C GIAR

Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research

ANNUAL REPORT 1991

t t 1- 7, '>_

e t-! e, f jlXv7 -;je -- fi r :i I <

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

C G I A R

Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research

ANNUAL REPORT 1991

2 The Consultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR)

3 Introduction

4 CGIAR Centers

7 The Year in Review

24 The Role of the CGIAR in Forestry andAgroforestry Research

33 CGIAR Finances-1991

Published by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research,CGIAR Secretariat, 1818 H Street, N.W, Washington, D.C. 20433, United States.Telephone (1-202) 473-8951. Fax (1-202) 334-8750. August 1992. ISSN 0257-3156.

The Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research (CGIAR)The Consultative Group on International . Building LinkagesAgricultural Research (CGIAR) is an informal Helping to create or strengthen linkagesassociation of 40 public and private sector between developing country institutions anddonors that supports a network of 17 intema- other components of the global agriculturaltional agricultural research centers. The Group systemwas established in 1971. Food productivity in developing countries

CGIAR centers have trained over 45,000 has increased through the combined effortsagricultural scientists during the past 20 years. of the CGIAR centers and their associates inThe types of training provided ranged from developing countries. The same efforts havemid-level regional courses to post-doctoral brought about a range of other benefits, suchprograms at CGIAR centers. Many scientists as increased farm income, reduced pricesfrom developing countries who were trained of food, better food distribution systems,at CGIAR centers form the nucleus of and better nutrition, more rational policies andprovide leadership to national agricultural stronger institutions.research systems in their own countries.

The international centers supported by theCGIAR arc part of a global agriculturalresearch system. The CGIAR functions asa guarantor to developing countries, ensuringthat international scientific capacity is broughtto bear on the problems of the world's disad-vantaged peoples.

Programs carried out by CGIAR-supportedcenters fall into six broad categories:

* Productivity ResearchCreating or adopting new technologies(such as the "dwarf' varieties of wheat andrice which brought about Asia's green revo-lution) to increase productivity on farrners'fields

* Management of Natural ResourcesProtecting and preserving the productivityof natural resources on which agriculturedepends

* Improving the Policy EnvironmentAssisting developing countries to formiulateand carry out effective food, agriculture andresearch policy

* Institution BuildingStrengthening national agricultural researchsystems in developing countries

At the International Potato Center, scientists* Germplasm Conservation have spent nearly 20 years developing potato

Conserving germplasm and making it avail- cultivars that are pest resistant, higher yieldingable to all regions and countries and more appealing to a hungry world.

2

Introduction

_ . . . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - X~~~~~~~~~~~.....

., ~~z

nniversaries encouirage institutions, no less This annual report includes highlights of thethan people, to engage in introspection. impact of research conducted by the CGIARAn obsession with "soul searching" is, centers that made presentations at Intemational

however, an inward looking luxury that dynamic Centers Week. We plan to repeat this format ininstitutions dealing day in, day out with human future editions of the annual report as well.problems cannot afford. The CGIAR. therefore, The record suggests that the CGIAR system haspaused only briefly for stocktaking at the comple- the capacity to provide solutions in two of the threetion of its 20th year, engaging itself more intensely areas (food, population and the environment) thatin a forward-looking exercise, that of setting pri- are at the heart of human development. Continuedorities for the medium and long term. support for international agricultural research thus

This annual report tries to capture all these offers the world's disadvantaged hope that somefacets in the life of the CGIAR: a brief look at solid of their most pressing problems will remain on theachievements whose impact continues into the .action list" of international development in thepresent and will endure in the future; an account of next 20 years and beyond-as they did in the pasthow priorities are being set to meet the challenges 20 years.of our times; an introduction to a new venture in The CGIAR system cannot, however, fulfill itsthe CGIAR system-research in agroforestry and responsibilities unless its financial resources matchforestry; and a financial accounting the demand for its services and output. We realize

T'he founders of the CGIAR were convinced that doniors today face many difficulties includingthat by supporting strategic agricultural research domestic demands on their budgets and increasingon a global scale they could trigger a major contri- competition for overseas development assistancebution to human progress. This has been accom- funds. And yet, the confluence of environmentalplished perhaps in more areas than was originally pressures, the need to feed the increasing popula-envisaged and, certainly, in endeavors that the tions of tomorrow and the pressures of povertyCGIAR undertook ahead of most others, and malnutrition reinforce our conviction that the

Investment in the CGIAR has brought impres- enterprise is too important for underinvestment tosive rctums to donors and developing countries hamper its effectiveness.are. It has at the same time helped in the develop-ment of unique research institutions-e the centers"as they are generically known-that blend scientific Alexander von der Ostenexpertise with a commitment to human well-being. Executive Secretary

3

CGIAR Centers

CIAT CIPCentro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical Centro Internacional de la PapaApartado Aereo 6713, Cali, Colombia. Founded Apartado 5969, Lima, Peru. Founded 1970.1967. To contribute to the alleviation of hunger To contribute to increased food production, theand poverty in tropical countries by applying generation of sustainable and environmentallyscience to the generation of technology that will sensitive agricultural systems and improvedlead to lasting increases in agricultural output while human welfare by conducting coordinated, multi-preserving the natural resource base. Research in disciplinary research programs on potato andge.rmplasm development in beans, cassava, tropical sweetpotato, carrying out worldwide collabora-forages and rice for Latin America; and research in tive research and training, catalyzing collaborationresource management in humid agroecosystems in arnong countries in solving common problemstropical America: hillsides, forest margins and and helping scientists worldwide to respondsavannas. flexibly and successfully to changing demands

in agriculture.CIMMYTCentro Internacional de Mejoramiento IBPGRde Maiz y Trigo International Board for Plant Genetic ResourcesLisboa 27, P.O. Box 6-641, Mexico 06600, D.F., Via delle Sette Chiese 142, 00145, Rome, Italy.Mexico. Founded 1966. To help the poor by in- Founded 1974. To encourage, support and engagecreasing the productivity of resources committed in activities to strengthen the conservation and useto maize and wheat in developing countries while of plant genetic resources worldwide, with specialprotecting the environment, through agricultural emphasis on developing countries by undertakingresearch and in concert with national research research and training and by providing scientificsystems. and technical information.

4

ICARDA existing and improved farming systems; and toInternational Center for Agricultural emphasize a more judicious use of natural andResearch in the Dry Areas human resources in partnership with nationalP.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria. Founded 1975. agricultural research systems.To meet the challenge posed by a harsh, stressfuland variable environment in which the productivity IFPRIof winter rainfed agricultural systems must be International Food Policy Research Instituteincreased to higher sustainable levels; in which 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, DCsoil degradation must be arrested and, possibly, 20036-3006, USA. Founded 1975. To focus onreversed; and in which water use efficiency and identifying and analyzing policies for meeting foodthe quality of the fragile environment need to needs of the developing countries, particularly thebe ensured. poorer groups within those countries. Research

covers ways to achieve sustainable food produc-ICLARM* tion and land use, improve food consumptionInternational Center for Living Aquatic and income levels of the poor, enhance the linksResources Management between agriculture and other sectors of the econ-P 0. Box 1501, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines. omy and improve trade and macroeconomicFounded 1977. To improve production and man- conditions.agement of aquatic resources for sustainable ben-efits of present and future generations of low-income users (producers and consumers) in devel-oping countries through intemational research andrelated activities and in partnership with nationalagricultural research systems by improving the bio -:logical, socioeconomic and institutional manage-ment mechanisms for sustainable use of aquaticresource systems, by devising and improving pro-duction systems that will provide increasing yetsustainable yields and by strengthening nationalprograms to ensure sustainable development ofaquatic resources. 4

*Admitted to the CGIAR in May, 1992. -

ICRAFInternational Centre for Researchin Agroforestry AP.O. Box 30677. Nairobi, Kenya. Founded 1977.To mitigate tropical deforestation, land depletion IIMIand rural poverty through improved agroforestry International Irrigation Management Institutesystems. P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Founded

1984. To strengthen the development, dissemina-ICRISAT tion and adoption of lasting improvements in theInternational Crops Research Institute performance of irrigated agriculture in developingfor the Semi-Arid Tropics countries.Patancheru P.O., Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India.Founded 1972. To foster, facilitate and conduct IITAresearch on selected crops (sorghum, millet, chick- International Institute of Tropical Agriculturepea, pigeonpea and groundnut), resource manage- PMB 5320, Ibadan, Nigeria. Founded 1967. Toment, technologies and institutions; to increase the contribute to sustainable and increasing food pro-productivity, versatility and stability of these crops duction in the humid and subhumid tropics andand suggest appropriate ways of fitting them into thereby to improve the well-being of low-income

5

people by conducting international agricultural particularly those with low incomes, by generatingresearch and outreach activities in partnership with and disseminating rice-related knowledge andAfrican national agricultural research systems, technology of short- and long-term environmental,particularly on maize, cassava, cowpea, plantain, social, and economic benefit and by helping tosoybean and yam. enhance national rice research systems.

I]LCA ISNARInternational Livestock Centre for Africa International Service for NationalPO. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Founded Agricultural Research1974. To strengthen the ability of national agricul- P.O. Box 93375, 2509 AJ The Hague, The Nether-tural research systems to conduct technical and lands. Founded 1979. To assist developing coun-policy research in livestock-related fields, to tries in bringing about sustained improvementsdevelop technical packages for increasing live- in the performance of their national agriculturalstock production and the contribution of livestock research systems and organizations by supportingto sustainable agricultural production and income their efforts in institutional development, by devel-and to contribute to scientific knowledge in a way oping or adapting new management technologies,conducive to solutions to livestock production by strengthening managerial skills and by gen-problems. erating and disseminating knowledge and

information.LLRADIniternational Laboratory for Researchon Animal DiseasesP.O. Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya. Founded 1973.To serve as a world center for research on waysand means of conquering, as quickly as possible,major animal diseases (trypanosomiasis and tick-bome diseases) which seriously limit livestockindustries in Africa and in many other parts ofthe world.

INI1BAPlIntternational Network for the Improvementof Banana and PlantainParc Scientifique Agropolis, Bat 7-Boulevard dela Lironde, 34980 Montferrier-sur-Lez, France.Founded 1984. To increase the productivity andstability of banana and plantain grown on small-holdings by initiating, encouraging, supporting,conducting and coordinating research; by strength-ening national and regional programs and facilitat- WARDAing the interchange of improved and disease-free West Africa Rice Development Associationgenetic material; by coordinating and supporting 01 B.P. 2551, Bouake 01, Cote d'Ivoire. Foundedthe collection and exchange of documentation and 1970. To conduct and promote research to improvein formation; and by coordinating and supporting the technical and economic options available totraining for researchers and technicians from smallholder farm families in the upland/inland-developing countries. swamp continuum, the Sahel, and the mangrove

swamp environments by developing improved riceIRRI varieties and production methods, by reducingInternational Rice Research Institute postharvest losses, by assessing and increasing theP.O. Box 933, 1099 Manila, Philippines. Founded acceptability and impact of new technology and by1960. To improve the well-being of present and investigating issues affecting technology adoptionfuture generations of rice farners and consumers, and analyzing national policy options.

6

The Year in Review

3

Chagga home gardeni in the Mounit Kilimanjaro region of Tanizaniia with coffee, hanania and trees ini theupperstor-ey anid miaize and taro in the uniderstorey.

he CGIAR looked back on two decades of of the Ford Foundation (M-r. E.Walter Coward, Jr.)experience and looked forward toward the and Rockefeller Foundation (Mr. Robert W. Herdt)challenges that lie ahead as it entered its were the speakers. Mr. Derek E. Tribe of Austra-

21st year. The 20th anniversary of the CGJAR fell lia's Crawford Fund for International Agriculturalon May 19, 1991, on the eve of the Group's mid- Research presided.term meeting held in Padis. A formal commemnora- The two Foundations were described as the par-tion took place during International Centers Week- ents responsible for the conception of the CGIAR(ICW91), the annual meeting in Washington, D.C. system. Other eminent individuals from the FAO,

T(he commemoration took the fomn of a public UNDP and the World Bank-cosponsors of thesymposium, under the umbrella of the Sir John system-were the "midwives" whose skill andCrawford Memorial Lecture,' at which CGIAR experience brought the CGIAR baby into exis-Chairman Wilfried P. Thalwitz and representatives tence. Their successors nurtured the infant into

adulthood.Honored for their invaluable contribution to

The annual lecture has been sponsored byv the Australian the growth of the CGIAR system were the scien-Government since 198m5 in hoor of Sir John Cranfbrd (1 910-1984),first chaimean of the rGIAR Techanical Advisor U tists who so ably led research on which the greenCommittee. revolution was built; individuals who laid the tra-

7

CIP: Potato PossibilitiesThe potato has the distinction of being one of the yields by more than 40 percent. In India outputrnost difficult of the major food crops to multiply, has increased 330 percent over the past 30 years;store or transport. It is also extremely susceptible in Bangladesh, production has doubled twice intD insects and diseases and. is a top user of chemical just three decades.pesticides. Even so, it is currently one of the fastest Because of its short vegetative cycle, a crop ofgrowing food crops in developing countries. potatoes can be easily grown between two cereal

Its popularity is based on its excellent yields (up crops. Improved wheat and rice varieties, Scottto 70 t/ha), its high return on investment over short notes, have also served as an incentive for improv-periods of time and an unusual capacity to adapt to ing irrigation systems. This, in tum, enables farm-v astly different growing conditions. However, the ers to grow potatoes during the off-season whencrop's ability to fit into farming systems with high- water is scarce.yielding, short duration cereals has served as In addition, many Asian countries have literallya. major catalyst for increased production. brought potato production down from the hills by

According to CIP economist Gregory J. Scott, introducing seed schemes into the lowland areas,over 50 million tons of potatoes will be harvested thus moving the source of supply closer to the con-this year in Asia alone. Since the 1960s, Asian sumer. This, Scott says, has helped to reduce post-potato production, he says, has increased 165 harvest losses, cut transportation costs and makepercent; area planted by nearly 90 percent; and available a fresher and more affordable product to

the urban and rural poor.__ , Hubert Zandstra, CIP's Director General, notes

that in the past the center has backstopped nationalpotato programs through gennplasm exchange,networking and training. A major effort has alsobeen made to reduce dependence on chemicalpesticides by introducing environmentally safe pest

_ ; 525:'D.\i'000 0 ~~~~management schemes. "Our strategy has been tohelp national systems expand production and makeit sustainable" he says.

