswith Japanand the United States. Other centerdirectors at their next meeting (Nairobi, June 1992). countrieswere also willing to offer their sponsorship,if that Thereafter,it would be re-examinedby TAC and could was necessary. eventuallyemerge as an updatedCGIAR policy paper. The proposedBoard of Trusteeswhich would actually TAC’s contribution to system-widediscussion of intellec- launchCIFOR representedwhat ACIAR considereda balance tual property rights and biosafetyissues was substantial. in terms of experience,regional interests,scientific subject Although strategicplanning is strictly a matter for centers, areasand gender. The compositionof the board was preceded TAC had reviewed a draft strategicplan for IPGRI. by soundingsamong CGIAR members,and ACIAR’s recom- TAC continuedto be deeply involved in the externalreview mendationshad beencirculated within the Group. process,with eight to 10 reviews in train at any given moment. Mr. Bevegesought a responsefrom MTM92 to those Among the reviews in processis an intercenterreview on rice. recommendations,so that ACIAR could arrangefor the board An intercenterreview on ecoregionalapproaches within the to meet,be formally constitutedand get CIFOR off the ground. CGIAR was planned. The compositionof the board was discussed,with some The next major activity for TAC coversthe five-year delegatesexpressing concern that, as originally proposed,the program and budgetreviews which have to be completedby board would not be able to carry out its responsibilities. June 1993for recommendationto the Group at ICW93. The earlier boardproposals were viewed as weightedtoo Mr. McCalla and his colleagueswere commendedfor heavily on the sideof technicalexpertise. It was arguedthat carrying a heavywork load with rare skill and commitment. the needfor managementand financial expertisewere ne- glected. This could curtail CIFOR’s institution-building CIFOR - PROGRESS REPORT capacity. The point was made,too, that Europe was not adequately Mr. Ian Bevege,representing ACIAR (Australian Centrefor representedon the proposedboard, although the cradle of InternationalAgricultural Research,the implementingagency forest researchrests in Europe. Moreover, Europeandonors for the CGIAR decisionto establisha forestry researchcenter), would probably contributemore than half of CIFOR’s finances reportedto the Group on measurestaken toward settingup the in the foreseeablefuture. Centrefor InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR). In further elaborationof the issueof “balance” within the The Group expressedits satisfactionwith the process board, it was suggestedthat as a result of Europeanunder- followed by ACIAR and agreedthat it shouldcontinue along representation,CIFOR would be missing out on opportunities the samepath. In responseto severalinterventions during the to benefit fully from the region’s worldwide expertisein discussionit was agreedthat an additional membershould be tropical forestry. appointedto the CIFOR Board which ACIAR was bringing The following points covering other aspectsof the progress together. The new board memberwill representEurope ’s report cameup during the discussion: expertisein forestry. l The Group continuedto feel strongly, as it had said when The senseof the meeting was that the establishmentof deciding to setup a new forestry center,that CIFOR should CIFOR shouldnot be delayed. havea modestmanagement structure and follow a decen- In a written report circulatedto CGIAR membersin tralized style of operationas close as possibleto that of a advanceof MTM92, ACIAR set out developmentsthat had “center without walls.” takenplace since ICW91. The report referred, in particular, to l For this reason,the Group agreedthat CIFOR shouldwork governance,a headquarterslocation for CIFOR, strategic in closecollaboration with existing researchinstitutions, planning and interim research,communications and finance. treatingsome of them as regional nodes.
9 l The Group felt that this collaborativepattern should be report urgedthat in order to achievemaximum impact ISNAR followed with other CGIAR centers,as well aswith shouldpursue activities with potentialmultiplier effects. institutionssuch as IUFRO. The advisoryrole playedby The report saidas well that ISNAR shouldincrease its TAC in the current planningprocess was welcomed. efforts to integrateits institution building and trainingpro-
l Therewas a sensethat in the short term muchof CIFOR’s gramswith the researchcollaboration programs of other work would dependon existingknowledge. CIJ?ORshould, CGlAR centers. therefore,plan on coordinatingits programswith ongoing The report recommendedthat ISNAR’s core funding should researchnetworks and compatibleresearch activities be increasedby not lessthan $2 million in 1993with some including thosesponsored by FAO. continuinggrowth thereafter.
l Severaldelegates pointed out the needfor utilizing forestry Mr. Lewis, who introducedthe work of the paneland its researchexpertise in developingcountries. The body of report, told the Group that althoughthe panel hadsome knowledgeavailable was solid, but the numberof develop- criticismsto makeof ISNAR, its overwhelmingfinding wasa ing country expertsis small. Careshould be taken,there- very positiveoverall assessment. fore, not to denudedeveloping countries of their expertise. The panelbegan its work with someskepticis mand with * Thoseinvolved in planningthe establishmentof CIFOR critical expectationsof ISNAR. As it went deeperinto its task, wereurged to consultmore closelywith CGIAR cosponsors the panelreached the conclusionthat ISNAR was a very andnot to take themfor granted. effective institution for this stagein its development. 9 CIFOR wasurged to separategermplasm conservation and Mr. McCalla,commending the review panel’sreport, geneticresearch fro m plantationestablishment and manage- agreedwith the panel’sview that the natureand intensityof ment. The casewas stronglyargued, as well, for forest ISNAR’s relationswith nationalsystems involved complex policy research. and difficult decisionmakingissues.
