22737 Summary of Proceedings and Decisions July 2000 MTM 2000 Dresden, Germany May 21-26, 2000 Charting the CGIAR.'s Future A New Vision for 2010 4 ~FILE COPY CGIAR UV Consultative (Troup on International Agricultural Research CGIAR Centers Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) Cali, COLOMBIA Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) * Jakarta, INDONESIA Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) - Mexico City, MEXICO Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP) * Lima, PERU International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) Aleppo, SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) * Penang, MALAYSIA International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) * Nairobi, KENYA International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) * Patancheru. INDIA International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) - Washington, DC, USA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) -Ibadan, NIGERIA International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) * Nairobi, KENYA International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) * Rome, ITALY International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) * Los Banos, PHILIPPINES International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) * The Hague, NETHERLANDS International Water Management Institute (IWMI) - Colombo, SRI LANKA West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) - Bouake, COTE D'IVOIRE CGIAR 2000 Mid-Term Meeting Dresden, Germany, May 21-26 Summary of Proceedings and Decisions Charting the CGIAR 's Future A New Vision for 2010 Issued by the CGIAR Secretariat The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433 * USA Telephone: 1-202-473-8951 * Fax: 1-202-473-8110 E-mail: cgiar@cgiar.org or cgiar@worldbank.org www.cgiar.org July 2000 Contents I. Overview ........................................................ 6 If. Major Decisions ........................................................ 8 III. Host Country Program ........................................................ 10 TV. Summary of Proceedings ........................................................ 11 Chairman's Welcome Statement ........................................................ 13 Chairman's Opening Remarks ........................................................ 15 Chairman's Announcements ........................................................ 20 (Box: Chairman's Propositions) ........................................................ 24 A New Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR ........................................................ 25 Global Forun on Agricultural Research (GFAR) ........................................................ 34 Longer-term Financing Strategy ........................................................ 36 CGIAR Impact: Seminar on CGIAR's Impact on Germplasm Improvement ................. 38 1999 Financial Outcomes and 2000 Progress Report ..................................................... 41 2001 CGIAR Research Agenda and Funding Requirements .......................................... 43 External Program and Management Reviews ........................................................ 44 Report from the CGIAR Centers ........................................................ 47 Reports from CGIAR Cosponsors and Commn ittees ...................................................... 49 Future CGIAR Meetings ........................................................ 54 Other Business ........................................................ 55 >- Interational Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources .55.................................. 55 Chairman's Summation, MTM2000 ........................................................ 56 Chairman's Farewell Comments ........................................................ 59 V. Annexes ........................................................ 67 MTM Agenda ......................................................... 68 List of Documents ........................................................ 70 List of Participants ........................................................ 71 Committee Reports ........................................................ 88 >- Highlights of Cosponsors Meeting ........................................................ 88 >- Report of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Oversight Commn ittee ............................. 90 >- Report of the Seventeenth Meeting of the Finance Committee .............................. 94 >- Report of the Genetic Resources Policy committee ............................................. 102 >- Report of the NGO Connittee Meeting ........................................................ 104 >- Report of the twelfth Meeting of the Private Sector Committee ........................... 119 >- Report of the Science Partnership Commn ittee ..................................................... 123 ___ eCGIAR 2000 Mid-Term Meeting 01v E a1 I E w Overview The CGIAR Mid-Tenn Meeting (M'M2000) will best be remembered as a critical meeting to map the future of the CGIAR. A new CGIAR vision, emphasizing both the poverty aspects of CGIAR scientific research and the opportunities offered by modern science, was adopted. Building on the leadership of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the endorsement and action proposals of the Consultative Council, the Group laid the groundwork for a vibrant and effective CGIAR for the 21st Century. What emerged after three days of plenary and parallel sessions in Dresden was a process to move the CGIAR from vision to action and recreate the System as an effective instrunent for the future. Chairman Ismail Serageldin highlighted the momentous changes in almost all aspects of the human condition that affect or are affected by the CGIAR work. These developments- from the private sector's increasing activity in agricultural research, to the intense competition for traditional funding, to the implications of restrictive national and international arrangements that govern access to germplasm- have profound irplications for the CGIAR. Three decades ago, at a time of fear and pessimism about the fate and future of millions in disadvantaged regions of the world, the founders of the CGIAR acted with faith, hope, and a powerful vision. Today, the Chairman said, Members are being called on to again shape the CGIAR in the context of these new challenges. As part of his opening statement to MTM, Mr. Serageldin announced that he has decided to relinquish his position as a World Bank Vice President and, consequently, as CGIAR Chair. Ian Johnson, a respected friend and colleague who is Bank Vice President for Environmentally and Socialy Sustainable Development, is the CGIAR Chair-designate. Following the Chairman's presentation, Oversight Committee Chairman Andrew Bennett suggested- and Members unanimously agreed- that Mr. Serageldin should be honored at a special symposiumn at ICW2000. 6 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 AVu7 m n r CGIAR 2000 , AV Mid-Term Meeting .__ g .. ,%O ELsec~~~~~~~lbln MA JOB EC IS ION IS Major Decisions 1. CGIAR Leadership. The Group accepted also endorsed the allocation of World Bank funds Chairman Ismail Serageldin's decision to relinquish proposed by the Finance Committee. (pp. 41-42.) his position as World Bank Vice President and consequently, as CGIAR Chair, and welcomed the 8. 2001 CGIAR Research Agenda. The Group announcement of Ian Johnson, Bank Vice President approved the substance of the 2001 Research for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Deve- Agenda recommended by TAC and the Finance lopment, as CGIAR Chair-designate. (p. 15.) Committee's proposal that financial planning for 2001 be undertaken in the context of the $340 2. New Vision and Strategy. The Group adopted million funding target. (p. 43.) the seven planks of TAC's proposed new vision statement, broadly endorsed the definition of the 9. External Program and Management Reviews. heartland, adopted follow up arrangements and a The Group considered the External Program and timetable for exploring structural changes, and Management Reviews for ICARDA, IWMI, and expressed a desire to discuss options at ICW2000. WARDA, and endorsed the ad hoc committee's (pp. 25-33.) conclusions and recommendations. (pp. 44-46.) 3. Longer-Term Financing Strategy. The Group 10. Special Honors. The Group unanimously unanimously affirmed the need for a global public approved resolutions to honor Henri Carsalade, Paul awareness/resource mobilization effort, endorsed Egger, Miguel Altienr, and Frona Hall for their the concept of the CGIAR/Future Harvest contributions and service to the CGIAR. (pp. 21-22.) Foundation, and requested that a business plan and final proposal on structure be presented at 11. Future CGLAR meetings. The Group agreed ICW2000. (pp. 36-37.) on the following dates and locations of future CGIAR meetings. (p. 54.) 4. Global Forum on Agricultural Research. The Group received the report on the Global Forum, ICW2000 October 23-25 . ............ Washington, DC reaffirmed the strong ties that exist between GEAR ICW2001 October 29-Novemer 2 .... Washington, DC and the CGIAR, and agreed to review more specific MTM2002 May 2 7-31 ............. To be determined aspects of that relationship after the completion of ICW2002 October 28-November 1... Washington, DC the GFAR external review. (pp. 34-35.) 12. Genetic Resources. The Group expressed 5. Report from the Centers. The Group received concem that the lack of an international agreement the Centers' report on programmatic developments on a multilateral system of access, exchange, and m the System and the Public Awareness and benefit-sharing for genetic resources for food and Resource Mobilization Comrnittee's report on public agriculture poses a major threat to the future of awareness and resource mobilization (pp. 47-48.) international agricultural research. Reaffirming the importance of GFAR's Dedaration o Plat Geetic 6. 1999 Financial Outcome. The Group adopted Resounes for Food and Agricuov, the Group the Finance Comnmittee's report on the 1999 encouraged individual members to bring the financial outcome. In 1999, funding totaled $330 Declaration to the attention of appropriate authorities million, a decrease of $10 million from the approved and to utilize additional technical information financing plan. The primary reason for the shortfall available through IPGRI. (p. 55.) was the default, due to procedural mishaps, by the European Commission on its 1999 commitment of 13. TAC and Oversight Comrnmittee. The Group $16 milion. (pp. 41-42.) approved the two-year extension of TAC Members Joachim von Braun and Richard Harwood, and 7. 2000 Progress Report. The Group received the welcomed new members of the Oversight Finance Conmnittee's report that the outlook for Committee - Bongiwe Njobe-Mbuli, Ruth Haug, 2000 continued to be stable at the level of the Emmy Sinmmons, Gilles St. Martin, Juan Restrepo, approved financing plan of $340 million. The Group and Zhao Longyue. (pp. 49-53) 8 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 CGIAR 2000 Mid-Term Meeting HO ST CO UN TR Y PI 0 BR AM Host Countty Program In ceremonies at Schloss Albrechtsberg, the Honorable Kurt Biedenkopf, Prime Minister of the Free State of Saxony, warmly welcomed the CGIAR to Dresden for MTM2000. Dr. Biedenkopf emphasized that the city of Dresden was honored to host the important international meetings of the CGIAR and GFAR. He emphasized Germany's support for the goal of making knowledge-intensive agriculture accessible to smallholder farmers in developing countries. The Honorable Erich Stather, Secretary of State in the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, addressed the formal opening of MTM2000. He reiterated Germany's support for the CGIAR and expressed hope that Germany can step up its financial support in the near future as budgetary deficits are overcome. Food security is a human right, he said, and the CGIAR renewal is a response to this challenge. Mr. Serageldin thanked the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development for hosting the meeting, and the Free State of Saxony for its hospitality. Germany was a founding Member of the CGIAR and has provided the System with strong intellectual leadership and support throughout the CGIAR's existence. The System and the individual Centers have benefited from the enduring links with various German agencies and institutions responsible for managing Germany's CGIAR Mernbership. Currently Germany's voice is heard through the head of the German delegation, Mr. Jochen de Haas, a respected and admired colleague who has made valuable contributions to CGIAR discussions and decision-making. Mr. Serageldin said that Germany has been and remains involved in almost every aspect of the work of the CGIAR. German nationals have served on Center boards, as heads of CGIAR Centers, on external review panels of CGIAR Centers, on the System Review panel, and on CGIAR committees. The executive secretary of the CGIAR, Alexander von der Osten, who has held the position with dignity and distinction for over ten years, is a German national. MTM2000 was the CGIAR's second meeting in Germany. The first, held in Berlin in 1988, saw the CGIAR begin a cyde of change as the Group reaffirmed sustainability as part of the CGIAR's mission. An inquiry into whether the mandate of the CGIAR should specifically include a number of areas connected with natural resource management was launched. As a result of that inquiry, the Group decided that productivity and environmental research should be twin pillars of the CGIAR agenda. Several non-CGIAR Centers, whose work focused on those research areas, were consequently inducted into the System. Mr. Serageldin noted that it is fitting that the CGIAR should again be in Germany as the System approaches another cycle of renewal for the new millennium. 