The CIP program for the 1990s, Zandstra adds,places renewed emphasis on natural resource man-agement, marketing, policy development andpostharvest. "We are also putting a high priority

A , , <P on information systems so that the experience inIt C-. r<<F; Bt A -- places like Asia can be made available to national

(IP personnel conduct a potato training course programs wherever the potato can help feed hun-in Viet Nam. gry people."

ditions of service to the hungry and poor to which tural research in developing countries is $2,245the system continues to be fully committed. million. Global annual expenditures on agricultural

Although the record of the CGIAR is substan- research amount to more than $10 billion.tial, its investment in agricultural research is only a The lessons of experience suggest that thefraction of the total amount spent globally. In 1991, achievements of the CGIAR with relatively leanthe total annual core budgets of CGIAR centers was expenditures were made possible by its foundingapproximately S237 million. Total annual expendi- characteristics which tumed out to be effectiveture by all agencies, public and private, on agricul- and long lasting.

8

The CGIAR was established to consolidate and e.g., child vaccine research. energy, the environ-extend the initial gains of agricultural technology ment, general health, science and technology.(the green revolution) that changed the food situ- Many challenges lie ahead, however, includingation in Asia. The vision of the founders was of a that of matching productivity concerns with naturalworld order where food production would be the resource management.entry point through which the application of science As the CGIAR Chairman said at the 20th anni-could change the lives of the poor. Then as now the versary commemoration, "...on the food produc-central focus of the CGIAR was on research. tion side, the challenge is how to increase output

A unique characteristic of the CGIAR is its for growing populations when we know it willcapacity to provide collective support for a widely have some environmental impact. The CGIARspread network of international research centers will have to let itself be measured by the contribu-without centralized decision-making authority. tion to preserving the natural resource base onThis requires an unusual level of commitment, which future production depends, in the identicalas well as a capacity for consensual decision manner that it is measured by the extent to whichmaking. Both qualities are rare elsewhere. its work helps to feed the world's hungry."

The creation of the CGIAR was a response by "The sometimes maligned plant breeding activ-donors to the challenge of channeling science to ity, and even the newest methodologies of biotech-meet the needs of the world's hungry, and donors nology (suitably guarded with care for biosafety),have "kept the faith" ever since. The number of will have to make their contribution to meetingdonors has increased, as has the number of centers. the productivity objective."The involvement of three multilateral institutions "Where else, when you do not want to press inas cosponsors has strengthened the international on marginal land too much more; where else, whencharacter of the Group, giving it a capacity to deal power generation for irrigation pumps and thewith global issues. manufacture of fertilizer have their own environ-

The role of the World Bank as the donor of last mental limitations; where else, but in breeding,resort has provided the CGIAR system with stabil- with a lot of environmental concerns put into theity and integrity. For its part, the CGIAR has created goal formulation of breeding, will you get the yieldtechnologies for developing countries consistent increases without creating larger environmentalwith the goals of the Bank, other development problems elsewhere?"agencies and developing countries themselves. "The measure of environmental commitment

The independence and international character and success lies in the total permeation of all otherof the centers have enabled them to develop as true activities by the imperative of resource conserva-"centers of excellence." The quality and relevance tion-whether it is commodity research, whetherof their work is universally recognized. Close to it is farming research or assistance to national agri-2,000 scientists representing over 60 nationalities cultural research systems in developing countries."work at CGIAR centers.

Because they are non-political, the centers areable to approach research issues on their own CGIAR Prioritiesmerits, not in terms of interests external to theirresponsibilities. They have maintained a flexibility It was against the background of satisfactionthat has enabled them to make course corrections gained from past achievements laced with confi-when these are necessary, to move into new areas dence in its capacity to grapple with the tasks ofof research in response to situations requiring the present and the future that the CGIAR beganspecial attention and to experiment successfully the process of reviewing its priorities, as it is com-with new forms of research. mitted to do every five years. Priorities were last

The review, advisory and executive mechanisms revised in 1986, making 1991 the next date for theestablished by the founders of the CGIAR have priority-setting exercise. The process was delayed,given the CGIAR system self-confidence, high however, because from 1988 the CGIAR wasstandards and a sense of accountability. Not sur- expanding into agroforestry/forestry research,prisingly, the "CGIAR model" is recommended irrigation management and research into "new"for adoption or adaptation in many other areas, commodities. A review of priorities commenced

9

CIMMYT: Assessing the Impact of New Maize and Wheat Technologies]3lending altruism and self interest, support for germplasm, national agricultural research systemsIhe CGIAR favors efforts on behalf of the poor, played a central role in the study. Study resultsespecially women and children and the environ- are the basis for the folLowing observations.ment. Economic growth and the protection ofnatural resources are seen as the primary means Maize Highlightsior resolving these concerns. CIMMYT's work * About 75 percent of the open-pollinatedon productivity increasing technologies, on pro- varieties (OPVs) and hybrids released in develop-tecting agriculture's natural resources and on ing countries (excluding China) between 1985 andstrengthening national research systems relates 1989 and about half those released since 1965 con-directly to these areas. tained germplasm improved by CIMMYT.

In particular, productivity increasing technolo- * These materials cover 8 million hectares, 13gies reduce the real cost of basic food and, with percent of the non-temperate maize and 30 percenteveryone a consumer, both lubricate the growth of the area under improved varieties. These devel-process and ameliorate hunger. Their lower pro- opments rest on close collaboration betweenctuction costs increase incomes in agriculture, CIMMYT and national systems.rmaking the sector itself a source of growth. And * Most are adapted to the tropical lowlands.tieir resulting greater production reduces theurgency of tilling fragile lands and forests, pro- * Improved materials are now available for theviding indirect protection to natural resources. subtropics, mid-altitudes and tropical highlands,Such technologies, then contribute powerfully and major increases in varieties released there areto the aims of the CGIAR's donors. expected.

Recognizing this, on the eve of its 25th anniver- * Given the earlier relationship between releasesary, CIMMYT initiated a study to assess the and adoption, a notable increase in the area underimpact on productivity of its collaborative efforts maize related to CIMMYT's work is expected inwith national systems. As with the diffusion of new the near future.

in 1991, however, based as before on options ecological zones, TAC suggested that the mainpresented to CGIAR members by the Group's emphasis in agricultural research should be onTechnical Advisory Committee (TAC). tropical agroecologies and on the cool subtropics

The Committee outlined five activities and with "winter" rainfall. For forestry, TAC proposedsuggested the proportion of CGIAR resources that that relative emphasis should increase for tropicalslould be invested in each category by the year agroecologies in general.2010: conservation and management of natural The appropriate balance of CGIAR effortsresources including germplasim conservation- among agriculture (crops and livestock), forestry20 percent (up from 15 percent in 1989); germ- and fisheries was reviewed. Further analysis hadplasm enhancement and breeding in agriculture, to be undertaken because agroforestry/forestrvforestry and fisheries-25 percent (25 percent); research was only reccntly added to the CGIARdevelopment of sustainable production systems agenda, and work on fisheries had yet to be finallyfor agriculture, forestry and fisheries-25 percent agreed upon. TAC's analysis suggested, however,(35 percent); socioeconomic, public policy and that critical research needs in crops and livestockpublic management research-10 percent (5 per- should not be neglected in the effort to build upcent); and strengthening national research systems agroforestry/forestry and fisheries programs.including training, information and institution Within the agriculture sector, TAC presented anbuilding-20 percent (20 percent). examination of 27 commodities (crops and live-

In its analysis of research priorities by agro- stock). These included 16 commodities that are

10

Wheat Highlights * The area continues to increase, expanding byBy 1990 wheat varieties directly associated some 20 million hectares in the 1980s.

with CIMMYT's work occupied 70 percent of the - A steady 50 percent of the varieties releaseddeveloping world's wheat area (outside China) and in the 1980s came from crosses made in Mexicoaccounted for 80 percent of the production. followed by rounds of selection there.

Initially grown only in favored regions, thematerials are now advancing into drier and lessfavored environlents.

With the first semidwarfs as the base, the yieldplateau has increased at about 0.7 percent per year,

E with accompanying major improvements in diseaseresistance, and, lately, drought and heat tolerance.

jzx F w These new maizes and wheats have added appre-ciably to productivity in agriculture. A noteworthyexample is the case of India where, in the face of atwofold increase in utilization and with only modestimports, wheat's real price to consumers has fallenby 40 percent since the late 1960s. Without variety-based, productivity-increasing technologies, pop-ulation increases alone would have put inexorablepressure on fragile lands and forests and on theprices of staple foods, limiting economic growth.These results suggest that investment in CIiMMYT's

Grain for sale at a market in Ethiopia. work has had gratifyingly high returns.

already on the CGIAR agenda (such as rice, wheat, - the relationship between conducting researclcassava, sheep and goats, potato, beans) and 11 on priorities and the flow of financial resources.' new" commodities. A priority portfolio of com-modities was finally defined in consultation with were made:national agricultural research systems in devel-oping countries. Research. The CGIAR system is research-

The first round of discussion on the options oriented and should continue to support strategicproposed led to broad agreement on a number of agricultural research on issues of transnationalthemes such as: importance.

* reaffirmation of the role of research; National Systems. Strengthening linkagesbetween intemational centers and national agricul-

equally agreentrthatresearc prog s hecifi uoudihes otural research systems was identified as a priority.equally concentrated on specific commodities, on In thiis connection, there was general agreementnatural resource management, sustainability andInticoeto,thrwagnrlaremtnelatural resourcemanagement,ssust that the application of a number of key principlesrelated concerns; would bring clarity into the relationship between

* the need to strengthen CGIAR relationships CGIAR and national systems: International centerswith national agricultural research systems while should assist national research systems throughtaking into account the limitations of the CGIAR networking and training. CGIAR centers shouldin this area; and plan an appropriate devolution of research func-

11

IIMI: On-Farm Water ManagementA. K. Kirigoris is a happy fanner. For the first time then went on to successfully take over the mainte-in 30 years, he obtained sufficient irrigation waters nance of the distributory which involved desilting,to cultivate the full extent of his 2.5 acres of paddy weeding and maintaining the design profile of thelands located at the tail-end of Field Canal 4, More- canal. Farmers also began to participate activelyketiya DC 7 of the Uda Walawe Irrigation System in water distribution operations. By ensuring thatin Sri Lanka. The result was a bumper harvest of the required quantity of water was delivered at a280 bushels, a 150 percent increase over his 108bushels in previous seasons.

Fifty-four year-old Kirigoris, married withseven children, came to Uda Walawe in 1962 luredby the promise of land and water, making the longtrek from his ancestral village of Lumana in thesouthern district of Hambantota. A paddy cultiva-tor like his fellow settlers, Kirigoris' sole source ofincome is from the two crops of paddy he cul-tivates every year.

"There is sufficient water for all," he says "thisis a relatively water abundant system, but selfishpractices by farmers and inefficient distributionof water by the agency favor some and depriveothers. Every season there are disputes over water, i

sometimes even violence. In 1982, a neighboringfarmer in FC 5, also a tail-ender like me, washacked to death in a fight over water."