l The delegatefro m India pressedhis country’scase for For this reason,he pointedout, ISNAR’s role as a research selectionas the headquarterslocation for CIFOR, becauseit basedservice, as opposedto purely a serviceorganization, met all the requisitecriteria for selection. (Six countriesare needsto be continuouslyreviewed and clarified. The natureof beingconsidered - India, Indonesia,Malaysia, Philippines, ISNAR’s linkageswith other CGIAR centerssuch as, for Sri Lanka and Thailand.) instance,IFPRI and IIMI, alsoneeded elaboration. Respondingto the variouscomments, M r. Bevegeindicated Referringto the recommendationthat ISNAR’s corebudget that they would be taken into account. ACIAR is actingas an shouldbe increasedby $2 million, he said that the appropriate agenton behalf of the CGIAR systemand would do its bestto time for ISNAR to makethat requestwould be during the five- reflect consensusviews in its continuingwork. year programand budgetprocess. TAC, meanwhile,was not As a responseto the strongrepresentation that the current passingjudgement on the recommendation. proposalsfor compositionof the board may not be strong ISNAR’ s Board ChairmanM r. John Dillon saidthat the enoughin the areaof researchmanagement, and financial centerhad already endorsed 16 out of 17 recommendationsin expertise,and recognizingthat the majorconcerns on this issue the review panel’sreport. It had after very carefulconsider- were mainly from Europeanmembers, the Chairmansuggested ationrejected the recommendationthat the center’sProgram that ACIAR shouldseek additional expertise in this areaand Committeeshould not be a “committeeof the whole” (of the consideradding an additionalboard memberto deal with those Board). topics,possibly recruiting sucha personfro m within the The Group was informed,meanwhile, that the ISNAR Europeancommunity. Board had increasedits size from 12 to 14 members. Respondingto the panel’sview that ISNAR shouldweigh EXTERNAL REVIEWS the pros and consof relocatingthe center’sheadquarters, M r. Dillon reportedthat centermanagement studied this issuequite ISNAR exhaustively.It found, on balance,that therewould be no net benefit in relocatingISNAR. The Group discussedan externalreview of ISNAR con- ISNAR’s Director GeneralM r. ChristianBonte-Friedheim ductedby a panelchaired by Mr. JohnLewis. thankedM r. Lewis and panelmembers for a helpful report The panel’sreport emphasizedthe needto strengthen which containedboth commendationsand criticism. nationalagricultural research systems in developingcountries He further thankedhis colleaguesat ISNAR for their and the importanceof ISNAR’s role in this context.The report contributionto the work of the review panelby way of suggested,however, that the rangeof ISNAR’s tasksexceeds backgroundmaterial and information. the sizeof the institution. For an institution as smallas ISNAR, the tremendous Accordingly, the report advisedISNAR to be selective amountof work requiredfor the review processusually about initiating new activities,as well as aboutthe natureand involved someinterruption of day-to-dayoperations. ISNAR intensityof its relationswith different nationalsystems. The staff put in an extra effort, however,and did not disappointany
10 of its developingcountry partnerswhile preparingfor and ICLARM participatingin the review exercise. ISNAR appreciatedthe commentsmade by developing The Group decidedthat ICLARM shouldbe admittedinto country researchersto membersof the review panel.Their the CGIAR system. praisedemonstrated the impact of ISNAR’s work. At ICW90, the Group expandedits researchagenda to Mr. Borne-Friedheim,while respondingin detail to the include,among other activities,international fisheries research. ICLARM hasbeen the only candidateto take on this variouscomments made by the review panel,provided the responsibility,and the Group required that the centershould be Group with an encapsulationof the center’splanned thrusts subjectedto an externalreview before a final decisionwas and programsin coming years. takenconcerning its admission. ISNAR will target its serviceson the needsof national Hence,the unusualprocedure of the CGIAR organizingan systemsat varying stagesof development,will cover a wide externalreview of an institution that was not part of the system rangeof researchpolicies, will forge strategicalliances with was followed. other organizationsand will seekmultipliers to increasethe The review panelrecommended that ICLARM shouldbe impact of its work, he said. admittedto the CGIAR at MTM92, subjectto the following Pointing out the essentialrole played by ISNAR, Mr. two conditions: Bonte-Friedheimargued the case-also madeby the review l An interim review shouldbe held in threeyears to deter- panel- for a greaterallocation of resources. mine how far ICLARM had progressedin its implementa- Membersof the Group complimentedthe panel on its work, tion of the panel’s recommendations;and and commendedISNAR for continuing to help developing 9 A “sunsetclause ” shouldbe setdown under which countriesto build up their nationalresearch capacity. ICLARM’s membershipin the CGIAR would lapsein six Severalparticipants referred to the complexitiesof the tasks yearsif it failed to meet CGIAR performancestandards. TAC supportedICLARM ’s admissioninto the CGIAR and facedby ISNAR, given the fact that national systemswere at endorsedthe proposalfor an interim review but did not support different stagesof developmentand that therewere many the imposition of a “sunsetclause. ” actorsinvolved. Mr. Larry Stifel, Chairmanof the External Review Panel, They agreedthat ISNAR should strengthenand diversify its summarizedtheir main findings which were embodiedin the linkages.The fact that ISNAR was collaboratingwith FAO, a report that was circulatedto membersin advanceof the Mid- CGIAR cosponsor,was commended.Urging the development Term Meeting. of other linkages,it was suggestedthat ISNAR might under- Broadly, the recommendationswere directedat helping take specialprojects to draw farmersinto the processof setting ICLARM to strengthenits managementstructure to conform priorities for agricultural research. with the programmaticresponsibilities of an international The point was also made that in addition to working with center. universitiesand other institutesof tertiary education,ISNAR The panel felt, too, that ICLARM shoulddefine more shouldwork more closely with the private sector,with clearly its proposedprograms in coral reef resourcesystems, professionalorganizations and with nongovernmental coastalresource systems and national researchsupport. organizations. Mr. PeterLarkin, Chairmanof the Board of ICLARM, and At the conclusionof the discussion,the Chairmannoted Mr. Ken MacKay, Director General,explained how the center agreementon the following points: would be respondingto the externalreview, and outlined the main thrustsof ICLARM’s strategicprogram. l The Group endorsedthe main thrust of the review panel’s The Group decidedto drop the suggested“sunset clause ” report; but agreedthat an interim review of ICLARM shouldbe held l The Group appreciatedthe thoroughnesswith which the in about threeyears. review was conductedand thankedMr. Lewis for his The Chairmanmade a strongplea that ICLARM shouldbe leadership; provided with additionalfunding so that fisheriesresearch l The Group noted that ISNAR’s responseto the report is could be carriedout effectively without the diversionof positive and that it had madegood progresswith the resourcesfrom existing centers. implementationof most of the panel’s recommendations; l The Group endorseda decisionby ISNAR to increasethe REGIONAL REPRESENTATION size of its Board from 12 to 14 and, by implication, en- dorsedthe correspondingamendment to ISNAR’s constitu- The Group endorseda review of regionalrepresentation in the tion. CGIAR preparedby a working group of the CGIAR Secre- The Chairmansaid he was confident that ISNAR, a vibrant tariat. organization,would incorporatethe commentsand suggestions The working group was set up in responseto a requestat the madeat MTM92 as it continuedits follow-up activities based Berlin Mid-Term Meeting (May 1988)that the questionof on the externalreview. regional representationshould be re-examinedin four years.