10 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 Summa "lt$tt$"CGIAR 2000 Mid-Term Meeting oft Procee ing n n SI1MANY Of PUOCEENINGS Chairman's Welcome Statement Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the first meeting of the CGIAR in the new millennium. I thank the Government of Germany for inviting us to meet in historic Dresden, and for the arrangements that have been made to provide us with a setting suitable for deliberations and decisions that will affect and determine the future of the CGIAR. I extend an especially warm welcome to Mr. Erich Stather, Secretary of State in the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, and all his colleagues who serve as the hosts of this meeting. They have made us feel very much at ease. I partcularly want to thank our German colleague Jochen de Haas, and representatives of BEAF who have had to cope with a range of logistical matters, including the influx of some 400 colleagues attending GFAR. They carried out all their responsibilities competently and without complaint. I invite you to join me in expressing our appreciation to Mr. Stather, Mr. De Haas, and all others who have toiled so hard on our behalf. I thank you, personally, Mr. Stather, for taking time from your many duties of state to join us at our opening session, and to share your thoughts with us. Mr. Stather is a versatile public figure who has reached his current position after a multifaceted career in the private sector, the public sector, and politics at both the state and federal levels. His experience includes successful management of a variety of public awareness programs. I hope you will share those talents with the CGIAR, Mr. Stather, so that our work might be better known in your country and, thereby, Germany's support for international agricultural research protected. Germany was a founding Member of the CGIAR. Throughout the existence of this Group, Germany has provided the CGIAR System with strong intellectual leadership and support. The System and individual Centers appreciate the enduring links that have developed over the years with the various German agencies and institutions responsible for managing Germany's CGIAR Membership. The voice of Germany receives careful attention at this table. Currently, that voice is heard through the head of the German delegation, Jochen de Haas, who is respected and admired by his colleagues. We value his interventions, and enjoy his company. Moreover, Germany has been and remains involved in almost every aspect of the work of the CGIAR. German nationals have served or continue to serve on Center boards, as heads of CGIAR Centers, on extemal review panels of CGIAR Centers, on the System Review panel, and on CGIAR commrittees. The executive secretary of the CGIAR, Alexander von der Osten, who has held that position with dignity and distinction for over ten years, is a German national as well. So we are all well connected. Ladies and gentlemen. Many of you no doubt recall that we last met in Germany twelve years ago, in Berlin, where we began a cycle of renewal. Sustainability was reaffirmed as part of the CGIAR System's mission, and we launched an inquiry into whether the mandate of the CGIAR should specifically include a number of subject areas, most of them connected with natural resources management, that were the focus of work at ten non-CGIAR Centers. As a result of that inquiry, we decided that productivity research and Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 13 SIMMABY OF PROCEEIINIS environmental research should be twin pillars of the CGIAR agenda. Several non-CGIAR Ceters were consequently inducted into the CGIAR. It is fitting, given the significance and lasting impact of what we decided at Berlin, that we should again be in Germany as we approach another cycle of renewal, for the new millennium. Before we begin our fornal deliberations, however, I am pleased and honored to invite Mr. Stather to address us. Mr. Stather. 14 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 S MN AI Y OIF PA 1C E EI 5NG S Chairman i Opening Remarks Confronting the Future Appreciation Thank you, Mr. Stather, for your kind words and thoughtful comments. They will inspire and guide us in our deliberations. Thank you, also, Dr. Paroda, GFAR Chainnan, for the meetings of the last few days that clearly presented us with a vision of the context in which the CGIAR works, and for bringing together the full range of our partners. Together, we do form a Coalition of the Caring. Transition Colleagues and Friends. The prospect of a re-energized CGIAR re-creating itself as an effective instrument of progress for the 21st century is both inspiring and exciting. I regret, therefore, that I will not be your Chairman as you advance beyond this meeting. I have informed World Bank President Jim Wolfensohn that I wish to relinquish my position as a Bank Vice President and, consequently, to relinquish my CGIAR chairmanship as well. He has accepted my decision. I am delighted that Ian Johnson, a respected colleague and friend, will succeed me. Ian is a distinguished alumnus of three universities: Wales, Sussex and Harvard. His experience includes service with UNICEF, the British Government, and the Bank. He was one of the creators of today's GEF. He is a strong environmentalist whose expertise wiDl greatly benefit the natural resource management efforts of CGIAR Centers. He is, as well, deeply committed to nurturing partnerships. I am sure you will find in him a most effective and caring Chairman. You can be assured that we will manage a seamless transition. Let me emphasize that although I will no longer be part of the CGIAR in a formal sense, my commitment to all that the CGIAR represents will not change. I appreciate the dedication that all of you bring to this table. I respect and admire the CGIAR scientists who toil ceaselessly on behalf of the world's disconnected and disadvantaged. I care deeply about the future of the CGIAR. I am profoundly concerned about ensuring that it can continue to make a difference in the lives of those milions who will continue to be mired in deprivation unless science is harnessed to meet their needs. I wil continue to be your supporter, your loyal critic and, informally, your ambassador. That's for the future. Now... let me turn to the business at hand. Vision Our starting point at MI`M2000 is the adoption of a new vision. I congratulate Emil Javier on the participatory approach that he and his TAC colleagues followed in crafting the new vision. Moreover, it is clear that Emil has drawn on his own nich experience and his deep understanding of the issues. I convened two meetings of the Consultative Council- first in Rome, and next in Dresden- to discuss TACs proposal. The Council extensively discussed the draft at both meetings. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 20l0 15 SI NM A M Y OF PI 0 C EI N 1IS We are now challenged to bring the process to closure; to take the crucial first step without which we cannot take the next, and the next, and the next. I am convinced that, like the Consultative Council, this group will find Emil's presentation thoughtful and penetrating. I urge that we should not get bogged down in micro-editing the TAC draft. I know that you can count on Emil and his coleagues to incorporate earlier comments and current views in the final iteration of the vision paper that they table at International Centers Week (ICW2000). However, the Consultative Council and TAC agreed that the new vision raises important issues including those connected with germplasm, inteDlectual property rights (IPR), and the organization of work to implement the "heartland" of the CGIAR. All require additional thought and, depending on how we come out on these, wil also impact on possible structural arrangements. More on this later. To sharpen our discussion and move the process forward, I have fornnulated a proposition based on the consensus of the Consultative Council. For MIM2000, this will be Proposition #1. The Group adopts the seven principles or 'planks' outlined in TACs proposed new CGIAR vision statement, and endorses that statement's definition of the heartland of the CGIAR Choice Colleagues and Friends. The renewal program that we launched in 1994 gave us a five-year "space" in which to prepare for the future. Our five years are up. Battles once fought and won have to be fought and fought again, in our quest for continued excellence, efficiency, and effectiveness, and for dedicated support from the international community. The CGIAR now faces a future characterized by make- or-break challenges, and make-or-break opportunities. We can seize the opportunities or succumb to the challenges. We confront that choice against a backdrop of momentous change in almost every aspect of the human condition that affects or is affected by our work. * The implicit bargain among the developing countries - the possessors of germplasm - the advanced research organizations, the main producers of the new science, and international institutions working with national agricultural research systems (NARS), serving as intermediaries and as creators of new technologies, is becoming more and more difficult to maintain, as scientific developments become increasingly subject to private control. * The private sector is now at the head of most developments in the field of science and, to recoup the biDlions of dollars it invests on research, is expanding the application of patents and intellectual property rights. * We cannot remain indifferent to what goes on beyond the parameters of that bargain. Recent concerns over perceived appropriation of the nsu or popping bean demonstrated precisely the kind of issue that will increasingly bedevil the CGIAR. * National and international arrangements governing access to germplasm appear likely to grow more and more restrictive, thus weakening a key element of the CGIAR's success. These arrangements are being developed without our direct involvement, and frequently without full appreciation by the governments concerned of the likely impact of restrictions 16 Charting the CGJAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 SIMMARY Of PIOCEEIINgS on the ability of agricultural research in developing countries to do public goods research for the poor and the environment. * The demands on traditional sources of funding for international agricultural research are increasing. We will attract new funding from traditional and new sources only if we can demonstrate that our science is at the cutting edge, our processes are efficient, our delivery is rapid, and our partnerships are real and effective. * Center scientists are beset by great anxieties about how the CGIAR will function- indeed, whether it will function- in the face of these changes. All these developments have profound implications for the future of the CGIAR. It is not that we face a crisis, as we did in 1993 and 1994. It is that we face the prospect of ossifying, of lurching from one small funding cut to another, and of gradually fading into obsolescence and, ultimately, oblivion, while other actors, more swift, better endowed, and more responsive to the needs of our clients, pass us by. For, as Klaus Schwab aptly points out, "we are moving from a world in which the big eat the small to one in which the fast eat the slow." A Time to Act So it is a time to act. But how, and on what? IPR, germplasm, finance, and structure need to be reviewed. Centers and Members must both be involved in defining the substance, the mechanisms, and the pace of change. I am encouraged by the fact that since we arrived here, center directors and board chairs have engaged in a joint exercise to deal with some of these issues. So have the Oversight Committee, the Finance Committee, and other groups. Eminent and thoughtful Members of the Group are articulating their visions. Bob Herdt, certainly a most eminent member of this Group, has put his thoughts on paper for our collective benefit. Some, like myself, want to move swiftly on all these issues. However, others would wish to move at a slower, more deliberate pace. I will set out several propositions, to help structure our discussions in the next two days. This should enable us to move as far as can before we leave Dresden. First, the approach at this moment should be open and inclusive. It is not just the CBC/CDC or TAC or the Oversight Committee or Bob Herdt who have ideas. Hence, Proposition #2. All in the CGIAR System who wish to offer proposals on structure should feel free to submit their suggestions to TAC by August 15, 2000. Second, it is essential that the Centers, represented by the DGs and Board Chairs, must have an important input into the process. I urge them to carry their deliberations as far and as fast as they can. I give you Proposition #3. Proposals from board chairs and Center directors should be completed no later than August 15, 2000 and submitted to TAC for further review and comment. The growth of a restrictive regime governing access to germplasm demonstrates the need for institutional arrangements that enable us to harness advances in the biological sciences. Moreover, we need to keep up with current trends that are changing and streamlining the way in which research is carried out. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 17 SIUM AR Y OF PI R C E [IIE C S Increasingly we see well-established campus-type institutions transforming themselves, and adapting to arrangements such as networks, knowledge platforms, strategic alliances, and collaboration with shuttle scientists. One of several models proposed for dealing with IPR issues suggests that private sector owners, as a group, agree with public sector users to share a body of technology; and agree on the rules for its use. Others would explore more case-by-case approaches. We need to examine all the options and select what is most consistent with our mission. Additionally, the issues that have been explored by a working group on a longer-term financing strategy for the CGIAR will also raise questions of structure. For instance, the argument has been made that if the maintenance of CGIAR germplasm collections is given over to an institution set up to undertake this activity, it would be most likely to attract endowments separate from other CGIAR funding. I am hoping that the CBC/CDC will be able to address all these questions in their proposals by August 15. I recognize, however, that they may not be able to do so. Therefore, I am suggesting the creation of an ad ix working group to solicit views on how to address these matters. That leads me to my next proposition. Proposition #4. Patents, intellectual property rights, finance, and other issues to be identified before the end of MTM2000 will be addressed by an ad hoc working group that would call on outside expenence as appropnate. Bob Herdt's paper, the papers emanating from the CBC/CDC and the ad kwr working group, as well as other papers that may be produced by CGIAR Members, would all be given to TAC wID should prepare their comments on each of the papers. That total package should be reviewed and discussed at a Consultative Council meeting, in mid-September. Clearly, I am hoping that this meeting of the Consultative Council will be able to bring all this material to the point where the group would be able to make full decisions on all structural issues, IPR, finance and other matters at ICW2000. If that proves too difficult, then at least the Consultative Council should spell out the remaining steps, to be endorsed at ICW, and ensure that these are taken in time for the Group to make their decisions as promptly as possible. Hence, I give you Proposition #5. The Consultative Council will convene in mid-September, 2000 to discuss proposals from CBC/CDC, the ad hoc working group, and other papers, with TACs review and comments. The Consultative Council will prepare recomnmendations for submission to the Group at ICW2000. What I have suggested so far addresses important issues, no doubt, but leaves unaddressed the question of how this Group manages its own affairs. Our experience im recent months has shown how effective the Consultative Council can be in improving the pace and direction of policy making. I am therefore suggesting that the Council should become a permanent standing committee, but with a reduced membership. This leads me to Proposition #6. After ICW2000, the Consultative Council will be reconstituted with 15 members as a permanent standing committee. This will not automatically provide answers to the numerous governance and procedure issues that concern CGIAR Members. It is quite clear that concerns abound on such matters as what should be brought to plenary and what should be excluded, how duplication can be avoided 18 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SIM MAI Y Of PI DC E ED INC S in the Group's consideration of external reviews; how much time should be given to Center presentations; what mechanisms can be used to provide the Group with opportunities for discussing "big picture" questions, and so on. I suggest that a slight modification of the decision-making process can help to resolve most of these issues. I therefore give you Proposition #7. After ICW,the Consultative Council will be authorized to reach decisions, on the understanding that the decisions will be immnediately circulated among all CGIAR Members. If more than five Members question the decision, the issue will be re-opened at the next meeting of the Group. Envoi Colleagues and friends. The seven propositions I have formulated are intended to help focus our discussions in the coming days, and to lead us towards clear decisions. They are nct being imposed on this group. You are free to modify the propositions in any way you wish, reject them, or adopt them. What is important is that we should all work together over the next days to lay the groundwork for a vibrant and effective CGIAR for the future. The processes we adopt must create a clear path for moving forward beyond MTM. Then, subjects would have been assigned to appropriate groups, responsibilities for review and recommendations would have been dearly defined, and a timetable would be set, leading to decisions by ICW. Colleagues and friends. Almost three decades ago, at a time of fear and pessimnism about the fate and future of millions in the disadvantaged regions of the world, the founders of the CGIAR acted with faith, hope, and a powerful vision. They were determined to reach the mountaintops of achievement We are again required to shape the future, in the context of new challenges. Let us confront those challenges boldly. Let us build a future that is consistent with the founding spirit of the CGIAR. Let it never be said that a great inheritance was squandered. Thank you. I will now make the Chairman's Announcements and seek adoption of the agenda. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 19 SIMMANY OF PRDCEEIINCS Chairman s Announcement Ladies and gentlemen. I now move on to the Chairman's Announcements and the adoption of the draft agenda. At this time, we take the opportunity to welcome old and new friends, record achievements and, inevitably, because life never runs an even course, sometimes share the burden of sorrow as well. Condolences On January 30 this year, we were shocked and saddened by the tragic deaths in an air crash of Dirk Vuylsteke, Paul Speijer, and John Hartman, all three from IITA, and of Abdou Salam Ouedraogo of IPGRI. Their families suffered grievous personal loss, and we share their grief. We lost colleagues who were committed, competent, and caring. I request the Secretariat to record our condolences in the summary report of this meeting, and to send copies of the report to the families concemed. Thanks As we share sorrow, we should also record thanks and appreciation. I am pleased to announce that Dr. Craig Venter, president and founder of Celera Genonics, who has just won the King Faisal Intemational Prize for Science has donated $100,000, the full proceeds of the prize, to the Institute for Genomic Research (1 IGR) to complete the sequencing of the T-parva parasite, work that was being done for ILRI. This collaborative effort will be applied to the development of a vaccine against East Coast Fever, a disease that causes an economic loss of some $200 million a year. Loss of cattle to ECF has devastated smallholder farmers throughout East Africa. The donation is a reaffirmation of the importance and quality of the work being carried out by ILRI. Our thanks are due to Dr. Venter for his great generosity, and our congratulations are due to ILRI for this recognition of the center's work. CGIAR Director The search for the new CGIAR Director, i.e. the successor to Alexander von der Osten, is now underway, after a slight delay in getting it off the ground. Questions or clarifications may be addressed to Bob Thompson, chairman of the Search Committee. To eliminate any confusion, let me say that Alexander von der Osten will remain in office through ICW2000. The transition from him to his successor will take place after ICW2000. Farewells and Welcomes We have a number of farewells. Cosponsors, Members, and Secretariat Louise Fresco is with us in Dresden, but we have actually lost her, following her appointment as FAO's Assistant Director General for Agriculture. She has had a long and fruitful relationship with the CGIAR. I have no doubt that she will make a strong impact in her current position and in that way complement our own efforts. 20 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 SOMMAUY OF POC[EIEINGS Henri Carsalade is now Assistant Director General in charge of FAO's Technical Cooperation Department, and is therefore no longer FAO's cosponsor representative. Without doubt, Henn will shine in his new position, and we wish him the very best, but that does not diminish our own sense of loss. His contributions to the CGIAR are too numerous to recount in detail. He has had towering and extensive influence throughout the CGIAR System. His judgement, his wisdom, and his practicality have been a boon to us all. I will now read the text of the commemorative scroll that we have prepared for him, before handing it over to Louise Fresco with the request that she should kindly present it to Henri on our behalf. "The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) at its Mid-Term Meeting 2000 held in Dresden, Germany unanimnously resolved to honor and felicitate Henri Carsalade in recognition of his deep understanding of tropical agriculture and agricultural research, his dedicated commitment to the mission of the CGIAR, his contributions to the effectiveness of CGIAR decision- making as a national representative, a member of the inaugural Oversight Committee, as the chair of two boards of trustees, and as a cosponsor of the CGIAR representing the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The CGIAR records its appreciation of his efforts, and offers him warm good wishes for the future." This is Paul Egger's final appearance as Switzerland's head of delegation. He has in fact already taken up new responsibilities relating specifically to Asia. Paul advocated positions within the CGIAR that helped to shape its growth, and to strengthen its relations with national agricultural research systems (NARS) and NGOs. He was the founding chairman of the Oversight Committee (OC), and provided that committee with dedicated leadership. He was the guiding light in all that we undertook during the CGIAR renewal. He was the architect of the Lucerne Ministerial-level meeting. He was the first to demonstrate that it is appropriate to renew chairmanships, by stepping down from OC diairmanship, opening the way to its renewal. So, Paul, what I am doing for myself is following your example. I will read out the text of the commemorative scroll for Paul before inviting him to come up here and receive it. "The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) at its Mid-Term Meeting 2000 held in Dresden, Germany, unanimously resolved to honor and felicitate Paul Egger in recognition of his commitment to the mission of the CGIAR, his dedication to the cause of mobilizing science to serve the needs of the poor and protect the environment, his support for national agricultural research systems, and his contributions to the effectiveness of CGIAR decision-making, particularly as the founding chairman of the Oversight Committee. The CGIAR records its appreciation of his efforts, and offers him warm good wishes for the future." Next... Miguel Altieri. I know that I express your views as well as mine when I pay tribute to his enormous contribution and great leadership. His ability to build bridges between the CGIAR and the NGO comnmunity has truly been a major contribution to the opening-up of the CGIAR. He has helped us to understand and appreciate the NGO perspective, and that in turn has led to the development of a sense of mutuality between us and all those NGOs who are part of the coalition of the caring to which we belong. Miguel ends his chairmanship after this Mid-Termn Meeting, and