Kirigoris attributes his change of fortune to thefcrmation of the DC 7 Farmer Organization initi atzd in his canal system by IIMI and its national _collaborative partner, the Mahaweli EconomnicAgency (MEA) of the Mahaweli Authority of SriLanka. "Our organization," says Kirigoris, "pro-vided an efficient and effective mechanism for theimplementation of MEA/IIMI on-farm manage-ment practices which resulted in my bumper crop."

MEA and IIMI adopted a "bottom to top"approach when organizing and training farmers. The rehabilitated distributory canal, MoreketiyaMEA and IIMI field staff visited each of the 79 DC 7, which carries water to Kirigoris and otherfa-mers in DC 7, organizing them into groups at farmers in his unit.field canal level. IIMI staff assisted farmers to specified location at the time it was needed anddraw up a constitution, elect officials and arrange by keeping farmers informed of water deliverya meeting place. MEA and IIMI also provided schedules, a 50 percent saving of water waseach group with a one-day training session. achieved without irrigation difficulties. WaterKirigoris was elected Farmer Representative by was then distributed to fanners who previouslyhis field canal group, FC 4, and currently repre- had been deprived.sents them on the Committee of the Moreketiya "Not only has my yield and income increased.DC 7 Farmer Organization. now I can sleep nights," said Kirigoris. "No more

The Moreketiya DC 7 Farner Organization illegal night irrigation!"

12

ICRAF: Agroforestry Abates ErosionIn their search for land, farmers everywhere inAfrica are forced to cultivate steeper and steeperslopes, leading to soil erosion and siltation ofwaterways. Ironically, erosion caused by rainfallis often most severe in dry areas. Here, a large partof the total rain for the year may fall in two orthree violent tropical storms. Vegetation covertends to be sparse and heavy rainfall can lead todramatic soil losses-making what was alreadya difficult farming situation even worse.

ICRAF has been testing agroforestry's soilconservation potential since 1984 at the MachakosResearch Station in Kenya's semiarid zone. Low Natural terrace formation behind a hedgerowhedgerows of Cassia siamea, a leguminous shrub of Alnus nepalensis interplanted with wvheatfrom Asia, planted on the contours have led to the on steeply sloping land at Rxverere, Rwanda.natural formation of micro-terraces on land sloping fell in one stormn, this time in 90 minutes. Soil lossat 14 percent. The hedges take up much less space from fields with only maize and cowpeas wasthan conventional conservation structures, leaving nearly 5 tons per hectare, while loss from fieldsmore land available for crop production. with hedgerows was less then 1 ton per hectare.

The real test came one night in April 1990 when In some cases no soil was lost at all.52 millimeters (2 inches) of rain fell in just 30 min- ICRAF and national researchers have nowutes on slopes that were already saturated. Fields begun testing contour-aligned hedgerows on hill-with only crops lost more than 34 tons of soil per sides in the highlands of Uganda and Rwanda.hectare, while fields with hedgerows lost at most Here farTners cultivate food crops on slopes as6 tons per hectare and many lost less. The effect of steep as 45 percent. Of several different hedgerowthe storm on subsequent crop production was also species, Croton megalocarpus, a local multipur-striking. Where maize and cowpeas were grown pose tree, has shown particular promise. Resultsbetween hedgerows, they produced two to three are preliminary, however, terraces are alreadytimes the harvests from fields with crops alone. forming and there are clear signs that erosion

Again in December 1991, 52 millimeters of rain is being reduced.

tions to national systems that can take over tasks agenda. This did not mean, however, that theof international significance. emphasis on productivity-oriented commodity

However, it had to be recognized that funding research should diminish. Each should be as strongwhich could be diverted by CGIAR centers to as the other.developing national research systems was minute Commodities. A research focus on food com-in comparison to the needs of those institutions. modities of importance should continue. There areInternational centers and national systems, mean- a set of major cereals that are critically importantwhile, need to strengthen a two-way relationship on the global scene particularly to developing coun-in which agenda fornulation at the international tries. The CGLR should be cautious about signi-level recognizes the tasks and problems of national ficantly altering the commnitment to those cropsinstitutions. until alternate sources of supply were identified

Ecological Issues. Strong support was forth- and fully understood.coming for the need to meld an emphasis on The CGIAR system could explore furthernatural resource management into the research whether it should maintain a priority for commodi-

13

IITA: Less Work, More IncomeProcessing technology can detenyine by howmuch cassava growers will benefit from their labor.V/ell-designed equipment in a well-organizedsystem can significantly improve farm families'income from their cassava harvest, as IITA foundwith its Moniya project in Oyo State, Nigeriaduring 1990-91.

Research and development of postharvesttechnology is a broad subject covering all opera-tions in processing, storage and utilization ofa food crop. In cassava processing, the initialchallenges are to solve the problems of productloss, high labor input and poor product quality.Potential gains from research hold a special sig-nificance for the well-being of farm women andtheir families, because cassava is processed inAfrica largely by women. Postharvest losses as awhole can exceed 40 percent of the harvested crop;-half of those losses occur in processing operations.Processing also requires more working time thanharvesting and handling operations. The process- Technicians demonstrate operation of an IITA-ing labor input is estimated at 82 person-days for designed cassava grating machine.a harvest of 10 tons. More than 80 percent of that which includes a peeling knife and peeling bay,tirne requirement is met by women and children. machines for grating, dewatering, chipping,

Since 1988 IITA has developed an equipment fermenting, drying, grinding and sifting cassavapackage for the main stages in cassava processing, and a stove with fryer. Each of these has been

ties of subsidiary importance, or whether responsi- responsiveness to emerging trends while simul-bi]ity for research into those commodities should taneously protecting the valuable intellectual capi-devolvc to other research systems. tal which the CGIAR has invested in the centers.

Regions. There are research needs of an inter- That form of capital was the basis on which cen-national character in each of the regions surveyed ters could adjust to changing trends and demands.by TAC. Agreement was not reached, however, Financial Resources. A thread running throughon the relative weight that should be given to each the entire discussion was the issue of guaranteeingregion. In particular, divergent views were ex- or maintaining funds for research, the continuingpressed as to whether or not the CGIAR should diminution of Overseas Development Assistanceincrease its research efforts in Africa-to the pos- funds, and the need to match resource supply withsit-le detriment of programs elsewhere. demand.

Continuity. As a dynamic organization theCGIAR system should be sensitive to changing Green Revolutionneeds and trends, but research programs wouldsuffer if they were buffeted by political winds that Worldwide interest in the "green revolution,"changed course periodically. which was based on high-yielding varieties

The system had to define a balance between (HYVs) developed by CIMMYT and IRRI, the

14

tested in pilot locations in Nigeria. Designs are as a food exchange scheme, taking on some con-modified during field tests to adapt the equipment tract processing as well. Farmers give their freshto the work setting and with the help of the end cassava tubers to the center in exchange for pro-users for each selected community, thus enhancing cessed cassava. The productivity gains from thethe utility of the various machines. community effort have been amazing-from 50

Selection of the pilot test locations was based kilograms of cassava tubers, the center processeson local needs or problems, which were first 13 kilograms of lafun (flour) or 10 kilograms ofassessed in a comprehensive survey. Interviewers gari (fermented meal) with IITA-designed equip-were locally recruited and trained. They kept ment and training. Under traditional processingrecords of available equipment, system capacities by individual effort, 50 kilograms of tubers yieldsand operational requirements, among other data. only 9 kilograms of lafun or 6 kilograms of gari.Family infoimation and community profiles were To cover its operational costs, the Moniya centerrecorded, including income sources, crops and retains 3 of the 13 kilograms of lafun or 3 of theareas planted, production potential, expenditures 10 kilograms of gari. The customer benefits withand activities other than farming. This information 1 kilogram extra of either product than he or sheis later used in assessing technology impact or the could have produced under traditional processingquality of life before and after the technology is and without having to do the work. The managerintroduced. of the center, who must devote full time to the

A group of more than 50 women at the village operation. can take on private processing workof Moniya, who call themselves the "Stop Hunger" during the aftemoons to eam personal income.group, have set up a community center for process- Success in the enterprise has brought favorableing cassava. Their aim is to improve the quality changes in the quality of life for the Moniya com-of the food they and their families consume, and munity. The environment around individual homesto reduce the time they must spend in processing and the work center is cleaner and less smoky, andcassava. the villagers have more time to spend on income-

The Moniya group operate the center essentially generating activities.

pioneer institutes of the CGIAR system, was less line of ships should link the grain producingrenewed in 1991, when the World Food Council countries of the west with newly independent(WFC) urged the international development countries across the seas, carrying cargoes of foodcommunity to commit itself to a "renewal of the and peace, they said. This was a well-motivatedgreen revolution" so that developing countries argument based on the unwillingness of its sup-could achieve food security. porters to see large masses of human beings

The call for a renewal of the green revolution starvc, sicken and die.reaffirmed the contribution made by international Other assessments of the situation were moreagricultural research to agricultural development stark, and less hopeful. The pragmatic virtues ofand thus to the well-being of people in disadvan- a "triage approach" were seriously examined.taged countries. Nothing could ever really help these masses of

Not many years ago pessimism about the people, some very thoughtful people believed.capacity of emerging post-colonial nations to feed They would starve to death. The green revolu-themselves was often accepted as a matter of tragic tion challenged those judgements.inevitability. Access to food was as limited as The phrase "green revolution" was coined byaccess to other necessities. Some policymakers felt Mr. William S. Gaud, a former Administrator ofthat the only way in which the newly independent the U.S. Agency for International Developmentcountries could be fed was by food aid. A limit- (USAID). The term was applied to South Asia's

15

ICARDA: Soil Erosion StrategiesSoil erosion by wind occurs where natural vegeta-tion, particularly trees, shrubs and other perennialspecies, has been removed and not replaced by any vother form of protection. Planting of such shrubs asAtriplex spp. and Salsola spp. helps control winderosion and provides feed for livestock. ICARDA,in collaboration with the Syrian Government andtMle Arab Center for Studies of the Arid Zones andI)ry Lands (ACSAD) is measuring the productivitycf shrub vegetation at three levels of livestock(sheep) stocking intensity. Herbage productionof improved pasture from its natural seed bankand from shrubs was more than doubled that ofunimproved pasture, and it supported the live-

Parock for several months longer. Medic pasture regenerates after seeds have lainFarmners may, however, see planting shrubs as dormant during a cereal crop.

less attractive than the quick returns from plantingbarley. ICARDA is investigating the effects of cies adapted to some of the environments in theslrub hedges on barley and feed legumes grown region have been identified. These species do notin strips between them, as well as the productivity need to be resown after the initial year; they regen-o F the hedges as feed. This system is comparable erate because their seeds lie dormant during thew. ith alley farmning developed by I1TA. cereal years. Not only does this save farmers the

Traditionally, for hundreds of years, farmers expense of resowing, but it allows a higher rate ofin the drier areas of West Asia and North Africa reseeding than farmers could afford. The pasturehave practiced rotations that leave the land fallow establishment takes place rapidly and allows afor a year after it has been cropped, usually to longer grazing period.barley. Replacement of fallow with suitable food ICARDA is also investigating the possibilityor feed crops has been a subject of great interest of using amphicarpous (producing fruits moreto ICARDA. This will not only increase produc- than once) vetches and chicklings for developingtivity but also reduce erosion and help ensure sus- ley farming systems, similar to those with med-tainability. Medic has been found to be a success- ics, because these vetches and chicklings alsofui pasture legume to replace fallow, and the spe- produce underground seeds that remain dormant.

record-breaking harvests of wheat and rice in the 1960s, India was considered famine-prone. In thelate sixties. Its use became widespread intema- mid-1980s, India, with its worst drought of thetionally after Norman Borlaug, whose research century, suffered no famine even in that crisis.produced the high-yielding, semidwarf wheats, What happened in the green revolution coun-which were the basis of those harvests, was tries of Asia is dramnatic, given the starkness ofawarded the Nobel Prize in 1970. what it replaced, and the forecasts of devastation

The increase in productivity which began with that it forestalled. But it was not unique. Thethe harvests associated with the green revolution, world as a whole has been witness to continuingturned the food situation around in much of Asia increases in productivity. As New York Times--before then, considered a "basket case" with reporter William Stevens puts it: "The farmers ofonly a past, barely a present and without a future. the world, harvesting the abundant crops of theTc, cite just one example of change: in the mid- green revolution, have so far defied Malthusian

16

ILCA: Trypanotolerant CattleTrypanosomiasis, a disease transmitted by the In 1990, this problem was overcome by usingtsetse fly, restricts livestock production in much an enzyme-linked irnmunosorbent assay (ELISA)of the better-watered areas of tropical Africa. test for trypanosomes developed by ILRAD. ThisFortunately, several African cattle breeds show test demonstrates the presence of trypanosometolerance of this deadly disease. Until recently, antigens in the blood, an indication of infection.little was known of the performance of these try- Animals that tested positive with the ELISA testpanotolerant breeds, and less was known about but exhibited no trypanosomes with the parasito-breeding to improve tolerance. Recent research logical test were termed "antigenaemic." Thisunder the African Trypanotolerant Livestock was taken as a sign that the animal was better ableNetwork, coordinated by ILCA, has opened up to control parasite development than an animalpossibilities for breeding cattle that are both more in which trypanosomes were found.productive and more trypanotolerant. A trial at the OGAPROV (Office gabonais

The signs of trypanosomiasis infection are d'amelioration et de la production de viande) ranchthe presence of trypanosomes in the blood and in Gabon showed that parasitaemic animals hadanaemia, caused by the destruction of red blood significantly lower average PCV and daily weightcells by the parasites. Research has shown that gain than antigenaemic animals. There were nokey indicators of trypanotolerance are the abilities differences in these characteristics between anti-to limit the number of parasites in the blood genaemic and non-infected animals. There were(parasitaemia control) and to maintain relatively indications from this work that ability to controlhigh levels of red blood cells when infected by parasitaemia may also be inheritable.trypanosomes (anaemia control). The ELISA test thus offers, for the first time,

Previous work by members of the African Try- a practical means of identifying animlals with apanotolerant Livestock Network has shown that superior ability to control parasitaemia, providingthe degree of anaemia in trypanosome-infected the opportunity for selection based on this criterioncattle, as measured by the packed red cell volume as well as on that of anaemia control.(PCV) in the blood, is correlated with such produc-tion traits as reproductive performance and growth-animals able to maintain high PCV levels aremore productive than those with low PCV values.