11 Recommendationsadopted by the Group at MTM92 will be directorsshould be the link betweenNARS constituencies implementedby the CGIAR Secretariatin cooperationwith and the decisionmakingprocess of the CGIAR. FAO. 9 A CGIAR Task Force will pursuethe operationaldetails of The working group said that it consideredthe review of the changesby discussionwith NARS in eachregion. regionalrepresentation as being particularly timely because The review was commendedfor its thoroughnessand five parallel trendsreinforced the needfor more effective clarity. The working group had producedan excellentreport, representationby national systemsin the CGIAR: delegatessaid, providing for enhancedlinkages with national The increasedregional emphasisin the way the CGIAR systems.These linkages were uniformly seenas vital to the setsits priorities. relevanceof the CGIAR. The needto mobilize the ecoregionalconcept approved by With somevariation, therewas generalagreement that the CGIAR for effective researchon natural resource regional representativesshould continue to be selectedthrough management.Both thesewill benefit from a permanent the FAO. The suggestionwas made,too, that arrangements channelfrom the Group to regional constituencies. shouldbe madefor regional representativesto presentthe The growing recognitionamong developing countries and CGIAR perspectiveat FAO fora. donorsalike, that regionally organizedresearch is a cost The Europeanregional representativeagreed with the proposalthat representationfrom his region shouldbe dropped. effective way to usethe limited financial and human Another regional representativeopposed this recommendation. resourcesof the developingcountries. A CGIAR membersuggested that given the global natureof An important number of donorsbelieve the CGIAR the CGIAR somemechanism was required for interaction shouldbe more demanddriven in formulating its policies betweenthe Group and scientistsand policymakersfrom and priorities. EasternEurope. Circumstancesfavored the establishmentof Perhapsmost importandy both now and in the future, an internationalresearch effort in EasternEurope. CGIAR membersseek strong and continuing reassurance The proposalfor direct contactsbetween regional represen- from the developingcountries that they benefit from, tativesand nationalprograms was welcomedand strongly appreciateand supportinternational agricultural research endorsed.This mechanismwas seenas vital and overdue. in the CGIAR centers. Different views were expressedabout the regional institutions CGIAR ScienceAdvisor Michael Collinson, Chairmanof through which effective interactioncould be arranged. the working group, pointed out that the focus of their report The possibility of engagingregional representativesin a was the linkage betweenregional representatives(chosen public awarenessrole was also supported. throughFAO regional conferences)and national programsin Overall, the Group felt that adequatefunds and careful the regionsthey represent. planning were both requiredfor the working group’s sugges- The orientationof the report was that global and regional tions to be implemented. The Group gave the CGIAR perspectivesare changing,and that the institution of regional Secretariatauthority, in consultationwith FAO, to interactwith representationat the CGIAR could be organizedto help national systemson strengtheningtheir role in the identifica- managethose emerging trends. tion of regional representatives. He emphasizedthat defining the role of regionalrepresenta- tives was not the issue,because that was settledin 1988. The INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, BIOSAFETY questionwas how to enableregional representativesto play AND BIODIVERSITY that role with maximum benefit to the constituenciesthey The Group unanimouslyadopted a working documenton representas well as to the CGIAR system. geneticresources and intellectualproperty. This documentis In approachingthis question,the working group was guided not a definitive policy statementbut reflects currentpractices to a considerableextent by responsesto a donor survey. A and representsbroadly held views within the CGIAR system. high proportion of donorswas convincedthat a strongereffort Adoption of the working documentis the most recentin a shouldbe madeto engagenational programsin consultations, seriesof stepstaken by the CGIAR to deal with the issues and to bring specific views emergingfrom theseconsultations involved. At InternationalCenters Week in 1991,for instance, to CGIAR meetings. Unfortunately, that processwas ham- a statementof principles on intellectualproperty rights, peredby a lack of funds. biosafetyand plant geneticresources was introducedfor the The working group madethe following recommendations Group’s considerationby Mr. Lukas Brader,co-chair of the for strengtheninglinkages with national systems: joint TAC-Center DirectorsCommittee on IntellectualProperty l The CGIAR will not seekthe appointmentof any more Rights and Plant GeneticResources. The Group took note of regional representativesfrom the FAO Europeanregion. the statementand decidedthat further consultationsshould take 9 A total of eight regional representativesshould sit at place and that the issuewould be revisited at the 1992Mid- CGIAR meetingsin future, eachrepresenting a subregion. Term Meeting.