I will miss him personally but I have no doubt that his legacy will endure. Now, let me read the text of the scroll that I will present to Miguel: ",The Consultative Group on International Research (CGIAR), at its annual Mid-Term Meeting in Dresden, unanimously resolved to felicitate Miguel Altieri in recognition of his commitment to the Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 21 SU IMM AI Y OF PI DC E E II N S mission of the CGIAR, his dedication to the cause of mobilizing science to serve the needs of the poor and protect the environment, his support for innovative and sustainable forms of natural resource management, and his contributions to developing the dialogue between the CGIAR and civil society institutions as Chairman of the CGIAR/NGO Partnership Committee. The CGIAR records its appreciation of his effort and offers him warm good wishes for the future." We bid farewell now to Frona Hall. This will be her last meeting as a member of the CGIAR Secretariat. For many of us around this table, there is no distinction between Frona and CGLAR meetings. She made them happen, choosing the meeting site, working on the agenda, making sure that documents were distributed in a timely manner, and being directly involved in the very many details that make the difference between a successful meeting and a breakdown. She even demanded punctuality from us with the persistent ringing of her instantly recognizable bell. Frona has been a tower of strength to all of us. She has been so closely associated with the organization of these meetings, and for so long, that a legend has grown, as to how after each CGIAR meeting outside Washington, when we depart, the management of the hotel where the meeting was held renames our meeting place the "Frona Hall." Now, before I read the text of the scroll prepared for her, and present the scroll to Frona, I invite Andrew Bennett to join me at the podium, where he will speak on behalf of CGIAR members. Following comments by Mr. Bennett and presentation of a bell to Ms. Hall, the Chairman continued: We do have a scroll for Frona and let me read its text. "The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) at its Mid-Tenn meeting 2000 held in Dresden, Germany unanimously resolved to honor and felicitate Frona Hall for her outstanding contribution to the effectiveness of the CGJAR, and to place on record its appreciation of the exemplary manner in which she carried out a wide range of responsibilities. The CGIAR offers her warm good wishes for the future." Before I move on to the welcomes, let me point out that Yang Weimin of the ADB, Abdelmajid Slama of IFAD, and Joachim Voss of IDRC are no longer heads of delegation. We wish them well in their current endeavors. On a different note, I offer a special welcome to His Excellency Minister El-Zaim, Syria's Minister of State for Planning. His Government recently adopted legislation formalizing Syria's membership in the CGIAR, and we are delighted that this legislation has now been followed up by the Minister deciding to fly all the way here to attend MTM2000, as a demonstration and reaffirmation of Syria's renewed and invigorated support. I welcome all the representatives who are here for the first time. We are happy to have them in the CGIAR family. I welcome, as well, the observers who are at the Mid-Term meeting for the first time, and hope that they will soon attend CGIAR meetings as member representatives. We also welcome Robert L. Thompson, Director of the World Bank's Rural Development Department (RDV), and the Bank's representative in the CGIAR Cosponsor Group. Most of us know him well as a past president of the Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, and Dean of Agriculture and Professor of Agricultural Economics at Purdue. More recently, he has been a senior advisor on strategy and policy for agricultural and rurl development at the Bank Jacques Eckebil, Director of the Sustainable Development Department at FAO, who cannot join us for personal reasons, is the new FAO representative in the Cosponsor Group. We knew Jacques at 22 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 S1ENlAEY Df P DOCEEUINCS IITA, where he won the respect of his colleagues in the CGIAR and of national scientists. He was a gift from the CGIAR to the FAO, and it is only fitting that FAO should now share him wvith us. He will be with us at ICW. We welcome Emil Javier at ICW1999, but let me place it on record that he is now attending a CGIAR meeting for the first time as TAC chair. We welcome as well Werner Arber, as chairman of the Science Partnership Committee, and all the members of that committee. Board Chairs There have been a number of changes among board chairs. CIAT: Lauritz Holn-Nielsen has succeeded Fernando Chaparro. CIFOR: Jagmohan Maini is the new CIFOR chair, following the term of Gill Shepherd. ICRAF: Lucie Edwards has succeeded Yemi Katerere. IFPRI: Geoff Miller is the new IFPRI chair, succeeding Martin Pifneiro. WARDA. Lindsay Innes has succeeded Just Faaland. Waly Falcon continues to serve as CIMMvYT's chair, but he has been succeeded as chairman of the committee of Center Board Chairs by Kurt Peters. Center Directors We welcome Joachirn Voss in his new position. He has taken over from the interim director general, Aart van Schoonhoven at CIAT. Frank Rijsberman wil succeeded David Seckler at IWMI in September. I express my gratitude to all those who are leaving their positions. I wish them the very best in their future undertakings, confident that we will hear more from them. At the same time, I offer a very hearty welcome to the newcomers. Our appreciation is due to all of them. Please express our appreciation in the usual CGIAR manner. Honor Roll CGIAR scientists and alumni continue to win public honors that recognize their considerable achievements. I am delighted to inform you of the following honors that have been brought to my notice: * M. S. Swaminathan was awarded UNESCO's Gandhi Gold Medal for Science, * Gurdev Kush won the 2000 Wolf Prize for Agriculture, * Chris Johansen received the Vietnam Medal for Agriculture and Rural Development, and * Ronald Cantrell was declared a Distinguished Alumnus of Purdue University. Adoption of the Agenda We can now move on to adopting the draft agenda which has been circulated in advance. The agenda was adopted. Charting the CGIAR's Future- A New Vision for 2010 23 SIMMAIY OF PEIDCEFINCS Chairan ' Proposiions Proposiion #1. The Gro apts the seven pincipes or l linedin TAsprpsed new CGIAR vision sttemet n e tt sta es d of heealandt of the Proposition #21 i A in the CG System who wish to offie Proposals on stricture shl feel free t it suggestiornstTCW by iugu s 15 2000. Proposion#3 Proposals from and Center direaors should be com td no6later than A20M0 and s to AC for further review and comment. Proposition # Patens intelecual pr rig finance, and other issues to be identified bfore the end of MTh20 00 wil be d ban b ad hoc wthat would call on outside experience as ppoiate. Proposition #i5. The Consultativ Council wil convene in rdepte 2 to discuss propsalsfro CBCCDCthead hoc workin group, and other papers wt TACs review anda cmments TeConltatieCounl will prepar recommendaiuonsf sbission t the roup Proposition . #6 After WConstve Council wil be reconstited w 15 m ers as a permann stanin committee. Proposi #7. After TM, the Consu cil will e authorized to reach decisions, on ihe understandingthatthe decisions wi be circulated among al CGIA( *emers. If more than fivemeimbers quetio the decision, th issue be reopen at th next mee 6of the Gop Propositio # (preseted frm the flo The GIAR iaffiiis the itance of the Globa Forunm on Agriulr doises its link h G R, res to revisitth issue of CGs for GEAR at iCW200:. 24 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 SVNMABY OF PROCEEDINUS A New Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR With the theme of "Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010," MTM2000 will best be remembered as a critical meeting to map the new vision and strategy for the CGIAR and lay the groundwork for moving from vision to action. At ICW99, the CGIAR asked the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to take the lead in formulating the new CGIAR vision. TAC stressed a consultative, open and participatory process, involving a broad range of stakeholders including the CBC, CDC, Chairs of CGIAR Committees, representatives of national agricultural research systems (NARS), and the CGIAR and NARS Secretanrats. TAC prepared a vision paper which was reviewed by the Consultative Council at its Rome meeting and- at the Council's request- drafted a companion paper which was reviewed at Dresden. The Council broadly endorsed the strategy presented by TAC and recommended that the Group adopt the seven "planks" of the new vision and TAC's definition of the CGIAR heartland. The Council also urged the Group to adopt an action plan as well as a schedule of next steps to deal with issues of strategy and structure following the Dresden meeting. Building on the endorsement and action proposals of the Consultative Council, TAC Chair Emil Javier presented the new vision and strategy to the Group at MTM2000. The vision statement draws heavily on the third CGIAR System Review, the Conway Panel report, the 1994 TAC study on structure, and other TAC papers. TAC also conducted an extensive electronic discussion of key issues. The New Vision Vision: A food secure world for all. Goal: To reduce poverty, hunger and malnutrition by sustainably increasing the productivity of resources in agriculture, forestry, fisheries. Mission: To achieve sustainable food security and reduce poverty in developing countries through scientific research and research-related activities in the fields of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, policy, and environment. Strategic Planks Seven "planks" that form the core of the proposed vision would be the basis for strategic planning. 1. sharply focussing System activities on the reduction of poverty, hunger, and malnutrition in developing countries (implications: incidence of poverty will drive the work of the CGIAR; CGIAR will work more closely with other development institutions addressing poverty, both the urban and rural poor will be targeted); 2. bringing modem science to bear on difficult productivity and institutional problems that have proven intractable in the past (implications: the CGIAR will be closely connected with the most recent advances/methods in science, ranging from functional genomics, information technology and GIS modeling to integrated natural resource management and participatory research; addressing institutional issues associated with genetic resources and intellectual property will demand significant effort); Charting the CGJAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 25 S UM N ARY Of PO *C E ED INS 3. giving highest priority to the research needs of South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, where poverty is concentrated and growing (implication: the CGIAR will focus on those ecologies and peoples not reached by the green revolution); 4. adopting a regional approach to research planning in order to better address the heterogeneous nature of poverty (implications: the CGIAR will have regional research agendas developed jointly with partners in the region; the CGIAR wiRl try to better integrate its efforts with others working on different aspects of poverty); 5. diversifying and closely integrating its partnerships (implication: the CGIAR will operate more in a "centers without walls" mode, with more outsourcing and contracting and greater reliance on alliances and networks); 6. adopting, under certain circumstances, a task force approach to the organization and delivery of CGIAR products and services (implications: the CGIAR wil increasingly shift towards financing well-defined, time-bound prograrns with relatively independent management and involving partners from inside as well as outside the CGIAR;- the independent center model will continue side-by-side with flexible organizational arrangements such as research consortia and task forces); and 7. serving as a catalyst, organizer, coordinator, and integrator of global efforts on key opportunities and constraints in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries (implication: the CGIAR will not just "produce" technology; it will also serve as an apolitical honest-broker in the international arena.) CGLAR "Heartland" The new vision proposed by TAC offers little change in whit the CGIAR does, although it flags some changes in the rematiepiointies of CGIAR activities (e.g. focus on Africa and South Asia). Many of TAC's suggestions are about hov the CGIAR carries out its business (e.g. partnerships, broker/catalyst role, task forces, regional priority setting.) Stated in terms of the CGIAR's five major undertakings, the major changes from the new vision are as follows: Germplasm Conservation. This has been and will remain the principal "heartland" activity of the