Studies in 1989 demonstrated that an animal'sability to maintain high PCV levels when infectedwith trypanosomes is a heritable trait, and identi-fied conditions for field testing to assess trypano-tolerance levels. This opened the way for practicalbreeding programs aimed at producing cattle thatare both more trypanotolerant and more produc-tive. Such breeding programs are currently beingevaluated at Mushie Ranch in Zaire.

While the degree of anaemia is relatively sim-ple to measure, determining the degree of parasi-taemia has proven more difficult. In the past, thisdepended on observation of trypanosomes inperipheral blood using conventional parasitolog-ical techniques. However, there is evidence that Trypanotolerant N'Daama cattle-new resultsanimals may be infected even when trypanosomes increase the feasibility of selecting for greatercannot be found by these techniques. trypanotolerance and increased productiv ity.

17

IRRI. Food for Half the People of the WorldAk bowl of rice-that means food for half the innovative genome mapping is a component ofpeople of the world. For three decades, IRRI the Rockefeller Foundation's rice biotechnologyiesearch has helped 600 million more people to program.lhave their daily rice. Now IRRI is focusing on New IRRI machines are leading to labor-present and future generations of farmers and economic systems for producing rice. A directconsumers, particularly those with low incomes, seeder lessens the drudgery of transplanting seed-for the rice to be needed by 1 billion more people lings; a stripper harvester reduces grain losses.at the beginning of the new century. Machines are developed to meet the needs of

Since 1988, 17 countries have released more women who share 50 percent of the labor relatedt-lan 50 national rice varieties that originated from to the production of rice. During the past fourIRRI breeding lines. There is a breakthrough in years, 700 small, private companies receivedMRRI's search for irrigated tropical hybrid rice. 3,000 design sets to make IRRI machines eco-

T'ests in seven countries confirm yield potentials nomically available to farmers.that are 15 to 20 percent higher, equaling those Rice researchers are seeking environmentalcf temperate regions of China. Seed yield is now breakthroughs. One approach is to develop nitro-almost two tons per hectare. gen-fixing nodules on plant roots. Another is to

Rice is important to farmers in the often disad- reduce methane emissions from flooded rice fields,vantaged uplands ecosystems. IRRI researchers are which may contribute as much as 20 percent tocollaborating on technologies to make upland rice global warming, without reducing crop yields. Thesijstainable and help avoid slash-and-bum practices. U.S. Environrmental Protection Agency, the United

Biotechnology that crosses disciplines is a key Nations Environment Programme and the Fraun-element of IRRI's future. Strategic research is hofer Society of Germany are collaborating.b-ing shared among institutions in industrialized IRRI is strongly committed to integrated pestcountries and with IRRI's national research part- management (IPM). Improper application andners in Asia, Africa and Latin America. IRRI's misuse of pesticides in rice are all too common.

IRRI studies in the Philippines show this can raisefarmers' health costs, reducing the value of theirincreased production. With WPM, farmers can main-tain rice yields while reducing costs of unneededinputs and improving their quality of life.

IRRI is changing the way rice research is car-ried out by developing partnerships for knowl-edge sharing instead of technology transfer.Training programs are being given by nationalstaffs. Cambodia is rebuilding its rice researchsystem with know-how from IRRI and financialsupport from Australia. The newly built PhilippineRice Research Institute is now a partner in muchof IRRI's research in its home country.

The word rice can be an acronym for IRRI'stheme: Research in Critical Environments. Theresearch of IRRI and its national partners isdirected to sustainable productivity in the rice-

With an ultralite rice tr-ansplanter that weighs just growing ecosystems, thus helping farmers to1]? kilograms, a woman can transplant rice five produce the daily bowl of rice needed to feedtines faster than she could by hand. the world's billions in the next century.

18

predictions that population growth would outrun Unless yields of major food crops more thanagricultural production and consign much of double over the next 30 years, malnutrition. evenhumanity to chronic famine.... Famine caused by starvation, will be widespread. The problem isunder-production has largely disappeared; hunger particularly grave in Africa where, in the eighties,today is mostly a product of political upheaval, one out of every four persons lacked the minimumbad administration of food supplies or the inability diet for a healthy life-despite food aid.of the poor to buy food."2

And yet, images of hunger surround us. So dowarnings that food supplies, even when they are Widespread Impactabundant, are always endangered by any numberof potentially adverse trends-population growth, The potential of a "renewed" green revolution toenvironmental degradation or civil war, for deal with these realities was underscored by com-example. Moreover, food supplies are unevenly pelling evidence that the benefits of agriculturaldistributed, and the benefits of productivity do development which began in the sixties reachednot always reach the poor. far and wide. This evidence was provided in a

So, to say that great advances have been made study published in 1991, The Green ReColutionon the food front is by no means to imply that the Reconsidered by Peter B. R. Hazell and C. Rama-world has been fed, the job completed. Much more swamy,3 who examined the impact of the greenremains to be done, in terms of increasing food revolution over a decade in North Arcot, in ruralsupplies and of ensuring that productivity is not South India.achieved at the expense of the environment. The evidence runs counter to earlier criticisms

The WFC's appeal for a renewal of the green of the green revolution on the grounds that itrevolution brought these needs to the forefront of helped only rich farmers with large holdings. Thisthe unfinished agenda of international develop- theory first surfaced in the seventies when criticismment. This will need a great infusion of resources of the green revolution was generally advancedfor agricultural research, and an acceptance of the without supporting evidence.need to move swiftly. The WFC said, "Hungry Looking back on those comments, Mr. Haldorepeople cannot wait for an uptum in global eco- Hanson, a former Director General of CIMMYT,nomic fortunes. They have to eat now." says: ". .. it seems to me that those who castigated

This approach coincided with the analysis of the green revolution were more interested inCGIAR Chairman Wilfried P. Thalwitz in his advancing an ideology than in securing an ade-address commemorating the 20th anniversary quate food supply for the third world."4

of the CGIAR. He said, "... .we have been lulled In fact, the Hazell and Ramaswamy study foundparticularly by the discussion in industrialized that the green revolution helped large farmers,countries surrounding the GATT (General Agree- small farmers and wage eamers. At first, benefitsment on Tariffs and Trade) negotiations into took a longer time to reach small farmers whooverlooking the productivity issue that exists in experenced initial problems in ganing access tothe world today. The GATT discussions may make inputs and credit and who had less-assured suppliesus believe that food is in excess supply, that it is of water. However, later releases of the new seeda subject for domestic subsidization, to be pushed were more tolerant of a variable water supply.out with export promotion and kept out through Overall, the study found that absolute povertyentry restrictions. None of the above is true for the declined: "The available evidence from thedeveloping world ...." resurvey villages shows that small paddy farmers

More than a billion people live in poverty acrossthe globe. This number is expected to increase as 2New York Times, June 25,1991.

the world moves toward an anticipated 7.8 billion 'The Green Revolution Reconsidered: The Impact of High-in the year 2000. Increased productivity alone will Yielding Rice Varieties in South India, Peter B. Hazell and C.not feed the poor. Lack of income and lack of Ramaswamy, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,

Maryland, USA for IFPRI, 1991.empowerment add to the problems of the poor and Fifty Years Around the Third World, Adventures andhungry and without adequate food supplies their Reflections of an Overseas American, Haldore Hanson,hopes for the future can only diminish. Fraser Publishing Company, Burlington, Vermont, USA, 1986.

19

VVARDA: Improved Mangrove Rice VarietiesSince 1976, WARDA has maintained a major Farmers identified and ranked the ten mostregional rice varietal improvement program important mangrove swamp rice cultivars that theytargeting approximately 200,000 hectares of grow. The survey results indicated that three of themangrove swamps that are cultivated to rice in improved varieties (ROK-1O, ROK-5 and KuatikWest Africa. With work based at Rokupr, Sierra Kundur) ranked very high among farners in SierraLeone, WARDA scientists in collaboration with Leone. ROK-5 was ranked in the third position bynational agricultural research system scientists 20 percent of the respondents; ROK- 10 was rankedhave screened large numbers of introduced in the fifth position by 26 percent of the respon-materials, collected, purified and characterized dents; and Kuatik Kundur was rated in seventhlocal varieties and carried out large numbers of position by 17 percent of the farmers. In Guinea,crosses to incorporate desirable characteristics ROK-5 is the only modem variety of any wideinto improved cultivars. Significant progress has importance and was ranked as the third mostbeen achieved, as evident from the outstanding important variety by 15 percent of the farrners.performance of the new, improved short and The survey data showed that 52 percent and 17medium duration mangrove rice varieties com- percent of the sampled households in Sierra Leonepared to farmers' best local varieties in several and Guinea respectively were growing one or moreon-farm tests in the region. However, little infor- of the improved mangrove swamp rice varietiesmation has been available on the adoption and mostly in combination with their local varieties.impact of these improved varieties. For both countries, the mean share of the total rice

WARDA conducted a major study in Sierra area grown by falmers under the improved vari-Leone and Guinea during the 1990-91 crop season eties rose from 9 percent in 1988 to 16 percentto: (1) determine the adoption pattems of the vari- in 1990.eties; (2) quantify the factors that determine the Econometric modeling analyses, conducted toacloption behavior of farmers; and (3) estimate the determine the factors motivating the adoption ofeconomic impacts of adoption. Major mangrove the varieties, show that farmers' perceptions of therice growing areas in the two countries were sur- superiority of these improved varieties in termsveyed over a six-month period from November of some specific attributes (e.g., ease of cooking,1990 to April 1991. threshing quality, tillering capacity and yield) are

(+90%) and landless laborers (+125%) gained the changes observed in areas like Punjab and Haryana.largest proportional increases in family income This was due to a lack of reliable water supplies andbetween 1973/74 and 1983/84.... These changes the pre-existing use of locally improved varietiesar- corroborated by measured changes in the real that already had key physiological features of thevalue of household consumption expenditure, by high-yielding varieties (HYVs).a sharp improvement in calorie and protein intake. * Nevertheless, regional paddy output increasedar d by the growing importance of higher quality by 57 percent between the mid- 1960s and the latefoods in total household expenditure." 1970s, and this growth had a significant economic

The Hazell and Ramaswamy study is the impact on the region's villages and towns.first to compare the situation in a green revolu- *Furthermore, none of the predictions of thetion area before and after new technology was critics-that smaller farmers would be either

in troduced. unaffected or made worse off by the green revolu-IFPRIL which initiated the study, sunimarized

'Pwhcintaetesuysumrz tion and that unnecessary mechanization wouldsome of its conclusions as follows: significantly reduce rural employment, thus

* The green revolution in North Arcot was worsening absolute poverty-came true.modest compared to the dramatic technological * The study found that between 1973-74 and

20

M3 >Xftnot significant in determining adoption of the, improved mangrove swamp rice varieties.

X A = * h ^ * _ , ,1 < The estimates show that the cumulative farm-W level economic benefit (from 1986 to 1990), derived by the smaliholder mangrove swamp rice

'LA s 1 --- ^- > .- . -vfarmers in the Great Scarcies region of SierraLeone, due to adoption of the modem varieties,ranges from US$12.2 million to $14 million. InGuinea, due to the lagged adoption by farmers ofthe improved varieties (starting mainly in 1990),the cumulative economic benefit to the farmersin the Coyah region is estimated at US$0.31 mil-

| 11 | S [ , lion to $0.4 million. While local varieties yieldon average 2.3 metric tons per hectare, the aver-age yield of the improved varieties is 3.5 metrictons per hectare under actual farmer conditionsin both Guinea and Sierra Leone.