l Attendanceof the regional representativesat yearly At MTM92 the Group had before it a discussionpaper meetingsof national agricultural researchsystem (NARS) preparedby the TAC-Center Directors Committee,together
12 with the draft statementof principlesconsidered by the Group Timing. Somedelegates expressed caution about the timing at ICW91. of a statement,because the CGIAR should assessdevelop- Introducing thesedocuments, Mr. Brader briefed the Group mentsin other fora where the issueswere being discussed(e.g. on how the TAC-Center Directors Committeehad engaged at GAIT, at the FAO Commissionon Plant GeneticResources itself in further examinationof the issuesafter ICW9 1. He and during the negotiationson the Conventionon Biodiversity) summarizedthe substanceof the examinationand outlined the before reachingits own conclusions.The point was madethat consultationswhich had beenundertaken. These included a the issueshould be viewed in a long-term perspectiveas one BIOTASK-ISNAR workshopheld at ISNAR; a World Bank- that would merit attentionfor quite sometime to come. ODI conferencein the United Kingdom; a meetingbetween Concernwas also expressedthat the CGIAR systemshould NGOs and the CGIAR centersbased in Latin America held at not give the impressionof bypassingconsultations which had CIAT, an ISNAR workshop for small countriesheld in beeninstituted with variouscollaborators in national agricul- Mauritius; and meetingsof the TAC-Center Directors tural researchsystems, nongovernmental organizations, Committee. advancedlaboratories and private companies.Conversely, Mr. Hans Wessels(Chair of the CGIAR Task Force on severalothers emphasized the view that it was necessaryfor Biotechnologyknown as BIOTASK) reportedthat the subject the CGIAR to inform national delegationsas well as CGIAR was discussedextensively at a BIOTASK meetingon May 17, representativesat UNCED as to the current statuson these 1992. The BIOTASK meetingfelt that a CGIAR statement issueswithin the internationalcenters. This would prevent shouldbe formulatedprior to UNCED. Consequently, misunderstandingand misperception.Such an exerciseshould BIOTASK membershad circulateda draft statementfor the not pre-emptcontinuing consultation with partnersand Group’s consideration. This could supersedethe draft collaborators. preparedby the TAC-Center Directors Committee. Agreement. The consensusview was that it would be desirablefor the CGIAR to agreeon a statementat this meeting Three Questions addressingboth plant geneticresources and intellectual property rights. The Chairmannominated a 14-persondrafting Against this backgroundof continuousand wide-ranging committee,chaired by the delegatefrom Sweden,and repre- consultation,discussion at MTM92 focusedprimarily on three sentativeof the variety of views expressedin the discussion,to questionsposed by the CGIAR Chairman: draft a working documentfor considerationby the Group. (l)Should the CGIAR make a statement? (2)If so, what elementsshould the statementcontain? Further Elaboration (3)What is the most appropriatetiming of sucha statement? The following points emergedduring discussionof the text Need. The participantsagreed that it would be appropriate producedby the drafting group:
for the CGIAR to make a statement.The issuesare important l The documentis a working documentwhich describesthe to most membersof the CGIAR, and to the system’sdevelop- presentsituation on plant geneticresources and intellectual ing country partners.A CGIAR statementwould reaffirm the property rights at CGIAR centers.
Group’s sensitivity to theseissues, demonstrate the system’s l The centersand their Boardsof Trusteesbear the responsi- continuingcommitment to dealing with the issuesand establish bility for developingparticular policies and procedures the positive approachof the CGIAR systemto all aspectsof the relating to the major issuesdealt with in the working topic. In the short term a CGIAR statementcould offer document.
guidanceto delegationsfrom CGIAR membercountries at l Consultationswill continuewith ali collaboratorsincluding UNCED and serveas the basisfor continueddiscussion there NARS, NGOs, advancedlaboratories and private compa- betweenCGIAR representativesand NGOs as well as other nies.
concernedgroups. l The implementationof centeractivities in theseareas will Substance.It was broadly agreedthat a CGIAR statement continueto be reviewedby TAC as part of the programand shouldaddress the issuesrelating to both plant genetic managementreviews of the centers,and will be reportedto resourcesand intellectualproperty rights. The statementcould the CGIAR in this context. indicate how CGIAR centerswere respondingto the needto . The variousdocuments prepared by the TAC-Center conservebiological diversity and to the changingrole of Directors Committeemay be sharedwith interested intellectualproperty in the managementof biological research stakeholdersand other interestedparties.
programsworldwide. Thesepositions would demonstratethe l The working documentadopted will be usedas necessary contribution that CGIAR centerscan maketo post-UNCED by CGIAR membersto brief their delegationsand by programs.The statementshould reflect the diversity of views membersof the CGIAR delegationat UNCED. It will not amongCGIAR membersand amongCGIAR centers. be presentedto UNCED as a formal statement.
13 l As theissues are t hesubject o f consultationsin variousfora Broadsuppor wast expressed for theview thatt heG roup it is prematurefor theCG IARt o movet owarda formal shouldscrutinize its conducot f businessso as t o makeit more system-widepolicy a t thepresen titme .The CG IARsystem effective.A ll stakeholdersneeded to havean involvement in will keepthe issues under active review. decisionmaking,and a mechanismwas required by whichsuch Thet ext adoptedby theG roupis reproducedin Annex 3 of varietycould be ensured without f urtherburdening the agenda thisrepor t. of meetings. Severalsugges tionswere made abou tthe ti mingo f such FUTURE MEETINGS sessions,how t heyshould be planned their, agenda and who shoulda ttend.The consensus from t hesediscussions was t hat Reorganizationof CentersWeek theChairman should have the au thorityto reorganizeCG IAR meetingsand t hathe could be assisted to do soby a small workinggroup serviced by theCG IARSecre tariat. TheChairman appoin teda working group consisting of RoberAt . Herdt(Chairman) Manoel, Ma lheiros-Tourinho, Confrmationo f Dates WilhelmSuden Eugene, Terry and K lausW inkelwith the followingt ermso f reference: Thef ollowingda tesand locations o f futuremee tingswere l To identifyt hestrengths and weaknesses of t heCG IAR’s currentdelibera tionand decisionmaking processes, taking reconfirmed: intoaccoun tthe views expressed mos trecen tlya t theM id- ICW92-Oct. 26-30Washing, tonD.C. TermMee tingin Istanbuland t heconsultation in London. MTM93- May24-28 San, Juan Puer, toRico.