CGIAR for the long term. The CGIAR will need to be engaged more closely with international policy networks related to germplasm conservation and IPR (e.g., FAO Commission, CBD, WTO, TRIPS, etc.) The CGIAR will increasingly use new tools (e.g. functional genomics) in characterizing germplasm. A critical strategic consideration is the future organization and financing of the System's germplasm conservation activities. The designation of these activities as a discrete enterprise, with a separate endowment, may considerably improve their efficiency and effectiveness. * Germplasm Improvement. Crop improvement will continue to be one of the main businesses of the CGIAR over the next 10-15 years. In addition, the CGIAR will continue its work on livestock improvement, disease resistance, and vaccine development in light of the expected doubling of demand for meat and milk in developing countries over the next twenty years. Similarly, germplasm exchange and improvement work on fish species like carp and tilapia wiXl continue, with increased use of genetic marker technologies. Among the crops, the CGIAR will continue to work on the major staples that are the most affordable sources of calories and protein for poor people (cereals, roots and tubers) and breed for traits of specific importance to the poor (e.g. drought, salinity, low temperature). In addition, regional priority setting will highlight commodities of regional importance (e.g. horticultural crops) which are not in the current portfolio. The CGIAR will employ a variety of germplasm improvement strategies, ranging from functioning as a catalyst and facilitator of networks (such as in banana and plantain 26 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 SUMMARY OF PAOCEEDIMSS improvement), to taking full responsibility for improvement programs (such as in wheat and rice). It will use a wide range of research tools, from biotechnology to participatory breeding. Over time, the CGIAR will increasingly share germplasm improvement responsibilities with stronger NARS. * Integrated Natural Resource Management (NRM). The CGIAR will work only on NRM research that is geared towards increasing productivity or increasing the sustainability of natural resources to produce outputs needed for reducing poverty. Thus, integrated NRM will serve as a framework for all CGIAR research and will focus more on increasing understanding of biophysical and socio-economic processes. The CGIAR will not do NRM research solely to protect the environment. * Policy Research. The CGIAR will expand its policy research activities. The principal areas of growth will include: research on malnutrition and nutrients; protecting the interests of the poor in global forums and policy networks; gerrnplasm and IPR policy matters; and modeling of socioeconomic and biophysical systems. * Enhancing NARS Capacities. The CGIAR will place priority on those activities that are in the forrn of international public goods (such as research on or development of generic tools for organization and management of research institutions) at the expense of strengthening services to individual countries or institutions (which are not international public goods). Training conducted by CGIAR institutions will evolve, based on the change in the Centers' research focus and several training activities will be taken over by NARS. Increasingly, the CGIAR will play a catalytic role in building partnerships and networks. During the plenary discussion, several Members raised questions about the implications of the vision and strategy for CGIAR programs and activities. There was agreement that the CGIAR must continue to evolve in order to strategically utilize the best of science to meet the needs of a rapidly changing world. In rethinking what the CGLAR does, how it does it, and with whom, Members agreed with the TAC recommendation that the criteria for choosing future research activities should include their contribution to CGIAR goals, creation of intemational public goods, alternative sources of supply, and probability of research success. T he Group agreed with the Chairman's suggestion to establish working groups to brainstorm and tease out key issues and help further Group discussions. Six working groups were charged with reviewing a specific subject matter; a seventh was not charged with a specific topic to allow for other issues to be raised. Working groups were asked to report to plenary on issues that should be emphasized (and any that had not been sufficiently addressed), and to identify their implications for restructuring, governance, and finance. The working groups were not meant to reach consensus but to receive diverse and rich views and comments. Working Groups The NTM working groups met in parallel session, then reported their findings to the Group in plenary. Working Group 1 - Genetic Resources. The working group was chaired by Carl Gustav Thomstr6m; Juan Restrepo, rapporteur, reported the results to the Group. The participants identified the following key issues: * the CGIAR's role in ensuring the free flow of germplasm (access to genetic resources); * its role in the negotiation of the FAO international undertaking; and Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 27 Z U MM AI Y OF PI DC I E II NC S * conservation and use of germplasm including the maintenance of the gene banks, the role of national and regional centers, and the link between conservation and utilization. Among the specific points raised by the working group were the CGIAR's role in providing technical support at national, regional, and global levels; the sending of strong signals on the need to come to agreement on a multi-lateral system in the context of national legislation on access and benefit sharing; the CGIAR as a mechanism for benefit sharing; support for GFAR's Dresden Declaration on Plant Genetic Resources of Food and Agriculture; and high profile initiatives to provide emergency seed to disaster areas. Working Group 1 saw the need for unified policies on genetic resources at the System level. Regarding finance, the working group suggested setting up an endowment fund for genebanks. It also suggested a special effort to upgrade present genebank facilities and operations. Working Group 2 - Intellectual Property Rights and the Private Sector. The working group was chaired by Alberto Duque Portugal and Ian Bevege served as rapporteur. The participants identified these key issues: * The CGIAR must manage its IP framework based on the principles of flexibility and subsidiarity, and taking into account opportunity costs. It should consider, as appropriate, IP instruments other than patents. Some centralized functions, such as a wholly owned subsidiary, may be desirable. Such a unit should coordinate without dominating, retain competitiveness where it matters, and harmonize approaches among Centers. * The CGIAR must manage others' IP to enable access to needed technolog,, assure effective partnerships with advanced research institutes and the private sector, and minimize legal and financial risks. * The CGIAR must negotiate from a position of strength. Its leverage is strengthened when its own IP is of interest to partners. It must be a trusted and respected player. It should maximize its good will as a public goods provider in negotiations with the private sector and advanced research institutes (ARls). Also, it should learn from the experience of ARIs in developing relationships and negotiating with the private sector. * The CGIAR should serve as a facilitator for IP management in international agricultural research for development. It can serve as a broker between public and private sectors, helping to harmonize approaches and policies. * The CGIAR and its stakeholders should develop protective IP to keep international public goods in the public arena and available to the resource poor. An important question is how to handle information such as traditional knowledge, which is not yet subject to IPR. Working Group 3 - New Science: Geographic and Ecoregional Issues. Emmy Simmons served as chair and Joseph Mukiibi, rapporteur. Discussants raised the following key issues: * The science revolution is more than genonics. It includes better understanding of agro-ecology and natural resources processes, and social processes such as collective management of natural resources. Information technologies such as GIS, modeling, and artificial intelligence are also important elements of the science revolution. * Tools of the science revolution can be best used to solve clearly defined problems along ecoregional lines. The challenge is to identify how these tools relate to poverty, especially highly heterogeneous poverty. 28 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 SU MMA I Y OF PROCEEDINGS * Using the new science tools to reduce poverty requires layering ecoregional constraints over geo- political issues. If you start with poverty, the focus must be on impact at the geopolitical level. If ecoregional problems are the point of departure, it may be difficult to assure impact at the geopolitical level. * There is consensus that geopolitical regional priority setting is key to effective use of modem science tools; ecoregional organization is essential to good science; and restructuring options would benefit from lessons of history. * The ideal structure would be based on geopolitical priority setting and have science based ecoregional centers that solve geopolitical problems through their own work and generate truly global knowledge. * Other options include: t- Geopolitical regional centers with semi-permanent task forces to provide global integration. >- Ecoregional centers which assume responsibility for coordinating all priority needs for a "lead" geopolitical region. >- Competitive funding mechanisms to encourage one or the other focus. Working Group 4 - Mode of Operation. Ruth Haug served as chair and Mohammad Roozitalab, rapporteur. Discussants contributed the following perspectives: Modes of Operation * There should be diverse and dynamic modes of operation; there is no single magic model. * Modes of operation should support the CGIAR mission to combat poverty and achieve food security. * The CBC and CDC should document different models of operation based on experiences within and outside the CGIAR. * Modes of operation could combine different models including those driven by demand or science or partnership or research agenda. * One should learn from Centers' experiences. * The CGIAR System should be responsive to development efforts of regions/countries while being conducive to use of high quality science. Governance v One "mega" center is not a solution; the CGIAR should be a loose federation of regional/ecoregional centers. * The TAC should be restructured as a Research Council with a core budget for financing competitive research proposals. * Empowerment of Centers and Center scientists should receive priority. * Outsourcing should be a two-way process: (1) from the CGIAR to NARS/regional fora, (2) from NARS/regional fora to the CGIAR. * Centers should have a critical mass of scientists before they outsource tasks. * A stronger CGIAR System might mean less autonomous Centers. Working Group 5 - Finance. lain MacGiDivray was chair and Eliseo Ponce, rapporteur. Discussants defined the following key issues. * Traditional vs. non-traditional funds should be understood and exploited. ODA funds from non- agricultural sources have not been fuly tapped. * Raising more funds from non-traditional sources and from the South depends on the CGIARs image, program focus, and new institutional arrangements. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 200 29 SI MNMAK Y. F PIOCEEIIMgtS * Strategy for maintaining current funding levels from traditional sources should be fully articulated. * Multiple funding sources require new mechanisms to generate funds. * Long term financing has not been satisfactorily addressed. Current funding which is discretionary and annual in character creates instability and affects productivity. * The CGIAR's public awareness program (audience, focus, and links to resource mobilization) requires review and improvement. Implications for restructuring * The current issues on financing (stability, variability, and level) require a new CGIAR structure that is highly decentralized and flexible to meet the needs of its various partners. * The repositioning of the CGIAR must take into consideration such issues as: >- message and audience >- new partnership arrangements >- the growing competencies of NARS - increasing the cost-effectiveness of operations Implications for governance * Declining funding commnitments require a well-crafted strategy with a strong Secretariat in a coordinating role while preserving Centers' competitiveness and independence. Working Group 6 - Process. Working group 6 was chaired by Andrew Bennett, who also served as rapporteur. The working group was charged with clarifying responsibilities and setting a clear timetable. It made several recommendations on processes which were endorsed by the CGIAR (see box on pages 31- 32). Working Group 7 - Equity, Income Opportunities, and NRM. This ad hoc working group came together because of concem about other issues. Keneti Faulalo served as rapporteur. The participants identified three key issues: * Equity with emphasis on explicit benefits for women and excluded groups and on communicating information * Income opportunities through marketing and small-scale, post-harvest technology * Natural Resources Management for soil fertlity and nutrient management/environment. 