The research progr-am objectives of WARDA Estimates show that the share of mangrove riceinclude development and evaluation of improved income that is derived from the improved varietiesrice var-ieties suitable for the West African has increased from 6 percent in 1986 to 28 percentconsumer. in 1990 in Sierra Leone and in Guinea from 3 per-

the major factors determining the adoption of the cent in 1989 to 13 percent in 1990.improved mangrove rice varieties. Surprisingly, The results from this study show that WARDA'sthe farm and farmer specific factors (e.g., farm collaborative research with national agriculturalsize, contact with extension, years of experience research systems is making significant economicof farmers. level of education of farmers, etc.) impact in West Africa, and is directly benefitingtraditionally shown in the general adoption-dif- the smallholder mangrove rice farmers of Westfusion literature as influencing adoption, were Africa.

1983-84, not only did an initial gap in HYV adop- agriculture stimulated an additional Rs.0.87 oftion between large and small farms disappear, but value added in the region's non-farm economy.the gap in yield levels closed as well, providing * About half of this indirect income gain wasevidence that green revolution technology is due to agriculture's demands for inputs and mar-"scale-neutral." keting and processing services, and the rest was

Small paddy farmers and landless laborers, due to increased consumer demands as a conse-who were initially among the poorest households, quence of higher incomes.gained the largest proportional increases in familyincome, virtually doubling their real income during Moreloverntinuing rev.iew ofnaricultual

th eae development m* "green revolution countries" hasthe decade. demonstrated that the impact of the new varieties

* Non-paddy farmers and non-agricultural house- of rice and wheat continues up to today, and willholds increased their real family incomes by 20 to do so into the future.50 percent. As a report prepared for the WFC by the

* The study showed that there were important CGIAR Secretariat pointed out, there are fourbenefits from the green revolution for the non-fann dimensions to the continuous evolution and impacteconomy. Each rupee increase of value added in of the green revolution. Farmers using the new

21

technology obtain repeated benefits year after year. responsibilities at the World Bank; and place onAdaptations by scientists of seed varieties to local record their gratitude for the dedicated, skillfulconditions raise yield ceilings further. Adaptations and inspiring leadership he provided them as theybenefit farmers who grow crops in soil and water sought to redefine their priorities and renew theirconditions different from those in which the first commitment to mobilizing science on behalf ofgeneration of new varieties were cultivated. Adap- the world's poor and disadvantaged."tation allows extension of the crop to areas pre- Mr. Visvanathan Rajagopalan was received byviously unsuited to it, bringing new crop oppor- acclamation as the sixth Chairman of the CGIAR.tunities to more farmers. He was nominated as Chairman by World Bank

In addition to increased yields, increased President Lewis T. Preston. Mr. Rajagopalan is theincome, improved social and economic conditions, Bank's Vice President for Sector and Operationsand so on, the continuous nature of the process of Policy.i-npact makes it possible for negative aspects of Mr. Rajagopalan is an alumnus of Johnstie new varieties to be countered over time. Hopkins University and Madras University. He

held several senior government posts in Indiabefore joining the World Bank in 1965 as Engineer

(GIAR Personalities in the Projects Department, Water Supply Division.After holding a number of increasingly senior

Personalities have played an important role in the positions he was, in 1975, appointed Assistantdevelopment of the CGIAR, and appropriate tribute Director, South Asia Projects Department, Officewas paid to the pioneers of the system and to their of Director. In 1979, he was named Director,cLirrent successors at the centers during the 20th Projects Advisory Staff (Projects Policy Depart-anniversary comnmemoration. ment). During 1986-87, he was Director, Europe,

In that spirit the CGIAR paid tribute to a per- Middle East and North Africa Region. He wassonality who left the CGIAR in 1991, welcomed appointed Vice President for Sector and Opera-a:a important addition to the fold and acclaimed tions Policy in 1987.thie decision of a third to remain in a leadership Mr. Alex McCalla was unanimously invited toposition within the system. serve for two years beyond the end of his present

Mr. Wilfried P. Thalwitz, fifth Chairman of term on December 31,1992, as Chairman of thetlhe CGIAR, relinquished chairmanship on being Technical Advisory Committee. From 1966 tonamed to head a new Vice Presidency for Europe 1979, Mr. McCalla rose through the ranks of theand Central Asia at the World Bank. Mr. Thalwitz University of California, Davis. Following hishas had a distinguished career at the Bank which Associate Professorship, he became Professor ofhe joined as a Young Professional in 1963. He Agricultural Economics and thereafter, Dean ofbecarne Chainnan of the CGIAR in May, 1990, the College of Agricultural and Environmentalsucceeding Mr. W. David Hopper. Sciences and Associate Director of the Agricul-

Mr. Thalwitz presided over several crucial tural Experiment Station at Davis.meetings of the CGIAR, during a period of In 1975, he received a Ford Foundation Travelexpansion. Under his chairmanship, the Group and Study Award to review world food policydecided that food productivity and the manage- research on a global basis. Additionally, in 1979,rrent of natural resources should be twin pillars he became Acting Dean of the Graduate Schoolol research. This decision accelerated a trend of Administration at Davis prior to returning tothat was set in motion under the chairmanship full-time teaching and research. In March 1984,o1 Mr. Hopper in 1988. he was appointed to TAC where he was study

In recognition of his services to the CGIAR, director of the first review of the CGIAR systemthe following resolution was unanimously adopted of International Agricultural Research Centers.by the CGIAR on November 1, 1991, during its Mr. McCalla will continue to guide TAC as theannual meeting: CGIAR completes its selection of priorities and

"Members of the CGIAR extend their felicita- strategies and reaches final decisions on suchtions to the Group's Chairman, Wilfried P. Thal- issues as the expansion of the system to includew:itz, as he prepares to assume challenging new institutions dealing with forestry and fisheries.

22

ISNAR: Ugandan Research RenewedUganda has begun to reorganize and rebuild itsfragmented agricultural research system under asingle umbrella organization that will focus workon a smaller number of priority commodities and -+ 7`fsubject areas than in the past. - .

The move follows the completion in early -

1991 of a major long-term planning exercise bya Ugandan working group assisted by ISNAR.The rehabilitation and reorganization will takeplace over five years under the auspices of theAgricultural Research and Extension Project.

Over 90 percent of Uganda's 17 million people Tomatoes, grown by small-scale producers, arelive in rural areas. Agriculture is by far the most sold at a market in Mbarara, Uganda.important sector of the economy, contributing Agricultural Research Organization (NARO).about two-thirds of the gross domestic product. (This had been recommended by ISNAR staffYet the country has been investing just 0.2 per- and Ugandan counterparts in 1987.) NARO willcent of its agricultural gross domestic product consolidate the country's nine research institutes,(AgGDP) on research in this sector, far below the several substations and 65 variety-testing sites intoaverage for comparable developing countries. a smaller number of institutes, stations and pro-

The civil war and economic decline of the grams. The government has approved the creation1970s and early 1980s left Uganda's agricultural of NARO and is now taking necessary administra-research system debilitated, as it did other spheres tive and legal steps to set it up.of national development. Research stations and The strategic plan identifies specific commodi-equipment were damaged, destroyed or looted, ties, production systems and other areas of researchthere was little research activity going on and for scientists to concentrate on in the short toscientists were demoralized. Nonetheless, the medium term. The ten high-priority commoditiescountry continued to be largely agriculturally are bananas and plantains, millets, maize, cassava,self-sufficient and was exporting some industrial sweet potato, beans, groundnut, selected vegeta-and food crops, thanks largely to a sound agricul- bles, coffee and cotton. The seven high-prioritytural structure in the most productive regions. production systems and research areas are cattle,

In 1989, the government got together with Lake Victoria-Kyoga fisheries, natural forests, soilmajor donors, and agreed on the need to draft productivity, plant protection, crop managementa comprehensive strategic plan for agriculture. and animal nutrition and management.ISNAR, which had participated in a review of Among the many other measures called for inthe national research system in 1987, was asked the plan is the setting up of formal mechanismsto assist with planning for research. It posted a to ensure that research responds to national devel-management specialist to Uganda to collaborate opment goals and to farmers' needs. These willwith the national working group assigned to the include a National Agricultural Research Boardjob, and also called on in-house expertise, as to guide NARO and advise the govemment, andwell as that of several consultants. the participation of farmers and other clients in

The resulting report is a two-volume document the planning, conduct and evaluation of research.titled "National Agricultural Research Strategy and During 1991, ISNAR agreed to a UgandanPlan" which has been adopted by the Agricultural request for assistance with implementation of thePolicy Committee of the Ugandan govemment. strategic plan. The ISNAR management specialist

The centerpiece of the strategic plan is the who helped draft the plan has since been repostedcreation of an umbrella body called the National to Uganda for one year.

23

Trhe Role of the CGIAR in Forestry andAgroforestry Research

he CGIAR's recent decision to incorporate in agricultural policies that will help to slow downforestry and agroforestry research into its the rate of deforestation. Improved understandingmandate represents the culmination of a of the complex interaction between trees, crops

series of international initiatives that have been and livestock (which is a basic aim of agrofores-taken over the last two decades to combat the try research) has contributed to development ofnegative impacts of deforestation (see box below). improved agroforestry technologies, such as on-These initiatives aimed to mobilize increased farm hedgerows of fast growing leguminous treesawareness of the potential of agroforestry and that contribute both to soil fertility and to livestockforestry research to contribute to containment of fodder needs. Raising the productivity of selectedtropical deforestation, to development of technol- multipurpose fodder/fuelwood/fruit tree speciesoglies for resource-poor farmers, to increased agri- (through provenance selection and in some casesC'tltural productivity, to economic development through vegetative propagation) can help toand to protection of the environment. improve on-farm fuelwood/fodder availability,

A Bellagio Forestry Research Conference, to enhance farmers' income from cash crop treeheld in November 1988, focused on identifica- farming and to accelerate current rates of reforesta-tion of policy and technology interventions that tion. Recent research into mycorrhizal/tree growthcould make a decisive impact on slowing down interaction for regeneration of the Dipterocarpthe rate of deforestation and improving agricul- forests of South East Asia is contributing totural productivity. For example, policy research increased productivity and sustained yield man-on the impact of cattle ranching subsidies in agement of these valuable hardwood forests.Brazil provided the basis for significant changes The Bellagio Task Force suggested five main areas

Negative Effects of Deforestation

* Increasing soil degradation and desertification * Declining foreign exchange earnings andthat lead to food insecurity increasing import bills for forest products as

* Declining water quality that affects human forests are depleted of commercial woodshealth * Loss of biological diversity and the gene pool,

* Rising costs for hydropower and irrigation which has been so important in supplying theprojects as dam reservoirs become filled with basic genetic material underlying many of oursilt from erosion important food products and medicines

* Hardship and misery for an increasing devel- * Cutting and burning of tropical forests, whichoping country population who cannot find is contributing to atmospheric emissions offuelwood or afford alternative fuels "greenhouse gases," thereby amplifying the

* Declining productive employment because problem of global warmingwood, both as a raw material and a fuel for -Bellagio Task Force on Forestryindustry, is becoming scarce and expensive Research, 1988

24

_ research into its mandate. It requested the Techni-cal Advisory Committee (TAC) to explore waysand means of achieving this.

TAC's Review of Priority Research AreasAnd Institutional OptionsThroughout 1989 to 1991, TAC interacted withforestry scientists and research institutions in boththe developed and developing world in identifyingareas of strategic forestry and agroforestry researchin which the CGIAR system would have a compar-ative advantage. Many of these corresponded wellwith the findings of the Bellagio Task Force.