l To developop tionsfor improvingthese processes, and ,in ICW93-Oct. 25-29Washing, tonD.C. consultationwith themembers of theCG IAR,t hecen ters MTM94- May 23-27New, Delhi,I ndia. ando theractors make recommenda tionsto the CG IAR ICW94-Oct. 24-28Washing, tonD.C. Chairmanfor theorganiza tionand conduc ot f ICW92. * To submirecommendat tionsto the Chairman by September MTM93will beco-hosted by theUnited S tates,the Ford 15,1992. Foundationand t heRockefeller Founda tionPreliminary. plans Theworking group was appoin tedin thecon texto f a for themee tingin PuertoRico, including a workshopon agroforestryand f orestryand a visit to a wet tropicalforest, proposalfrom t heRockefeller Founda tionrepresen tativ(Mre . wereou tlinedby a U.S.represen tative. Herdt)t o restructureICW92 so t hata t leastone day would be TheI ndianrepresen tativcone fumedan earlier indication setaside for fourparallel mee tingson theneed for international thatt heGo vernmenoft Indiawished to hostMTM94 in New agriculturalresearch in LatinAmerica A, frica,Asia, t heNear Delhi.I ndia’sinvitation was accep ted. Eastand Nor thA frica. Mr. Herdtf urtherproposed tha ta t all parallelsessions there OTHER BUSINESS couldbe a focuson a singletopic, f or examplet,he f ood consumptionpa tterno f thepoores 50t percen int a selected BIOTASK- ProgressRepor t countryor countries,likely changesin thatpa tternand how internationalagricultural research could help t hecoun tries Mr. HansWessels repor tedon B IOTASKactivities o ther concernedto copewith thechanges . thanits involvementwith intellectualproper tyrights (I PR) Explainingthe reason for hisproposal Mr, . Herdtsaid it was issueswhich were t akenup as a separatagendae item . a responseto a widespreadfeeling within t hesystem tha tt here He informedthe G roupo f progressmade on an I ntermedi- wasa needfor moreproduc tiveuse o f timea t ICW. ateB iotechnologyService (I BS)whose objectives are t o As theCG IARagenda expanded there was less ti mef or full providedeveloping coun trieswith accessto informedadvice participationby membersin decisionmaking.Sugges tionshad ont hepolicy and managemen aspect tso f biotechnology, beenmade from ti met o timef or mechanismstha twould biosafetyand I PR. With supporfromt a groupo f donorsI,BS hasdeveloped into a well-constructedproject which will be improvethe process. Parallel sessions was one o f them,and he implementedby ISNAR. Theservice will, howeverhave, its felt thatt heycould be e ffective. ownst eeringcommi tteeconsisting o f threerepresen tatives Parallelsessions organized by regionwould enable mem- eachfrom donor and developing coun tries. bersto focusmore clearly on theneeds for agriculturalresearch CIAT, meanwhilehe, said was t heanchor o f anotherproject in a homogenouscon text.O fficialswith regionalresponsibili- initiatedby BIOTASK,a CassavaB iotechnologyNe twork tiesin donoragencies could bring t heirexper tisande f unding (CBN)whose aim is to directcassava research to theneeds o f supportto thesesessions. Discussion would be more concen- small-scaleproducers This. will bedone through ne tworks tratedthan a t presenandt ,t hereforewould, provide clarity on consistingof researchers,represen tativoesf na tionalsystems thewhole gamu ot f systemactivities. Regional orien tation andend-users . wouldno tde tractfrom t heinternational responsibilities of the BIOTASKis committedto thediffusion o f information,he CGIARsystem. addedand, in thisconnec tionis attemptingto identifysuitable
14 libraries in developingcountries as recipientsfor a biotechnol- CGIAR hascontributions to offer, basedon its practical ogy journal. experience.These efforts would be complementedby public Other topics coveredby BIOTASK includedbiotechnology awarenessactivities including the establishmentof an informa- cooperationamong developed countries, and the progressof tion booth and liaison with nongovernmentalorganizations. the UNCED process. In the processof preparatorywork for the Earth Summit,he BIOTASK will next meet in Washingtonat the time of said,the CGIAR had benefitedfrom the supportof its three ICW92. cosponsors.Planning for UNCED had reaffmned the value of collaborationamong different componentsof the system.And Crawford Fund it had integratedthe system’sscientific focus with its public awarenesswork. Derek E. Tribe, ExecutiveDirector of Australia’sCrawford Fund for InternationalAgricultural Research,reported to the Vavilov Institute Group on the Fund’s activities in its threeyears of existence. The Fund was setup as a national supportorganization for The Group appealedto the internationalcommunity to help internationalagricultural research,in responseto an initiative preservethe pricelesscollection of plant geneticmaterial at the by the CGIAR Secretariat. Vavilov Institute in Russia.In responseto requestsfrom For the past one-and-a-halfyears, the Crawford Fund had severalmembers they will receivefrom the World Bank an carriedout a public awarenesscampaign aimed at politicians estimateof the Institute’s needs. and bureaucrats;farmers, environmentalists and NGOs; scientistsand academics;the media, and through the media,the CLOSING REMARKS community at large. One important outcomeof their efforts was that a Joint In his closingremarks, the Chairmansaid that he sharedthe ParliamentaryCommittee recommended that Australia Group’s senseof accomplishmentat what they had done in contribute 1.5 percentof ODA to CGIAR centers;up from less four daysof intenseand collegial discussion. than half of one percentat present. All proposalsbefore the Group were examinedthoroughly, On average,Mr. Tribe said, all bilateral donorsto the evenexhaustively, and important trendswere set in motion. CGIAR contributeonly 0.4 percentof their total aid budgets This is what he had hoped for in his openingremarks when he and the most enlighteneddonor only gives 1.2percent. called for productiveuse of the time that CGIAR members The Crawford Fund thereforeargues that if the donor generouslyallocate to the enterprise. averageincreased to 1.2percent, the CGIAR budget would He was impressedby the high level of debateand by the increasethreefold and, almostcertainly, money would no unusualblend of knowledgeand dedicationwhich character- longer limit the successof the system. ized their discussions,the Chairmansaid. Many peoplehad contributedto the successof the meeting. UNCED Before reviewing the substanceof the Group’s discussionshe wishedto thank them all - the Governmentof Turkey; the