30 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 SU MM ASRY Of PAO C F [II N IS Working Group 6 - Recommendations Roles and Responsibilities TAC * Wil complete the vision and strategy paper taking into account comments on the two papers from the CGIAR at the Consultative Council meetings and the NlfM2000; *W analyze the structural implications of the seven "pillars' of the TAC vision; * Wil review and comment on papers on structure and governance from CBC/CDC and other stakeholders; * Wi facilitate an eleronic conference on organizational structure and governance of the CGIAR and summanze the comments on organizatonal structure made at the last TAC conference in cooperation wiah key stakeholders (such as GFAR, OC, CBC/CD). CB1CICDC * (Primarily CDC) wll analyze structure issues including: >- cross-Center collaboration >- geographic vs. ecoregional organization >- Herdt paper >- Task Forces >- Possibilities of merger/integration of Center activities. * (CDC and CBC) will analyze policies and practices on 1PR * (primarily CBC) wil examine overall System govemance issues, including the "hub" of the System and how the System interaas with its stakeholders. Finance Committee * Wil carry out further analysis of long-term financing strategies and structures and draft business plan, interacting as necessary with other key actors. Oversight Committee * WiR oversee the process on behalf of the CGIAR, * Will appoint a 'Synthesis Group" to integrate the various inputs from other bodies for discussion/decision-making by the CGIAR The Synthesis Group * WMl be made up of 5-7 individuals serving in their personal capacit, * Wil consist of informed individuals, about 2/3 from within and 1/3 from outside the CGIAR; * Wil sythesize/integrate contributions of all groups to generate actionable reconumendations on organizational structure and governance. Members, Other CGL4R Committees, and Stalkeholders * W%il be invited to make contnbutions to the process (a) through the electronic conference, and (b) through individual submissions. Individual submissions should be sent to TAC, CBC/CDC andithe Synthesis Group (independently or through the O). Consultative Council . Wil be convened at the invitation of the Chair, either before or after ICW2000, to review/commnent on recommendations or help implement them (if acted upon by the CGIAR) Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 31 SIMMR AY OF PIICE IINCS Woi \0j 0 6 f rkingGrop6-Recomm(enda Continued) Timetble t 0 :03:: :: : 0 X : J 2000 Start of electronlic conference (OV: : : - Prepare papers C CBC/CX) Aug 24 Special TA5 m-eet to review AC papers and comnment on submissions (at ISNA) Earl Sept - CBC/CDC meeting to review drafts, deveop options (at ISNA Sept 25-30 i T meeting at ITA to comment on subissions and finalize TAGs pprs End Spt FC produces draft business plan Oct 58 - Synthesis Grup meeting to integrat all contribtions and develop proposals C to the CGIAR (most iely in Lond Oct 9-10 Possible Consultative CIO meeting Oct 21 Alternative date for a possible ve Council meeting Oct 23-27 - ICW2000 Jan-Feb 2001 - Possible Confsultatiive Counceeting Feb-Mar 2001 - Possible extordiayC ting May2001 0- Regularmeetingof CGAR @ATM2Q01 to conclude decisions on gove and The Woi Grup also conmented on the seven propositions offeed, by Mr. Sen his opening address. It agreedwith propositions 1 through 4, wih some amendments on dates.a Proposition 5, it offered an alerate schedule for the conveng of the Consulive Couci (as no above).Asto prpositions6 d7on tecopositionandrlof te ConsultativeCuncIwasft that it would be premature to reach a concluson on thes points gen the timetable hereby it is recommended that these issues should be studied as part of the Gi;ARs overaloer e s during the coming months. Woking Grou 6 further recmmended that there be a discussion on the evolution of CGA- GFAR relationshs a In plenary session, Members commended the openness of the Working Group brainstorming sessions and the opportunities provided to discuss the substance of a broad mix of issues and future planning for CGIAR governance and structure. The Group briefly discussed the findings of Working Groups 1 5 and Working Group 7, and agreed that the information and conclusions will enrich the work of TAC, CDC, CBC, and other committees in the next phase of developing the new vision and strategy for the CGIAR. Regarding the procedural recommendations offered by Working Group 6, Members noted that the momentous changes brought about by the scientific and information revolutions have profound implications for the CGIAR. The challenge to the CGIAR is to deepen its understanding of those changes and clarify that understanding into a new vision. Members noted that at ICW2000, the CGIAR will be challenged to decide whether structural alterations are required within the CGIAR System to fulfil the new vision; and if so, what the new structure(s) should be; and how best and within what time frame to transit from the present to such a 32 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 SSMMA1Y OF P3OCEE INIS structure. The structural alterations required to fulfil the new vision will be the key issue that the CGIAR will grapple with at ICW2000. In discussing the process and timetable for moving beyond MTM2000, several Members raised the issue of the Consultative Council's involvement and the use of another mechanism, a synthesis group, to integrate contributions from all stakeholder groups and generate actionable recommendations on organizational structure and governance. The synthesis group would not be representative of the Group as a whole, but instead involve individuals serving in their personal capacity, knowledgeable insiders, and outside experts, under the auspices of the Oversight Committee. It was generally agreed that the synthesis group could provide a useful mechanism for moving forward on structural issues in the short-term. The Consultative Council would be convened at the Chairman's discretion and decisions about the next Council meeting would be left to the incoming Chainnan. Decision: The Group adopted the seven planks of TAC's proposed new vision statement, broadly endorsed the definition of the heartland, adoptedfollow up arrangements and a timetable for exploring structural changes, and expressed a desire to discuss options at ICW2000. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 33 SIM MA i Y OF PAO C E E II1C S Global Forum on Agricultural Research GFAR 2000- "Strengthening Partnerships in Agricultural Research for Development in the Context of Globalization"- presented the CGIAR with a vision of the environment in which the CGIAR System works and the full range of partners. Held May 21 - 23, 2000 in Dresden as part of MTM2000, the Forum included 500 stakeholders from the public and private sectors. R. S. Paroda, Chair of the Global Forum, presented a report to the Group on major outcomes of the meeting. Mr. Paroda began his presentation by tracing the history of GFAR. GFAR was established in 1996 with the encouragement of the CGIAR to provide an innovative means through which all partners engaged in agricultural research for the benefit of the poor could act together on global priorities. National agricultural research institutions, advanced research institutes, intemational agricultural research centers, the private sector, non-govemmental organizations, farmers' organizations, and regional/sub-regional organizations are represented within GFAR. In summarizing the achievements of GFAR 2000, Mr. Paroda stressed that a key outcome was the endorsement of the Dresden Declaration, "Towards a Global system for Agricultural Research for Development." GFAR stakeholders envision the development of an agriculture, including crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry, which is: * sustainable, equitable, profitable and competitive, in the context of community centered rural development, fully recognizing the role of women; diversified and flexible to cope with heterogeneous and rapidly changing agro-ecological and socio-economic environments with an important role for the farm family; and * responsive to multiple sources of knowledge and innovations, both modem and traditional. The "Declaration on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture" was also endorsed by the stakeholders and adopted by the GFAR Steering Committee. It strongly supports the ongoing revision of FAO's International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources as well as the Leipzig Global Plan of Action. It encourages countries "that are considering or reviewing legislation on intellectual property, to do so in such a way that they do not restrict the exchange, transfer and use of germplasm in crop improvement programs. In plenary session, the Group discussed the GFAR2000 conclusions and the lessons for the CGIAR - in particular for its new vision and strategy. It was felt that the presence of such a diverse group of stakeholders representing the global agricultural research community demonstrated a continuing resolve to move towards an agenda responsive to small and poor farmers in developing countries. The Forum considered important research partnerships including those on genetic resources management and biotechnology, natural resources management and agroecology, commodity chains, policy management, and institutional development. Several Members discussed the nature of GFAR as a forum that facilitates consensus building on strategic issues and research partnerships. Members agreed that it is not a funding mechanism although it could play a catalytic role in initiating stakeholder activities. GFAR priorities include facilitating information flows and concerted actions among stakeholders, promoting policy management capacity building in stakeholders, and developing a "project marketplace" of best projects and practices. The first step to implement the Global Vision, it was generally agreed, is the establishment of building blocks of the global system for agricultural research for development. These include formulating 34 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 SUMMARY OF PRICEEDINIS a strategic global research agenda which capitalizes on the comparative strengths and advantages of different stakeholders; promoting innovative, cost-effective and sustainable research partnerships and strategic alliances; and establishing specialized agricultural knowledge and information systems, including information and communication technologies (ICE) networking among stakeholders. Issues concerning CGIAR involvement in GFAR were also raised. CGIAR Centers are represented in the GFAR steering committee and involved in dialogues on strategic global issues such as plant genetic resources as well as other activities. There was support for continued CGIAR-GFAR collaboration, but it was felt that more detailed discussions should take place after the completion of an on-going extemal review of the GFAR. Decision: The Group received the report on the Global Forum, reaffirmed the strong ties that exist between GEAR and the CGIAR, and agreed to review more specific aspects of that relationship after the completion of the GEAR external review. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 3 SUM MAN Y OF PR 0 C EF IIEI S Longer-Term Financing Strategy Finance Committee Chair lain MacGillivray introduced Alex McCalla, chair of the working group on a Longer Term Financing Strategy for the CGIAR. At its meeting in January 1999, the Consultative Council requested Mr. McCalla, as Finance Committee Chair, to lead implementation of the CGIAR System Review Panel's recommendations on resource mobilization and public awareness. At MTM99, the Group endorsed Mr. McCalla's proposal that a consulting company, the Conservation Company, be engaged for the task under the guidance of a working group representing key constituencies- the Centers, Members, CGIAR public awareness and resource mobilization professionals, and Public Awareness and Resource Mobilization Committee (PARC). At ICW99, the Group discussed an interim report and endorsed the Finance Committee's recommendations that: * the CGIAR's longer term financing strategy be based on continuation of ODA funding with some proportion being supported by non-ODA funding from DAC countries, expansion of Southern financial participation, and a special effort to solicit private philanthropy; and * a single mechanism, such as a CGIAR/Future Harvest Foundation, be used to implement a harmonized, but not centralized, approach for resource mobilization and public awareness. In his introduction, Mr. MacGillivray noted that since ICW99, there has been a strong effort by the working group to put the longer-term financing strategy in the context of the new CGIAR vision. The draft report focuses on strategic issues of longer term funding and an interim structure which emphasizes non-traditional resources and enhanced public awareness. It seeks endorsement to proceed with expanding Future Harvest public awareness efforts, defining next steps including pilot activities with non- traditional sources, and continuing the working group until ICW2000 to refine resource mobilization strategies and recommend a five year operational budget. Mr. McCalla presented the working group's draft report. The report proposes a significant expansion of public awareness initiatives with Future Harvest in the lead and significant Center involvement. It calls for creation of new fundraising capacities Systemwide, at the Center level, and at national and regional levels where possible. It also calls for expanded efforts to enlist the Southern countries to support the CGIAR financially and increasingly take ownership of the System. The draft report recommends creation of a global, multi-pronged public awareness/resource mobilization effort. Built on Future Harvest, this expanded public awareness/resource mobilization effort would place communications professionals in most regions, build partnerships with national support organizations, NGOs, and other national efforts, support and strengthen Center efforts, raise funds wherever legally established, advocate for Centers and the System, and match donors and programs. The effort would require an estimated $1.5 to $2 million annual investment, and an additional $1 million for regional hubs and partial support of PA/RM staff at the Centers. Mr. McCalla said that expected retums from this investment are $79 to 110 million from non-traditional funding sources within five years, and $120 to 200 million within 10 years, including as much as $32 million derived from yield on endowment. In plenary discussion, the Group noted the declining ODA, growing competition for resources and the perception that traditional global institutions have lost relevance. There was agreement that these intemal and extemal challenges to CGIAR growth and diversification require bold new initiatives. The goals are to reaffirm the CGIAR's relevance in todayvs society, convey messages of work and impact to key constituencies, and implement innovative strategies to tap new sources of funding, both public and private. 36 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 S MM A It Y Of PlogC EED111 There was strong support for building on the success of Future Harvest. Making the case for the CGIAR, several Members emphasized, will require creating a brand image for the CGIAR, finding synergies between CGIAR research and donor priorities, and developing cogent messages that link CGIAR research directly to poverty alleviation, food security, and sustainable development. There was agreement on the need to develop a coherent strategy which is coordinated but not centralized. Several Members raised concerns that involvement of the private sector would put the CGIAR under new scrutiny, especially in the NGO community. It was also noted that expanded CGIAR investments by the South should not be at the expense of national programs. Members also discussed the estimated costs of the global public awareness/resource mobilization effort and the importance of measuring performance based on the ratio of funds spent to funds raised within a reasonable time frame. Decision: The Group unanimously affirmed the needfor a global public awareness/resource mobilization effort, endorsed the concept of the CGIAR/Future Harvest Foundation, and requested that a business plan andfinal proposal on structure be presented at ICW2000. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 37 SUMMAAY OF PIOCEE IINS Seminar on CGIAR's Impact on Germplasm Improvement A special seminar was held on "Crop Genetic Improvement and Agricultural Development," the IAEG study conducted under the direction of Dr. Robert Evenson of Yale University in collaboration with the Centers and several NARS. The study of crop germplasm impacts covers ten crops for which the international and national research systems have been engaged. These crops constitute 80 percent of the area planted in developing countries. Hans Gregersen, Chair of the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment, provided an overview of the synthesis report distributed at MTM2000. The report builds on impact assessment work undertaken by individual Centers and their NARS colleagues in monitoring and documenting released varieties, adoption rates, and production gains for individual commodities. In addition, country case studies for China, Brazil and India add further insights into the impacts of the CGIAR crop germplasm improvement activities. This is a milestone study, Mr. Gregersen noted, in the sense that it is the first time that a Systemwide perspective is emerging on the question of what kind of impacts the Centers' crop germplasm improvement activities are having on the world's crop producers and consumers. Mr. Evenson described the synthesis report and summarized the major conclusions of the assessment program: * The growth of investments in crop germplasm improvement activity in the NARS has paralleled that of the Centers. While there is no evidence for direct linkages between the two, the study speculates that there is an indirect linkage, not only in the countries where NARS programs were non-existent or where there was little capacity in the 1960s, but also in the more developed country and crop programs, where, presumably, there were strong interactions between the national and Center programs. * There is a continuing high level of NARS and Center production of improved varieties. The data available do not support the contention that strong diminishing returns to varietal production are taking place. * With regard to Center contribution to overall varietal releases, the study concludes that the proportion of center-developed varieties has remained roughly constant at 33 percent of all releases. Further, "in recent years 20 percent of all varietal releases were based on Center-crossed parents and 15 percent on other Center-crossed ancestors." The study emphasizes that "... these indirect indexes do not actually measure the true germplasmic effect of the Centers. A much more complex statistical estimation of a breeding function for NARS programs must be estimated." Using such a model, the study concludes that, for all crops pooled, the resulting statistically significant coefficients imply: >- From 1965 to 1980, NARS breeding activities doubled in size. The anticipated increase in NARS varietal production was approximately 60%. Actual NARS varietal production approximately doubled, however, from the 1970s to the 1990s. >- Center germplasm research made NARS more productive by approximately 30 percent. Thus, the cnieat effect of the increase in NARS breeding and the Center germplasm research produced an approximate doubling of NARS varietal production. (CGIAR parents were present in 33 percent of NARS varieties and other CGIAR ancestors in 22 percent of NARS varieties.) 38 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 SIMMAIY OF PIDCEEDIN C * The direct contribution of Center programs (to varietal production) relative to the investment of resources is impressive. In the 1980s and 1990s the proportion of total varieties produced by Centers was well above their proportion of total resources invested in such production. * With regard to adoption, the study found that, as expected, the percentage of "area planted to crop" that is planted to "improved" or "modem" varieties was low in 1970 (except for wheat in Asia) and grew steadily since then to a point where improved varieties are dominant in most crops. * Further, "Center-content vanieties are considered by farmers to be as valuable as, or more valuable than, non-Center-content improved varieties. * With regard to production impacts, the study approached them in two ways, first, using Center prepared studies addressing the issue; and second, using the insights derived from three country case studies (Brazil, India and China). The paper explains the procedures used for each approach, including how the counterfactual was derived and used in obtaining the final estimates. The basic conclusions are that: >- without the Centers, released varieties would have been anywhere from 45 to 60 percent less, depending on assumptions. The study used the more conservative figure in calculating Center related production gains; and >- adjusted estimates of productivity gains per year due to crop germplasm improvement were in the 1 to 1.5 percent range; * Inserting the various estimates, including the counterfactual (i.e. without Centers) estimates derived from the previous steps into an IFPRI based (IMPACT) model, the study derives the following estimates of what would have happened without the CGIAR input: - prices for grain crops would have been between 27 and 41 percent higher over the 25 year period, depending on the crop; >- imports of food in developing countries would have been 9 percent higher (reflecting the advantage that the counterfactual confers to developed countries relative to developing ones); >- the area planted to crop would have been significantly higher, and >- there would have been a higher number of malnourished children. * In terms of the basic poverty alleviation goal, the poor would have been hurt more by the higher prices in the absence of the CGIAR because (a) they spend a higher fraction of their income on food, (b) in poorer economies a higher proportion of food is consumed in non-processed form, thus the price effect is greater than in an economy where the farm value of food is low relative to the consumer value (i.e. where high levels of processing contribute to the price the consumer pays); and (c) "... between 1.5 and 2 percent fewer children from developing countries were malnourished than would have been the case without Centers investment in crop germplasm improvement." The study concludes that: "Consumers benefit most and poor consumers benefit most of all from agricultural research. Fanners are consumers too and for the world's smallest farm producers the total producer and consumer gains are large. The provisional findings support the proposition that Center investments have had impacts in all of the study crops. These impacts have been large, partly because of high "leverage" through Center-NARS joint production. The placing of crop germplasm improvement at the core of Center programs appears to have very strong justification. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 39 S MM AI Y OF PIt O E F II NgS During the discussion following the presentation, participants noted the assumptions and extrapolations that were required to reach the relevant conclusions presented, recognizing that with better baseline data and records over time, a more refned set of conclusions could have been reached. At the same time, it was felt that this study is a significant step toward a fuller understanding of the tremendous impacts of the CGIAR. The study provides a landmark for future, more refined studies based on improved monitoring and record keeping. Participants agreed that the major conclusion of the Evenson study- consumers benefit most and poor consumers benefit most of allfrom agricultural research- reinforces the view that productivity increases in staple crops have direct, beneficial impacts on reducing hunger, malnutrition, and poverty. Indeed, the provisional fidings support the proposition that CGIAR research investments have had positive impacts on all crops in the portfolio and that these impacts have been large because of the synergistic partnership with national programs. Participants congratulated Professor Evenson and his colleagues for the important results and insights regarding the irpacts of crop germplasm improvement work in the CGIAR. The full reports of the commodity and the country case studies will be available at ICW2000. The final results of this broad set of assessment activities will be published in various forms and provide significant information for use by the Group, Centers, TAC and the broader community interested in the value and impacts of agricultural research. 40 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 SIMMAIY OF PIUCEFIINCS 1999 Financial Outcomes and 2000 Progress Report Overview The Group reviewed the System's financial outcome for 1999 and the progress toward meeting the approved financing plan for 2000. 