2 E | , - ?- 9 It also developed a series of alternative institu-tional options for incorporation of forestry andagroforestry research into the CGIAR system rang-ing from the creation of three discrete regionalintegrated forestry/agroforestry research centers(located respectively in Asia, Africa, Latin Amer-ica) to the concept of a single integrated globalcenter with outreach research activities in the

Invohlement of local people in afforestation: a key various regions.to forest rehabilitation. After considerable debate and the appointment

as priorities for expanded investment in research: of a special CGIAR Working Group to review(1) agroforestry and watershed management; these various options, it was agreed at the mid-term(2) natural forest ecology and management; meeting of 1991 that the CGIAR should fund two(3) tree breeding and tree improvement; maior centers:(4) utilization and marketing; and ICRAF-The International Council for Research(5) policy and socioeconomic issues. in Agroforestry (which had existed since 1978,

The report analyzed major weaknesses in exist- changed its name from Council to Centre ining research capacity and it recommended the 1991) located in Nairobi, Kenya, with a specificestablishment of an International Tropical Forestry mandate to act as the global focal point for agro-Research Council, which could provide a mecha- forestry research (see quote below); andnism for channeling and coordinating international,financial and technical support to forestry research.It recommended a significant increase in intema- "Agroforestry is a collective name fortional funding support to forest research with a pre- land-use systems and practices whereliminary target of US$50 million by 1995. woody perennials are deliberateljv integrat-

At this Bellagio Forestry Research Conference,the donor community adopted many of the recom- ed with crops andlor animals on the samemendations of the Task Force report (including in land managemenit unit. The integration canparticular the proposed areas of priority). However, be either in spatial mixture or in temporalit declined to support the notion of an independent sequence. There are normally both ecologi-International Forestry Research Council. Instead, cal and economic interactions betweenit was suggested that ways and means should beexplored of incorporating forestry and agroforestry the woody and non-woody components ininto the CGIAR system. agroforestry."

At its mid-term meeting in Canberra in 1989, ICRAF 1989the CGIAR formally accepted in principle theincorporation of both forestry and agroforestry

25

CIFOR-The Centre for International Forestry It was also recognized that some of the otherResearch, a still to be created forestry research existing CGIAR centers could make a significantcenter, to be located in Asia with a global man- contribution to either agroforestry or forestrydate for forestry research focused on conserva- research needs and recommended that steps shouldtion and improved productivity of forest be taken to explore those options.ecosystems. For example, IFPRI has recently been reviewing

its potential contribution to socioeconomic envi-ronmental policy research in the area of naturalresource conservation and management. In mid-

Major Issues Reviewed at the 1991, it hosted a Forest Policy Workshop to helpIFPRI Forest Policy Workshop, develop its own research agenda in that area (seeJuly 1991 box at left).

- Population distribution and growth, Other CGIAR centers have also been activelydeforestation, and land use in wet tropical reviewing the scope for their support to forestryforest zones. Particular emphasis was research. For example, IBPGR is currently prepar-placed on means of addressing issues relat- ing proposals for its involvement in conservationed to finding ways of optimizing land use of biodiversity and forestry species gerrnplasm.among small-scale cultivators (including ISNAR is actively exploring ways and means ofshifting cultivation), the distribution and extending its earlier work devoted to strengtheninggrowth of populations, shortened fallow of national agricultural research systems to playperiods and opportunities for alternative a simnilar role in strengthening national forestryland-use strategies which incorporate trees research institutions.or other perennial crops. The emerging ecoregional centers, particularly

* Options for the reclamation and utiliza- CIAT, HTA and ICRISAT and also ILCA, have alltion of degraded forest lands in dry regions, indicated their interest and willingness to expandfocusing on common property issues, research in the agroforestry area. Several of theseexperience with wasteland management centers had already embarked on programs forstrategies and the management of lands by selection and improvement of leguminous treepublic agencies. fodder species for incorporation in tropical pasture

* Intensive, sustainable land-use systems and rangeland improvement programs. IITA, ELCAinvolving trees in upland watersheds and and ICRISAT have, for a number of years, beenthe preservation of woodlands, giving testing alley cropping systems and shelterbeltspecial emphasis to the characterization of crop interactions.these systems, upstream/downstream Complexity and Location Specificityeffects and how the quality of life of people Among the more difficult issues that the CGIARliving in or near upland watersheds could Among he torapple ithat rev CGIARbe improved by income generation through system has had to grapple with in reviewingjob creation. options for incorporation of forestry research into

* The role of trees in income and welfare the CGIAR has been the complexity of forestrysecurity, addressing social and economic research (see quote on opposite page). Both agro-issues related to the use of trees and tree forestry and forestry research rcquire a high degreeproducts in farming systems, by communi- of ecological site specificity to take into accountties and by small-scale enterprises. local farmer and community perceptions of the

* Intersectoral policy issues affecting the both positive and negative influences of trees, on-forestry sector, such as policies affecting farm productivity and human welfare and the siteagricultural expansion and intensification, specificity of the very large range of tree species.structural adjustment programs, road These factors imply the need for a more decentral-development initiatives and policies related ized approach to natural resource managementto energy resource development, research than has traditionally been the case for the

CGIAR's commodity-oriented research programs.L They also call for a multidisciplinary approach to

26

-~~~~~ ~

Wasteful logging methods leave behind valuable timber and damage regeneration possibilities.

forestry research that considers socioeconomic, by the CGLAR system on forestry recommendedtechnological and ecological considerations. that about 30 percent of the CGIAR's allocations

Despite the fact that natural resource manage- to forestry and agroforestry research should bement and its components (e.g. sociology, agrono- devoted to global strategic research issues at head-my, forestry, soils, water, plant nutrition and agro- quarters and 70 percent to support research in theecological characterization) are highly location regions. It was emphasized that the latter wouldspecific, TAC in its review of evolving CGIARstrategies and priorities concluded that there are,and will remain, strategic issues and environmentalproblems which transcend specific local produc- "This widespread concern about tropicaltion systems and geographic/ecological regions. forests is based on a number of issues: that

These include, for example, basic understanding these forests are disappearing at an alarm-of soil water plant relationships, energy balances, ing rate; that the loss of so much forest hassustainable input/output models, transnational potentially disastrous effects-on soil,issues of forest and water resource use, watershedland-use management, migratory pests, soil ero- wate, climate, the genetic richness of thesion, forest ecosystem processes and impact of globe and the supply of possible futureclimate change on agriculture and forestry. economic products; that the uses to which

TAC characterized these issues in the broad the land is being converted are often notresearch area of the "ecological foundation for sustainable-that the forest is in factsustainable production systems." It concluded being destroved for no ultimate benefit,that strategic research addressed to these issues a tcould be of intemational relevance, that there are bnd tatritr dis led."economnies of scale in global approaches and being arbitrarily displaced."that such strategic research can have substantial _Duncan Poore, No Timber Without Trees,spillover benefits for both regional and national Earthscan Publications, London 1989, p. 1programs.

Within that framework, the decisions taken

27

in widespread deforestation of the humid tropicsV i i; 5 and massive land depletion in subhumid and semi-

arid areas.A principal cause of deforestation is slash and

bum agriculture, either spontaneous or after selec-tive logging. Alternatives to slash and bum need tobe found that will offer forest farmers technologicaloptions for more sustainable farming and ways tocontain deforestation (see quote below). Agrofor-estry farming systems are among the more attrac-tive sustainable alternatives to shifting cultivation.They are also critical in the reclamation of secon-

_. 1 D .t ^ w S t _ dary forest fallows and in derived grasslands thatoften follow in the wake of short rotation shiftingcultivation.

At the farmn level, on-farm tree planting, andimproved on-farm tree management can play amajor role in helping to) increase on-farm produc-

tivity in contributing to increased farm income,to improved food security and to conservationof farm, soil and water resources.

Agroforestry is probably the most com-plicatedbiological challenge in the CGIAR system: howto grow annual crops with trees in a way that theinevitable competition for light, water and nutrientsresults in sustainable food production withoutdegrading the environment.

There is a limited fundamental understandingof how such interactions occur at the process leveland how they can best be manipulated by adaptedgerrnplasm and agronomic silviculture manage-

Women and children spend many hours a weekforaging for fuelwood.

need to be conducted in the closest possible collab- "In the subhumid and semiarid savannasoration with national agroforestry and forestry of the tropics, high population densitiesresearch institutions. o w woody bims p recludensiting

Much of the CGIAR's forestry work has cen- and low woody biomass preclude shiftingtered around designing strategic plans for both cultivation, but many current practices,ICRAF and CIFOR that will achieve this balanced especially overgrazing, are causing mas-alpproach to research on agroforestry and natural sive soilfertility depletion, leading to seri-forest conservation and management. ous erosion and exacerbated poverty. This

ICRAF's Role and Future Research Agenda is particularly acute in Africa. AgroforestryAlthough it can be practiced in virtually all clima- technologies have the potential to reverttic zones by farmers living at various socioecono- this process and provide a sustainablemic levels, agroforestry is a particularly useful supply offood,fodder andfuelwoodtool in helping with three of the world's major to farmers in these regions."concerns: rural poverty, natural resource conser- -ICRAF in the CGIAR: The Way Ahead, 1991vation and sustainable development. Efforts tofeed millions of people in marginal lands result

28

Productivity declines under shifting cultivation in Brazil.

ment techniques. Furthermore, agroforestry sys- Improvement and Management-including a germ-tems need time to get established and to exercise plasm center for multipurpose trees, fast growingkey functions such as nutrient cycling and soil species and underexploited fruit trees; (3) Compo-conservation. Much of ICRAF's work at priority nent Interaction Research-addressing issues oflocations in humid, subhumid and semiarid eco- competition for light, water and nutrients betweensystems is aiming to develop a predictive under- trees, crops and/or livestock; (4) Systems Improve-standing of the major interactive processes Inent-focusing on the amelioration of degradedbetween people, trees, crops and/or animals that and depleted lands and alternatives to shiftingwill be available to or of value to each ecosystem. cultivation and (5) Policy, Adoption and ImpactICRAF has given special emphasis to socioeco- Analysis-focusing on the implications of policynomic methodology for studying local peoples' development, defining constraints to technologyperception of agroforestry systems. It has devel- adoption, assessing the impact of improved tech-oped a strong agroforestry network system with nology and providing feedback to irnprove tech-national research institutions in Africa, the Agro- nology design.forestry Research Networks for Africa (AFRENA), ICRAF's four dissemination programs willand has plans to develop similar networking in include: (1) training, focusing on strengtheningAsia and Latin America. the capacity of national institutions, (2) education,

Major gaps exist between traditional agrofor- (3) information and documentation and (4) com-estry practices and improved agroforestry technol- munications. All aim at enhancing agroforestryogies. ICRAF's overall strategy is aimed at over- knowledge worldwide.coming these gaps through five research and four Research programs will be implemented usingdissemination programs. three operational modalities: activities at headquar-

The five research programs are: (1) Environ- ters, collaborative networks (thematic and agroeco-mental Characterization and Analysis-matching logical) and ecoregional mechanisms. In Africa,land-resource constraints to improved agroforestry the AFRENAs will be consolidated. In Latinsystems and analyzing their effect on human equity America and Asia, ICRAF will link into existingand the environment; (2) Multipurpose Tree institutional structures dealing with agroforestry

29

and, at least initially, will focus on the humid trop- CIFOR, in locating potential host countries, inics (four countries in Latin America and thrcc or defining operating procedures and in contactingtour countries in Asia). regional scientists and donors to sound out their

Appropriate laboratory, greenhouse and field perceptions of CIFOR's future role.research facilities will be established in Nairobi The task of developing a strategic plan for(including a germplasm center and a training cen- CIFOR and a detailed research agenda will be thet-r) to enable ICRAF to fulfill its global strategic responsibility of CIFOR's Board and its Directorresearch/dissemination mandate. General, whom it is anticipated will be in place

In 1992, ICRAF will have 47 senior staff in late 1992.stationed at headquarters and at AFRENAs in As a first step toward helping the Board and12 African countries, while 3 senior scientists CIFOR management to develop a research agenda,are envisioned for Latin America and Asia, in ACIAR has interacted with many leading devel-crder to fulfill the immediate implementation of oping country forestry research institutions in LatinICRAF's global responsibilities. Major emphasis America, Asia and Africa and with developedviill be given to increasing the number of junior country research leaders and the donor community.s oientists and trainees from national agricultural In its interim document on the progress beingresearch systems. With expansion into other made in creating CIFOR (presented to ICW 91),geographical regions, ICRAF envisages a core ACIAR suggested that CIFOR might concentrateof 89 senior staff by 1995. on several of the main areas identified by the earlier

Bellagio Task Force and by TAC as being of highIFOR's Role and Future priority in relation to improved understanding of

RIesearch Agenda the role of forests in contributing to human wel-At the time of the mid-term 1991 meeting, the fare, agricultural productivity and protection ofCGIAR appointed the Australian Council for the environment (see box at left).liitemational Agricultural Research (ACIAR) to In order to promote linkages between these

u:idertake the task of establishing CIFOR. Since program areas and to develop a thematic approachtlien considerable progress has been made in iden- to cross country issues, a set of four commontifying potential board members, in drafting an disciplinary objectives are being proposed:establishment agreement and constitution for (1) understanding the biophysical and socioeco-

nomic environments of present and potentialforestry systems and their functional relation-ships; (2) creating the potential for sustainable

Suggested Priority Areas improved productivity of forest systems for theof Research for CIFOR benefit of people and developing countries;

(3) providing analysis information and advice to* Socioeconomic, policy and marketing assist in making sound policy decisions in relation

research to forest and land use; and (4) strengthening

* Improved management of natural forests national forestry research capacity.