The Group endorsedthe continuing associationof the CGIAR with the evolving UNCED process,and agreedthat Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; Turkish officials, when action programsare undertakenas a follow-up to the especiallyHasim Ogut, Ali Eryilmaz, Guzbuz Mizrak and S. Earth Summit, the CGIAR shoulddetermine the preciserole Nogay; the Turkish supportstaff the interpreters;the hotel that it could play in programsthat coincide with its scientific stafc Alex McCalla, TAC and the TAC Secretariat;Alexander expertise.In this connection,particular mention was madeof von der Ostenand the CGIAR Secretariatand, “above all - sustainableagriculture, biodiversity and the diversification of all of you (membersof the Group).” production systems. To guide the systemas it followed up on the Istanbul Introducing the item, Mr. von der Ostendrew the Group’s meeting,the Chairmansummarized the main conclusions attentionto a Secretariatdocument which reportedon the reached: variousactivities undertakenby the centersand the Secretariat
in responseto a requestby the Group (at MTM9 1) that the l Priorities CGIAR systemshould work closely with the UNCED process. As a result of theseactivities, UNCED organizershad The Group concludedits formal discussionof a setof recognizedthe CGIAR as an intergovernmentalagency. The priorities analyzedand groupedby activities,agroecological CGIAR was grantedobserver status at the Earth Summit and regions,production sectorsand commodities. Thesepriorities invited to attendwith a single delegation.Representatives from will determinethe strategiesand stmctureof the CGIAR CIAT, IBPGR and the CGIAR Secretariatwould form the systemover the medium and long term. They will also serve delegation. as the basisof resourceallocation amongCGIAR centers. At Rio, he said, membersof the delegationwould interact Obviously, theseare areaswhich will always interestthe with internationalpolicymakers on subjectsin which the Group.
15 l Strategiesand Structure CGIAR priorities and strategies,ISNAR haseven a greater responsibilitynow than it did at its creation. The Group wants The Group endorsedin principle TAC’s preliminaryatte mpt ISNAR to play its role effectively. to redefinethe strategiesand structureof the CGIAR system,in keepingwith the priorities that were adopted. At the coreof l Regional Representation TAC’s approachis a division betweentwo relatedsets of activities- global and ecoregional.TAC can now go forward Regionalrepresentatives are a conduit betweenthe CGIAR with its plansto discussits proposalsfully with international and nationalagricultural research systems in developing centers,national research systems and others,before reporting countries. The significanceof their contributionto the CGIAR backto the Group at ICW92 and,with finality, at ICW93. The was recognizedduring discussionof proposalsfor strengthen- viewsof the CGIAR centerswill be crucial as TAC strivesfor ing regionalrepresentation and makingit moreeffective. the clarity requestedby members.
l Other Issues
l ResourceAllocation The Group reviewedissues such as genetic resources and The Group endorsedas an appropriatestarting point for intellectualproperty, biotechnology and programopportunities interactionbetween TAC and CGIAR centersa setof “re- arisingfro m UNCED. All thesewill be part of the wider sourceenvelopes ”based on the assumptionof constantfunding CGIAR agendain both the short and long term. with someadditionality for agroforestry,forestry and fisheries. The Group urgedthe internationalcommunity to act swiftly TAC’s calculationsare subjectto challengeand adjustment andgenerously to preservethe pricelesshistoric germplasm during its budgetdiscussions with the centers. Final budget collectionsof the Vavilov Institute in Russia. proposalswill be presentedto the Group at ICW93.
l ICLARM Early in the life of this meeting,Walter Falcon,reporting on ICLARM was admittedinto the CGIAR system.Thus, an the London consultation,re mindedus that the CGIAR cannot earlierdecision to supportfisheries research has now become expectto do “businessas usual,” the Chairmansaid. reality. This attitudewas implicit in Bob Herdt’s proposalsto However,the extent to which ICLARM can function rearrangepart of ICW, and in discussionsof CGIAR gover- effectively without diverting resourcesfro m existingcenters nanceat the informal executivesession that washeld over will dependon how muchadditional funding is providedfor dinner. And it is an assumptionbehind the thinking of the this activity. An interim externalreview of ICLARM will take TAC paperson priorities, strategiesand structure. placein about threeyears. Commentingon the view that the CGIAR cannotexpect to do “businessas usual ” the Chairmansaid he hadno concerns l CIFOR aboutthe Group’s ability and willingnessto makewhatever ACIAR, the implementingagency for CGIAR decisionson changesare required-whether in researchprograms, forestry,presented a progressreport. The Group generally governanceor anythingelse - to keepthe CGIAR relevant endorsedthe progressmade. Somereservations were ex- and effective. But, he pointedout, changeshould be made pressed,however, particularly aboutthe compositionof the deliberately,collaboratively, transparently and with a clear board. At the end of a full debateit was agreedthat an understandingof the reasonsfor changeor reconstruction. additionalboard member should be appointed. The Chairmanconcluded: “The CGIAR hascome as far as it has,because it hasalways been pragmatic, convincing and courageous.We needthose same qualities today. With them, l ISNAR we can moveforward with confidence,preserving what needs Membersreacted quite vigorously to an externalreview of to be preserved,and addingon what mustbe addedon. ” ISNAR. In the contextof the rangeof linkagesbetween The Chairmanconcluded the meetingon Friday,May 22. CGIAR centersand nationalresearch systems required by
16 Annex 1 Agenda
AgendaNumber ’ Item
1 OpeningRemarks
2 Adoption of the Agenda
3 TAC Chairman’sReport
4 Progressin EstablishingCIFOR
5 CGIAR F’rioritiesand Strategies
-Report on StrategyConsultation in London -Follow-up on TAC Priorities,Strategies, Structure and Resource Allocation
6 ISNAR ExternalReview
7 ICLARM ExternalReview
8 IntellectualProperty Rights Issues-Status Report
9 Report on RegionalRepresentation in the CGIAR
10 FutureCGIAR Meetings
11 Other Business
-Preparations for UNCED - ProgressReport -BIOTASK
12 Closing
’ Not necessarilyin order of discussion.
17 Annex 2 Commission of the European Communities (EEC) GunterGruner List of Participants Headof Division Directorate-GeneralDevelopment
Chairman Timothy J. Hall VisvanathanRajagopalan Coordinator,Tropical Agriculture Research Vice President Scienceand Technologyfor DevelopmentProgramme The World Bank Group Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) DELEGATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE PhilippeJ. Mahler CONSULTATIVE GROUP SpecialAdviser to the Director Generaland AssistantDirector Generalfor Environmentand African Development Bank (AfDB) SustainableDevelopment GraysonR. Nanthambwe Division Chief, Agriculture Hartwig de Haen AssistantDirector General Australia GeorgeH.L. Rothschild MohamedS. Zehni Director Director AustralianCentre for InternationalAgricultural Researchand TechnologyDevelopment Division Research(ACIAR) J. Doorembos D. Ian Bevege FAO Representativein Turkey Principal Adviser ACIAR Henry K. Mwandemere ResearchOfficer Eric T. Craswell ResearchProgramme Coordinator ACIAR Ford Foundation E. Walter Coward,Jr. Austria Director, Rural Poverty andResources Program @PRP) t Ralph Gretzmacher University of Agriculture France Remy Pochat Headof Researchfor DevelopmentDivision Belgium Ministry of Researchand Technology Luc sas CGIAR Officer/Senior Agricultural Advisor Belgian Administration for Development Odile Pomarede Chargeede Mission Cooperation (BADC) Ministry of Foreign Affairs Canada Iain C. MacCillivray Germany SeniorProgramme Manager Wilhelm Suden Headof Division CanadianInternational Development Agency (CIDA) FederalMinistry for EconomicCooperation (BMZ) Keith Valentine Agricultural Specialist JurgenFriedrichsen CIDA Division Head GermanAgency for TechnicalCooperation (GT ’Z) Denmark Klaus Winkel Stefan Oswald Headof Division AssistantHead of Division Danish InternationalDevelopment Agency (DANIDA) BMZ
18 EkkehardKurschner Mitsuru Kameya Coordinator,International Agricultural Research SectionChief GermanCouncil for Tropical and Subtropical InternationalCooperation Division Agricultural Research(ATSAF) Ministry of Agriculture,,Forestry and Fisheries
India YoshikazuOhno G. C. Srivastava Director Joint Secretaryto the Governmentof India Departmentof ResearchInformation Secretary,Indian Council of Agricultural Tropical Agricultural ResearchCenter (TARC) Research(ICAR) Netherlands Robert D. van den Berg International Bank for Reconstruction and Head,Research Programme Development (IBRD) Ministry of Foreign Affairs Michel J. Petit Director Willem van Vuure Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentDepartment (AGR) SeniorScientific Officer for InternationalRelations Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management Anthony J. Pritchard andFisheries Agricultural ResearchAdviser AGR HansWessels Head,Biotechnology Programme Gabrielle Persley Ministry of Foreign Affairs BiotechnologyManager AGR Hans Slot ResearchProgramme International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Brian Belcher D. M. Ooft ResearchOfficer Project Officer, EnvironmentalProgramme Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Sciences(AFNS) Ministry of Foreign Affairs
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Norway AbbasKesseba Birgit Schjerven Director, TechnicalDivision Headof Division Multilateral Departmentof DevelopmentCooperation Ireland Ministry of Foreign Affairs A. Austin Mescal Chief Inspector SteinBie Departmentof Agriculture and Food Director Norwegian Center for International Italy Agricultuml Development(NORAGRIC) RosinaSalerno Assistantto the Director General Tertit von Hanno Aasland Multilateral Desk V Head of Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs ResearchUnit Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan ShinzoAdachi Rockefeller Foundation AssistantDirector Robert W. Herdt Multilateral CooperationDivision Director Ministry of Foreign Affairs Division for Agricultural Sciences
19 Spain Ralph W. Cummings,Jr. Coordinator,IARC Staff, USAID FranciscoJavier Garcia-Ramos Head of External RelationsService DanaG. Dahymple Institute National de InvestigacionesAgrarias (INIA) ResearchAdvisor, IARC Staff, USAID
Sweden Robert B. Bertram Carl-GustafThomstroem ResearchOfficer, IARC Staff, USAID Head,Rural Developmentand Environment SwedishAgency for ResearchCooperation with Representing Africa (Mauritius and Morocco) Developing Countries(SAREC) M. Faraj Hocein Director Bo Bengtsson Institut National de la RechercheAgronomique SwedishUniversity of Agricultural Science Rabat,Morocco
Switzerland Representing Asia and the Pacific (India and Paul Egger Western Samoa) Head, Agricultural Service Tupuola Tavita SwissDevelopment Cooperation (SDC) Director of Agriculture WesternSamoa Jurg S. Benz Deputy Head, Agricultural Service Representing Latin America and the Caribbean SDC (Brazil and Trinidad and Tobago) Manoel Malheiros-Tourinho United Kingdom ExecutiveDirector JohnC. Davies EmpresaBrasileira de Pesquisa Deputy Chief, Natural ResourcesAdviser Agropecuaria(EMBRAPA) Natural Resourcesand EnvironmentDepartment Brasilia, Brazil OverseasDevelopment Administration (ODA) ThomasCar-r United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Director of Research Timothy S. Rothermel CARONI (1975) Ltd. Director Trinidad and Tobago Division for Global and InterregionalProjects Representing Near East and North Africa Alva A. App (Jordan and Tunisia) SeniorScientific Adviser SalahJnma National Center for Agricultural Researchand Nyle C, Brady Technology Transfer SeniorConsultant on InternationalDevelopment Amman, Jordan
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) AbderrazakDaaloul Timo P. Maukonen President SeniorProgramme Officer Institut de la Rechercheet de 1’EnseignementSuperieum Agricole (IRESA) United States Tunisia Richard E. Bissell AssistantAdministrator Representing Europe (Poland and Israel) Bureaufor Scienceand Technology AugustynWos United StatesAgency for International Director Development (USAID) Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics Warsaw,Poland