* Germplasm exploration/conservation/ In a similar manner to ICRAF, it is proposedmanagement that CIFOR operate with a decentralized research

.Selection and breeding for improvement agenda interlinking with regional nodes in Africa

of tree species and Latin America. Special emphasis will be givento collaboration with the CGIAR ecoregional cen-

* Ecosystem dynamics ters and/or other regional and national institutions.

* Utilization and management options for Its initial activities will focus strongly on identifi-lesser known forest products cation of existing networks and research activities

* Improved productivity of forest related to research topics of common interest andplantations high priority in the various regions.

Initially, it is intended that CIFOR will main-* Strengthening national research systems tai a 'ml oesinii safo oe1o1, ~~~~tain a small core scientific staff of some 10 to 15

scientists at its Asia region headquarters with multi-

30

disciplinary expertise covering not only forestrybut also sociology, economic policy, ecology andother disciplines, with outreach scientists locatedin Africa and Latin America. A target budget ofsome US$10 to $15 million has been suggested forCIFOR's early years.34 <

ACIAR's recent interaction with other research f '

institutions and outreach scientists has suggestedfurther investigation of research needs in such areas C

as: socioeconomic policy and marketing research ; 5relevant to containment of tropical deforestation(e.g., land tenure, agricultural taxation and settle- L v .ment policies, timber concession allocation proce-dures, timber taxation, industrial processing exportand revenue collection policies); germplasm man-agement of both natural forest and multipurposetree species, improved understanding of microbio-logical processes in forest ecosystems (particularlymycorrhizal/nitrogen fixation, tree regenerationand growth relationships); selection, breeding ofboth tree and forest non-wood species (such aspalms, fruits, etc.): nutrient, water, soil relation-ships, regeneration and stand dynamics; improvedproductivity of tree plantations, rehabilitation of Soil erosion exyacerbated by deforestation in thedegraded lands through use of a wider range of highlands of Ethiopia.species, management of water, nutrient cycles anddevelopment of management techniques; utiliza- systems, incentives to encourage adoption of agro-tion and economic value of lesser known forest forestry and cash crop tree farming and their roleproducts and traditional non-market crops. in contributing to alleviation of rural poverty. Pros-

Reviewing these possible research thrusts and pects for reduction of damage to natural foreststranslating them into a Long-Term Strategic Plan will be researched through policy interventions thatfor CIFOR will be one of the first tasks of CIFOR's can provide greater incentive to local communitiesBoard and Director General. and private industrial companies to engage in less

destructive timber harvesting practices. All threeof these CGIAR centers can contribute in one way

Collaboration Among CGIAR Centers or another to such a research agenda, and close inte-

Given the complexity of forestry research needs gration among them in both the policy researchand the wide range of topics to be covered argues planning and implementation stages should helpfor close cooperation among various CGIAR cen- to ensure an effective impact.ters taking into account the comparative advantageof different centers to contribute to various aspects Key Issues for the Futureof research. Combined, the various CGIAR planned forestry

For example, in the area of policy research and agroforestry research activities outlined aboveIFPRI is interacting with both CIFOR and ICRAF (which are likely to involve at least 10 of the 18in organizing a series of regional forest policy CGIAR centers in various aspects of agroforestryworkshops. These will focus on high priority areas and forestry research) are likely to require invest-of policy research that can contribute to early con- ment in the order of US$30 to $35 million by thetainment of deforestation and reduction of ecologi- end of 1992 with a target of US$50 million bycal damage, including such topics as policy options 1995 (which is in line with the recommendationfor encouraging a transition from short fallow shift- of the Bellagio Task Force). Something in theing cultivation regimes to more sedentary fanning order of 40 to 50 percent of this will be core

31

funding support through the CGIAR system. research institutions. A recent FAO/ADB/UNDPThis represents a significant escalation in initiative in the Asia region offers some promise

resource allocations to forestry and agroforestry. for replication elsewhere. This regionally fundedPrimary concerns of the CGIAR system will be and managed Forest Research Support Programto secure incremental funding for these activities for Asia and the Pacific (FORSPA) is intendedso that the ongoing research programs of the other to provide a fornal mechanism for linking upinternational agricultural research centers are not and sharing research interests of national forestryconstrained and to ensure that this investmnent is research organizations. In so doing it could becomewisely spent so that the CGIAR's research efforts at the same time an effective network for researchmake an effective contribution to the pressing for- communication and consultation, with which theestry problems that have been the topic of much CGIAR and its centers could link up at relativelyrecent international concem. low cost compared to the effort of setting up

The site specificity of forestry and agroforestry one-to-one linkages with every national forestryresearch and the need for a more decentralized research organization.approach to research than has been traditionally FORSPA will provide technical assistancethe case for the CGIAR commodity-oriented cen- support to national forestry research institutionsters, raise a key issue of how to ensure high quali- in five high priority areas. The selected themesty and effective scientific research. Much effort correspond reasonably well with the CGIAR'swill be directed to identifying strategic research own research agenda. The strategic work and long-issues that can help to resolve across site problems term research plans of CIFOR, ICRAF and otherat the ecoregional level and to ensuring that down- CGIAR centers could provide a useful frameworkst-eam adaptive research builds on this. for some FORSPA programs. This could facilitate

Because of the high degree of interdependence mobilization and coordination of donor communityof CGIAR strategic work in forestry and agro- funding for research programs in the Asia region.forestry and adaptive research at the national level, Ways and means are currently being exploredmuch thought has been given to how to develop on how to strengthen similar collaborative linkagesimproved mechanisms for supporting effective with national forestry and agroforestry institutionsnetworks with national forestry and agroforestry in other regions.

'~~~~~~~~~~~

Tree breeding and improvement research produces fast-growing! healthy seedlings.

32

CGIAR Finances-1991

Highlights Funding

he CGIAR Secretariat reports annually on At ICW90, the Group approved programs andthe financial performance of the CGIAR associated core funding requirements for 1991 ofin the preceding year ("CGIAR 1991 Finan- $296 million. On the basis of indications provided

cial Report" available from the CGIAR Secretar- by donors, the CGIAR Secretariat estimated atiat). That report is based on financial information ICW90 that core funding was likely to be aboutmade available by the centers; the 1991 report $52 million short of the approved level. Theprovides aggregate information on the thirteen pre- CGIAR agreed that center plans would be broughtexpansion centers and summary information only in balance with the expected funding amount ofon the three expansion centers because financial $244 million using a mechanism adopted by thereporting arrangements with these centers were not Group.yet fully effective in 1991. The information pro- In January 1991, additional information fromvided here is based on that report. donors indicated that 1991 core funding was

Resources available to the CGIAR centers in unlikely to be higher than the 1990 operating levelsupport of their 1991 activities were $302.1 mil- of about $237 million. Consequently, the CGIARlion. This is $6.2 million (or 2%) below the com- Secretariat advised centers to base their 1991 oper-parable level of $308.3 million in 1990. As a con- ating plans on 1990 operating levels in nominalsequence, centers' overall applications were also terms. Thus, early in the year centers' 1991 core2 percent less than in 1990. programs were planned assuming $237 million

The contraction in resources resulted in part in donor core funding.from lower donor contributions and in part from At 1991 mid-year, core funding was estimated atlower eamed income. Total 1991 grants from $236 million, as reported to the Group at ICW91.donors not only did not keep pace with inflation, Uncertainty persisted throughout the year, mainlybut registered a $2.7 million decline from 1990 due to the fluctuation of exchange rates affectinglevels. Increases in complementary grants of non-dollar grants. In the end, 1991 core grant fund-$0.2 million were insufficient to offset a decline ing amounted to $232 million, $3 million below theof $2.9 million in core grants. actual 1990 level (Table 1).

Centers responded to the reduction in total Centers' complementary programs-activitiesresources by curtailing their spending by $7.1 of a specific mutual interest to one or more donorsmillion (or 3%) below the 1990 level. On an infla- and a center-are not constrained at the systemtion adjusted basis, lower resources required a level. For 1991, centers' approved programns6 percent retrenchment of centers' core activities. included complementary activities requiring

Following an in-depth study and many inter- funding of about $61 million. At year end, com-actions with donors and centers, depreciation plementary grants amounted to $52 million,accounting was introduced in the CGIAR in 1991. well below the planning level and virtually at theThis brings CGIAR accounting practices in line level achieved in 1990. These grants to centers'with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles complementary programs and activities are by(GAAP) and puts a mechanism in place for centersto provision adequately for the replacement of their Note: All dollar aonozmts are in US$. Totals in text and illius-

capital assets. tr-ations are computer-rounded.

33

Table 1 CGIAR Core Funding by Center, their combined grant contributions did not1989-1991 (in US$ millions) increase. The average contribution of the 33

donors who contributed in 1990 remained atCENTER 1989 1990 1991 about $7 million; 11 donors contributed less

CIAT 28.4 27.7 27.9 than $0.5 million, compared to only 5 in 1990.CIMMYT 27.9 27.1 26.6 Consistent with the 1990 experience, 80 percentCIP 18.6 16.9 17.1 of the core grants came from 11 donors, 95 per-IBPGR 7.1 7.0 8.1 cent from 18 donors, and 21 donors provided

ICARISA 18.4 18-5 195 4 the last 5 percent of the contributions.

ICPRI 8.8 9 1 8.9 The continuing delays in grant disbursementsIFIA 22.0 22.5 22.4 throughout the year adversely impact on theILCA 20.3 20.2 19.4 CGIAR financial management, because to meetILRAD 13.4 13.6 13.5 ongoing expenditures centers are forced to canryIRRI 26.6 29.8 29.8 increasingly higher levels of operating funds.ISNAR 7.5 7.0 7.6 At the system level these funds accumulated toWARDA 6.1 6.2 6.7 $33.2 million at 1991 year-end-representing

Total Funding an average of two months of operating spendingReceived By or 14 percent of that year's core grants; the levelCenters 235.2 237.4 236.7 of operating fund balances varies widely among

Net Flow To (+)/ individual centers. Furthermore, centers' callsFrom (-) Stabilization on the World Bank's short-term lending facilityFund -10.7 -2.5 -4.7 continued to grow and to come in the latter part

Total Core Grants of the year; this forced the Bank to keep a shareFrom Donors 224.5 234.9 231.9 of its contribution undisbursed for a longer periodPercent Increase 6% 5% -1% of time and for a larger share than otherwise

needed. In some cases centers had to resort toMemo: commercial credit facilities at cost to the centers1. Complementary and to the system as well.

Grants From47.3 51.4 51.6 In 1991, unrestricted grants-which epitomize

2. Total Grant the CGIAR-represented 69 percent of total grantFunding 271.8 286.3 283.5 funding to the centers. There is a considerable

variation among centers in unrestricted versus

restricted/project funding: six centers have aboutone-third or more of their grants restricted or

their very nature project-related and thus highly complementary, while one center has less thanrestricted. Thirty CGIAR donors contributed 10 percent of its grants in these categories. These$46.5 million, and a number of non-CGIAR ratios reflect, on the one hand, the truly institu-donors provided the remaining $5.1 million. tional support given to centers and, on the other,

In 1991, 39 donors contributed core grants to give insight into the margin of flexibility centercenters, compared to 33 donors in 1990 (Table 2). management has in managing finances and activ-Arnong the six additional core donors, five ities. Figure 2 illustrates the relative importanceres.umed contributions to the CGIAR in 1991, of the core and complementary component ofwh ile Korea joined the CGIAR with an initial each of the 13 pre-expansion centers' total grantcontribution of $500,000 allocated to six centers. funding in 1991.The breakdown of 1991 core funding by donor Grant funding of the three expansion centersgroup is shown in Figure 1, which also compares amounted to $20.1 million (ICRAF: $10.7 million;the average distribution by donor group during IIMI: $7.4 million; INIBAP: $2 million). Thisthe period 1988-1990; indicating a relatively stable represents an increase of 20 percent over 1990,funding structure from a donor grouping's point mainly in the restricted component. It shouldof view. be noted that the increase in grant funding in

Though the number of core donors increased, the expansion centers shows an opposite pattem,

34

Figure 1 CGIAR Core Funding by Donor Group, 1988-1990 and 1991 (in US$ millions)

70-

60 Euopa 58.7 58.3mc 60 Reioa Orgniaton

50

40-

30-

20-

10

01988-1990 1991

European North America [ ]International andCommnunity (EC) LJRegional Organizations

Other Industrial [ Foundations DevelopingCountries,, ~ ~ L. Countries

a. OECD excluding EC and North America.ANote: See Table 2 for individual donors and dollar amounts in each donor category.

with restricted grants providing the bulk of the tently with system relative priorities, the Bank'sincrease in their funding; consequently the share contribution followed increasingly the same pat-of restricted funding in their case increased from tern; consequently, the neutralizing effect of the57 percent in 1990 to 61 percent in 1991. donor of last resort on market signals has gradually

In 1991, the World Bank core grant to the diminished.CGIAR amounted to $35.1 million, representing In 1991, the stabilization fund was reactivated15 percent of total core grants. Except for $0.2 but limited to risks on exchange rates of non-dollarmillion transferred to the stabilization fund, the core grant contributions. Because of that, centersBank's grant was fully allocated to the 13 cen- drew $4.9 million from the fund. The 1991 open-ters after other donors' intentions were known. ing balance of the stabilization fund was $4.6One center did not need Bank support; two cen- million, to which $0.4 million of interest incometers needed Bank support at 10 percent of their was added as well as a $0.2 million transfer outcore requirements; for eight centers the Bank's of the World Bank's 1991 grant contribution,grant ranged from 11 to 20 percent of core require- bringing available funds to $5.2 million. Withments; and for two centers that support represented $4.9 million disbursed to centers in 1991, the23 to 24 percent of requirements. 1991 closing balance of the stabilization fund

It is worth noting that during the past few years thus amounts to $0.3 million. It should be notedthe variance of the distribution of Bank grants that, because of favorable developments in hostamong centers has reduced significantly. With countries, ICRISAT and IITA waived their claimsother donors allocating their grants more consis- on the stabilization fund.