20 INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CGIAR SECRETARIAT RESEARCH CENTERS Alexandervon der Osten International Center for Agricultural Researchin the ExecutiveSecretary Dry Areas (ICARDA) NasratFadda OBSERVERS Director General FrederickHutchinson International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IlTA) Chairman Lukas Brader Committeeof Board Chairpersons Director General EugeneR. Terry International Laboratory for Researchon Animal Chairman Diseases(ILRAD) Committeeof CenterDirectors J. J. Doyle Deputy Director General OTHER PARTICIPANTS International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) John Barton John Dillon Consultant Chairl-IlaIl JanEngels Christian H. Bonte-Friedheim BIOTASK Director General Walter P. Falcon Moderator,London Consultation Howard J. C. Elliott Deputy Director General Pierre-BenoitJoly Chargede Recherche,INRA, France Marie-HeleneCollion SeniorResearch Officer PeterA. Larkin Chairman InternationalCenter for Living Aquatic TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) ResourcesManagement (ICLARM)
AlexanderF. McCalla Y igal J. Lavie Chairman ConsulGeneral, Israel
Michael H. Arnold JohnP. Lewis Consultant Hans M. Gregersen KennethT. MacKay Director General,ICLARM TAC SECRETARIAT LaurenceD. Stifel John H. Monyo Consultant Executive Secretary StenSverdrup-Jensen Guido Gryseels Managementand PlanningExpert, ICLARM Senior Agricultural ResearchOfficer Derek E. Tribe ExecutiveDirector Crawford Fund
21 Annex 3 CGIAR Working Document on Genetic Resources and Intellectual Property
The working documentadopted by the Group follows: resourcesmaintained in the genebanksof the centersare held This documentreiterates the commitmentof the Consulta- in trust for the world community, Material from the genebanks tive Group on InternationalAgricultural Research(CGIAR) to at the centerswill continueto be freely available,in accordance the conservationand useof geneticresources, and to the with the 1989CGIAR Policy on Plant GeneticResources. disseminationof its discoveriesand productsto the developing Modem biotechnologyis becomingan importanttool for world in an expeditiousand cost-effectivemanner. the work of the centersand their collaborators.Advances in its Establishedin 1971,the CGIAR is an associationof useoffer the potential for the centersand their collaboratorsto countries,international and regionalorganizations and private increaseproductivity in agriculture,forestry and fisheriesin foundationsdedicated to supportinginternational research. It developingcountries. In a changingresearch environment, the currentlysponsors 18 autonomousinternational research centersneed to collaboratewith a wide rangeof agenciesin centersinvolved in researchon problemsrelated to production both the public and private sectorswhich increasinglyprotect in agriculture,forestry and fisheries. The purposeof the their inventionsthrough holding intellectualproperty. CGIAR-sponsoredresearch is to improve the quantityand Centersdo not seekintellectual property protection unless it quality of productionin a sustainablemanner. The centers is absolutelynecessary to ensureaccess by developing havemade substantial contributions toward thesegoals for the countriesto new technologiesand products. The centerswill benefit of producersand consumersin developingcountries. not seekintellectual property protection for income-generating Thesecontributions have resulted from the work of scientistsat purposesand will not view potentialreturns from intellectual the centers,in closecollaboration with scientistsin the national propertyprotection as a sourceof operatingfunds. Should researchsystems and in public institutions,universities and exceptionalcases arise where a centermight receivea financial privatecompanies throughout the world. return,an appropriatemeans will be usedto ensurethat such In this connectionthe valueof biological resourcesis funds areused for the conservationof geneticresources and becomingincreasingly recognized by the world community. relatedresearch. The centersare contributingto the conservationof biological On a case-by-casebasis, the centerscarefully considerthe diversity through: (1) the collection,characterization, ex-situ advantagesand disadvantages,and the costsand benefits maintenanceand worldwide distribution of plant genetic beforedeeming it necessaryto seekand maintainany form of resources;and (2) germplasmenhancement for subsequent intellectualproperty protection on their inventions. A center’s breedingand adaptationto local agrmological conditionsby decisionreflects its own priorities and concernsas well as nationalresearch systems. The CGIAR recognizesboth Plant thoseof its collaboratorsand the nationswith which it works. Breeders’Rights and the conceptof Farmers’Rights, in Suchdecisions are motivatedby the needto: (1) establish accordancewith the agreedinterpretation of the International collaborativeresearch with advancedlaboratories; (2) ensure Undertakingon Plant GeneticResources. Moreover, conserva- productdevelopment and distribution: or (3) forestallpre- tion of geneticresources by the centers,and research on their emptiveprotection by othersof CGIAR-generatedtechnology. useis contributingto the goalsof the conventionon biological Any intellectualproperty rights acquiredby a centerare diversity presentlyin preparation. exercisedwithout compromisingin any mannerwhatsoever the A fundamentalobjective of the CGIAR is to ensureaccess fundamentalposition of the CGIAR regardingthe free access to knowledge,technology and materialsin the interestsof the by developingcountries to knowledge,technology, materials developingcountries. The CGIAR reaffirms that the genetic andplant geneticresources.
22 Printed on recycled paper. @