35

Table 2 CGIAR Core Contributions by Donor, 1988-1991 (in millions of units)

1988 1989 1990 1991

Natl. Equiv. Natl. Equiv. Natl. Equiv. Nati Equiv.Currency in US$ Currenicy in US$ Currency in US$ Currency in US$

Countries

European Community (EC)

Belgium (Bfr) 99.93 2.53 89.23 2.50 100.59 3.16 103.65 3.14

(US $) - - - - - - - 0.17

Denmark (Dkr) 17.80 2.53 19.20 2.64 21.65 3.57 23.65 3.39

EEC (ECU) 6.90 7.99 8.50 9.45 9.00 12.05 9.00 11.83

(US $) - 1.20 - 2.39 - 3.36 - 1.62

France (FF) 21.00 3.30 20.89 3.60 21.00 4.10 21.10 4.10

Germany (DM) 18.99 10.81 20.84 11.18 18.49 11.21 19.82 11.04

Ireland (Punt) 0.10 0.16 0.19 0.28 0.20 0.31 1.12 0.34

ItAly Lire) 5000.00 3.61 5300.00 3.79 2000.49 1.71 2600.00 2.08

(US $) - 4.48 - 5.70 - 4.39 - 3.99

Laxembourg (US $) - - - - - - - 0.25

Netherlands (Dfl) 12.10 6.26 11.81 5.43 12.40 6.89 10.27 5.73

(US $) - - - - - - - 0.72

Spain (US $) - 0.50 - 0.50 - 0.50 - 0.50

United Kingdom (Pound) 6.48 11.51 6.52 10.87 6.60 11.57 6.72 11.49

(US $) - - - - - - - 0.08

Subtotal 54.88 58.33 62.83 60.46

North America

C;mada (Can $) 16.90 13.76 15.75 13.21 16.05 13.97 16.61 14.53

(US $) _ - - 1.16 - 1.38 - 1.20

United States (US $) - 40.00 - 40.00 - 39.81 - 41.35

(US $) - 2.22 - 4.14 - 5.28 - 4.28

Subtotal 55.98 58.51 60.44 61.36

Oiher Industrialized Countries b

Austria (US$) - 1.00 - 0.98 - 1.00 - 1.00

Australia (Aus $) 4.27 3.13 4.33 3.70 4.80 3.81 3.58 2.79

(US $) - - - - - - - 0.38

Finland (Markka) 11.00 2.74 21.80 5.16 21.40 5.31 21.51 5.91

Japan (Yen) 2591.83 20.21 2876.00 19.87 3019.63 23.19 2960.90 22.74

(US $) _- - - - - - 0.96

Norway (NKr) 24.60 3.85 27.85 4.09 30.99 4.70 30.00 4.58

(US $) - - - - - - - 0.10

Swaeden (Skr) 33.00 5.41 35.12 5.47 37.70 6.20 37.70 6.07

Switzerland (Sfr) 7.27 5.40 8.67 5.57 8.95 5.91 8.75 6.95

(US $) - 4.19 - 3.96 - 3.47 - 3.21

Subtotal 45.93 48.80 53.60 54.68

36

1988 1989 1990 1991a

Natl. Equiv. Natl Equiv. Natl. Equiv. Natl. Equiv.Currency in US$ Currency in US$ Currency in US$ Currency in US$

Developing Countries

Brazil (US $) - 0.02 - 0.05 - 0.01 - 0.09

China (US $) - 0.30 - 0.30 - 0.30 - 0.30

India (US $) - 0.50 - 0.50 - 0.50 - 0.50

Korea (US $) - - - - - - - 0.50

Mexico (US $) _ _- - - - - 0.10

Nigeria (US $) - 0.12 - 0.02 - 0.09 - 0.12

Philippines (US $) - 0.25 - 0.18 - 0.20 - 0.20

Subtotal 1.19 1.05 1.09 1.81

Foundations

Ford Foundation (US $) - 0.79 - 0.79 - 0.94 - 1.18

IDRC (Can $) 0.77 0.63 0.75 0.63 0.91 0.78 0.66 0.54

RockefellerFoundation (US $) - 0.93 - 1.89 - 1.74 - 0.90

Subtotal 2.35 3.31 3.47 2.63

International Organizations

African DevelopmentBank (US $) - 0.72 - 1.14 - 1.23 - 1.55

Arab Fund (US $) - 0.35 - 0.51 _ - _ 0.64

Asian DevelopmentBank (US$) -_ _ 0.03 - 0.63 - 0.31

IDB (US $) - 10.55 - 11.13 - 10.50 - 6.31

IFAD (US $) - 0.28 - 0.52 - 0.50 - 0.36

OPEC Fund (US $) - 0.28 - 0.30 - - - 0.12

UNDP (US $) - 8.99 - 7.52 - 6.33 - 6.64

UNEP (US $) - 0.05 - 0.03 - - 0.03

World Bank (US $) - 30.00 - 33.34 - 34.33 - 35.11

Subtotal 51.22 54.52 53.52 51.08

Total Contributions 211.55c 224.52 234.93 232.02

Memo Items:

Contribution in US $ 101.91 109.58 118.53 121.42

(Percentage of total) 48% 49% 50% 52%

Cumulative disbursementsby quarters (%)

Quarter 1 20 19 16 17

Quarter 2 42 38 34 38

Quarter 3 77 74 56 60

Quarter 4 94 92 92 93

a. Based on centers' preliminary audits.b. OECD excluding EC and North America.c. Excludes $0.240 million previously reported as "Other Donors' Core Contributions."

37

Figure 2 CGIAR Core and Complementary Funding for the 13 Pre-ExpansionCenters, 1991 (in US$ millions)

CENTERS

IRRI - X 38.1

ICRISAT 35.3

IITA 34.3

CIMMYT 34.1

CIAT 33

CIP 21.6

ILCA 19.9

ICARDA 19.5

ILRAD 1395

IFPRI 13.4

IBPGR 8.8 ECore

ISNAR 8.3 C Complementary

WARDA 6.8

$0 $10 S20 $30 $40 $50

Figure 3 CGIAR Core Expenditures by Program and Research Sub-Program, 1991

Food Policy (5%)

Roots and Tubers (10%)

Food Legumnes (13%)

ResourceManagement (14%)

LivestockProductivity (21%)

Cereals (39%)

Core Expenditures Research Costs(Excluding Depreciation) $105.3m

$229.5m

38

Expenditures Table 3 CGIAR Core OperatingExpenditures by Center, 1989-1991

In 1991, core expenses amounted to $248.4 (in US$ millions)million and increments to centers' operating,

r .h ' ' CENTER 1989 1990 1991afunds and other reserves amounted to $5 million,for a total of $253.5 million (Table 3). Core CIAT 26.61 26.29 28.99expenses include $18.9 million of depreciation CIMMYT 25.12 24.69 27.70charges, which were first introduced in 1991. CIP 16.56 16.98 19.49Compared with 1990. 1991 core expenses were IBPGR 7.02 7.20 7.35$1.1 million (or 0.5%) below the 1990 level, ICAR1DA 20.92 21.83 22.00Centers' senior staff complement declined from ICRTSAT 8.75 29.95 30.64781 staffyears in 1990 to 755 staffyears in 1991, IITA 18.85 20.57 23.40a 3 percent decrease. Price increases experienced ILCA 19.49 20.74 20.89by centers in 1991 over 1990 are estimated at 5.4 ILRAD 11.15 12.38 13.87percent. In constant 1990 values, therefore, core IRRI 27.48 27.79 30.39expenses in 1991 declined by 6 percent. ISNAR 7.18 8.23 8.58

The effect of the compression of core expenses WARDA 6.43 6.15 6.13in the past few years is reflected in the relative Subtotal 223.81 231.99 248.40distribution of expenses among major programcategories: the institutional cost for centers (Admin- MCemoristration, General Operations and, to some extent, 1. Core CapitalResearch Support) represent a gradually increasing 2. Complementaurshare of core expenses compared with Research Program 47.77 54.64 48.69and Institution Building. This is the reflection ofthe relatively lesser degree of flexibility of theformer compared with the latter. In 1991, 46 percent a nldsdpeito S1. ilo)

7recoprdwttel4 perct b. As of 1991, centers do not expense core capitalof core expenses were for Research, down from acquisitions as in previous years, but rather make deprecia-47 percent in 1988; Institution Building accounted tion charges which are included in core operating costs.

for 18 percent in 1991, about the same as in 1988;Research Management, however, increased from Figure 4 Regional Distribution of CGIAR25 percent in 1988 to 27 percent in 1991. Core Operating Expenses, 1988-1991

Figure 3 illustrates the relative shares of core (in percentages)expenses of the various Research programs in1991; Table 4 shows trends in core expenditures ___-by programs and sub-programs in current US dol- 50lars. Over the last three years, the Legumes, Rootsand Tubers, Food Policy, and Resource Manage- 40 -ment programs have increased their relative shares _at the expense of the Cereals program and, to a 30 -lesser extent, of the Livestock program. _

When looked at in constant US dollars, how- 20ever, the trends are quite different. The absoluteamount of resources for Research programs hasdeclined in real terms by 7 percent between 1988- 10 _89 and 1991, and by 5 percent between 1990 _and 1991. Consequently with the only exception 0of the Food Policy program-which maintained 1988 1989 1990 1991the level it reached in 1988 and exceeded some- Sub-Saharanwhat those achieved in 1989 and 1990-all other Africa AsiaResearch programs are below the levels they were Latin America West Asia!

North Africaat either in 1988 or in the intermediate years.

39

'rable 4 CGIAR Core Operating Expenditures by Program and Sub-Program, 1989-1991(in US$ millions)

1989 1990 1991

RESEARCH

Crop Productivity

Cereals 42.55 41.25 40.81

Food Legumes 12.10 12.85 13.17

Roots and Tubers 10.01 10.19 10.25

64.66 64.29 64.23

Food Policy 4.28 4.19 4.82

Livestock Productivity 21.38 22.72 21.67

Resource Management 13.85 14.71 14.60

Subtotal 104.17 105.91 105.32

INSTITUTION BUILDING

Infonnation/Cornmunication 13.13 12.06 14.08

Organization/Management Counseling 4.21 5.61 4.87

Training/Conferences 16.57 15.83 14.28

Networks 6.55 9.34 8.29

Subtotal 40.46 42.84 41.52

RESEARCH SUPPORT

Subtotal 22.23 22.11 21.90

RESEARCH NMANAGEMENT

Administration 32.65 35.91 35.71

General Operations 24.30 23.07 25.24

Non-Recurrent Expense - 2.14

Subtotal 56.95 61.12 60.95

Depreciationa _ 18.71

Total Operations 223.81 231.98 248.40

a. Excludes S0.18 rmillion in depreciation charges which were allocated by program. Total depreciation charges including thisamount are $18.89 rnillion.

In real terms, the Cereals program shows the shows a marginal decline compared with 1988.sh[arpest decline, mainly in rice research, at 14 per- The regional distribution of centers' 1991 corecent below the 1988-1989 level. The Livestock pro- expenditures (Figure 4) indicates marginal shiftsgram shows a similar but a more moderate trend. compared to the pattern of previous years. InThe Legumes program and the Roots and Tubers 1991, 43 percent of core expenses were relatedprogram exceeded in 1991 their 1988 levels; to activities in Sub-Saharan Africa, 29 percentgrowth, respectively, in cowpea. sweet potato and in Asia, 15 percent in Latin America and 13 per-banana and plantain research explain these devel- cent in -West Asia and North Africa.opments. The Resource Management program

@ Printed of recycled paper

40

ISSN 0257-3156