1999 Financial Outcomes Finance Committee Chair lain MacGilivray reported to the Group on the 1999 financial outcome and 2000 prospects. In 1999, funding totaled $330 million, a decrease of $10 milion from the approved financing plan. The primary reason for the shortfall was the default, due to procedural mishaps, by the European Commission (EC) on its 1999 commitment of $16 milion. The majority of Centers received funding within a 10 percent range of their approved funding. Only five Centers were outside this range - ICARDA (-) 15 percent or $3.4 million; CIFOR (-) 14 percent or $1.9 milion; CIAT (-) 13 percent or $4.5 milion; CIP (-) 12 percent or $2.9 million; and ILRI (-) 10 percent or $3.1 milion. If the EC had not defaulted on its contribution, all five Centers would have been within 10 percent and thus broadly in line with their financing plan targets. Disbursement of funds continued to be slow in 1999. Delays in EC funding for 1997 and 1998 were resolved by the end of 1999 for most Centers. The Finance Committee again urged Members to make every effort to accelerate disbursements. CGIAR as a whole remains in a strong position. Total net assets at the end of 1999 were $297 milion. Of this amount, $202 milion was invested in fixed assets and $95 milion in reserves. Financial data show the following trends: * Personnel spending is lower in percentage, continuation of a recent trend. * Investment allocations by undertaking are consistent with previous trends. By regions, investment m sub-Saharan Africa increased from 40 percent in 1998 to 42 percent. Investment in WANA declined from 10 percent to 9 percent, and in LAC from 18 percent to 17 percent. Investments in Asia remained at 32 percent. 2000 Progress Report The 2000 financing plan of $340 million approved at ICW99 is on track. This plan includes a 50 percent reduction in German unrestricted funding in 2000 as well as more modest declines in unrestricted funding in 2000 from Sweden and Denmark It is also expected that the EC will resume its financing for 2000. Regarding the allocation of 2000 World Bank funds, the Committee had made the following recommendations at ICW99: * $37.25 million allocated to Centers on a matching basis in the ratio of 12 percent of funds from Members other than the World Bank, Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 202 0 41 SUMMAAY OF PROCEEDINCI * Special allocation of $1.75 milio.. $0.6 million to ICRAF; $0.6 million to IPGRI; $0.3 million to IITA for Systemwide programs; and $.25 million to CIMMYT to rebuild its tropical maize station. * At MTM2000, the Finance Committee proposed the following: >- CIP: $0.5 million >- CGIAR Central Asia project: $1 million >- CIMMYT Rice-Wheat prograrn: $0.25 million >- IFPRI/ISNAR Indicators: $0.25 million (a four-year commitment) >- SPIA/TAC/IFPRI Poverty project: $0.25 million >- EC adjustment package: $2. 75 million (remainder to be funded by an advance comrnitnent of $3 million of 2001 World Bank funds and by drawing down $2.2 million from CGIAR long-term reserves). >- Partnership activities: $0.8 million. Decisions: The Group adopted the Finance Committee's report on the 1999 financial outcome. In 1999, funding totaled $330 million, a decrease of $10 million from the approvedfinancing plan. The primary reason for the shortfall was the default, due to procedural mishaps, by the European Commission on its 1999 commitment of $16 million. The Group received the Finance Committee's report that the outlookfor 2000 continued to be stable at the level of the approvedfinancing plan of $340 million. The Group endorsed the allocation of World Bank funds proposed by the Finance Committee. 42 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 t 1MM AI Y OiF PIO C EBE DI 4 2001 CGIAR Research Agenda, Funding Requirements, and 2001-2003 Medium Term Plan The Centers updated their medium-term plans (MTIPs) for 2001-2003 in the context of the MTPs reviewed last year and their likely outcomes. TAC confirmed that the plans are broadly consistent with those approved last year. TAC reported progress toward the general levels of allocations across Centers, commodities, and undertakings, and noted with pleasure that the majority of Centers presented their projects in log-framne fornat. This more systematic and open process, within the framework of the rolling three-year research plans, will provide incentive for research innovation. After reviewing individual Center proposals, TAC noted that five Centers- CIAT, CIMMYT, IFPRI, IITA, and IPGRI- are significantly abow their approved levels for 2001, while three- ICRISAT, ILRI, and ISNAR- are significantly bdw. The remaining seven Centers are near the approved level. (The "approved level" is the percentage of total CGIAR expenditures approved by the Group for each Center in the context of its three-year MTP.) TAC's analysis of the 2001 agenda shows: The continuing shortfall in allocations to germplasm improvement compared to what was endorsed by the Group; This is occunng at a time when new developments in molecular genetics offer opportunity for breeding for traits to overcome yield and productivity constraints in favorable and less favorable environments. * A larger than endorsed share for strengthening NARS at a time when it is important for the CGIAR to rethink the geographic and thematic focus of its capacity strengthening, to devolve certain strategic activities to strong NARS, and to seek new, non-traditional national partners in key areas such as natural resources management. * Continuing underinvestment in livestock research at a time when, according to a recent IFPRI/ILRI study, significant production increases tantamount to a "livestock revolution" will be needed to meet future livestock demand by 2020, given rapidly diversifying diets in the developing world. e Proposed investment in the water sector is approaching target, but the actual and estimated outcomes for 1999 and 2000, respectively, are stiUl below target, at a time when lack of access to fresh water is rapidly becoming a key constraint to global food production requiring urgent attention to water management issues; and * Continued oversubscription to rice and wheat in an allocational sense, although new plant types currently under development for both crops as well as development of interspecific rice varieties do offer potential for breaking yield ceiling in the medium term. The Centers have proposed 2001 CGIAR investments of $379 million which would require funding of $367 million, 8 percent over the $340 million level in the 2000 financing plan together with Center generated income of $12 million. Centers have reported actual funding of $330 million in 1999 and are now estimating $352 million in Member funding in 2000, to be supplemented by about $15 million in earned income. However, the Finance Committee reconmmended a 2001 financial planning target of $340 million in view of the likely 2000 outcome of $340 million. Decision: The Group approved the substance of the 2001 Research Agenda recommended by TAC and the Finance Committee's proposal that financial planning for 2001 be undertaken in the context of $340 million funding target. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 43 S U MMAI Y OF PIO C E E D 1Ni S External Program and Management Reviews The CGIAR considered extemal reviews of three Centers - IWMI, WARDA, and ICARDA. Following discussions in parallel sessions, the adhoc evaluation committees presented reports to the Plenary where the Group discussed and endorsed the recommendations. Mr. Serageldin commended the review panels and ad hxo committees for their excellent reports. IWMI At a parallel session chaired by Eduardo Moscardi, an ad hoc commnittee of interested CGIAR Members and other MTM2000 participants discussed the report of the second Extemal Program and Management Review (EPMR) of IWMI, as well as the Center's response and the TAC commentary. The discussion of the review report followed a presentation by Michel Petit, Review Panel Chair, the Center response by Klas Jan Beek, Board Chair, Frank Rijsberman, Director General designate, and Doug Merrey, deputy Director General, and commentary by Elias Fereres, TAC Member. Highlights of the Committee discussion The ad hoc committee: * Concurred with the overall conclusions of the Review Panel and TAC that the review resulted in a positive overall assessment and commended IWMI for undergoing a successful transfomiation over the past six years to a broader, holistic, science-based and research-oriented approach to water management issues; * Noted IWMI's commendable effort in defining its mission, setting priorities, and implementing strategy. * Expressed satisfaction that IWMI is well positioned to exert strong leadership in developing science-based solutions to water management challenges; * Encouraged expanded collaboration with other CGIAR Centers to strengthen expertise in crop physiology; * Suggested that the Systemwide Initiative on Water Management be continued, with some redesign and focus; * Suggested more emphasis on strategic alliances and partnerships to deliver research outputs; * Called for a strengthened policy focus at macro and System levels; * Urged rethinking of strategic planning and product delivery modes in light of the regional and eco-regional focus; * Noted that groundwater depletion is a serious problem affected by macroeconomic policy issues as well as use of small pumps for irrigation; * Noted that health issues were best dealt with through strategic alliances with UNICEF, WHO, and similar organizations; * Noted that competing claims for water result in serious scarcity issues. Conclusions and recommendations The ad hoc committee: * Endorsed the Panel's recommendations and positive assessment of IWMI, thanking the Panel for an excellent report and IWMI for its excellent preparations for the review; 44 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SI MM AI Y OF PI * C E E[D IN S * Praised IWMI for adopting the Panel's recommendations that the Center enhance expertise in crop physiology, address issues of groundwater depletion, water quality, and natural resource management, increase emphasis on poverty and gender issues, retain research dealing with irrigation-related human health issues, and adopt more formal procedures for priority setting. • Praised IWMI for adopting the Panel's recommendations that governance be enhanced by implementing a Board development program, establishing an audit committee, taking steps to clarify Board responsibilities, and implementing bi-annual Board meetings. * Urged continued support for IWMI's work. ICARDA At a parallel session chaired by Jochen de Haas, an ad hoc committee of interested CGIAR Members and other participants discussed the report of the fourth Extemal Program and Management Review of ICARDA as well as the Center's response and TACs commentary. The discussion followed an introduction of the review report by Don Plucknett, Panel chair, the Center response by Robert Havener, Board Chair, and Adel El-Beltagy, Director General, and the TAC commentary by Alain de Janvry, TAG Member. Highlights of the Committee Discussion The ad hoc committee: * Concurred with the overall conclusions of the Review Panel and TAC that the review resulted in a very positive assessment of ICARDA and commended the Center for an impressive transformation in programs and strategies, the overall quality of science, and its effective partnerships; * Noted the Center's excellent preparations for the review, including the eight Center- commissioned external reviews; * Noted that ICARDA should begin a period of "dynamic consolidation" of priorities and strategies, focusing activities in Central and West Asia and North Africa instead of spreading resources across all dry areas in the developing world, * Praised the Center's partnership efforts, especially with NARS, but suggested a strategic review of the Center's overall outreach activities; * Agreed that a review should be commissioned in two years to determine the extent to which the Review recommendations, particularly regarding NRM and social science programs, have been followed; * Agreed that a computerized management information system would enhance staff productivity, and * Expressed concern at the severe decline in unrestricted funding over the past five years and endorsed TAC's analysis of the impact on Center research activities, impact, and interactions with NARS and advanced research institutes. Conclusions and recommendations The ad hoc committee: * Thanked the Panel for an excellent report and ICARDA for excellent preparations for the review; * Called the Group's attention to the importance of the ICARDA's work and encouraged continued support; * Endorsed the Panel's recommendations and TACs comments; Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 45 SIM MAI Y IF PI OCEED I NCS Assured the Group that ICARDA is well positioned to meet challenges to international research in the CWANA region. WARDA At a parallel session chaired by Christine Grieder, an ad ho committee of interested Members and participants discussed the report of the fourth Extemal Program and Management Review of WARDA. The discussion of the review report was based on a presentation of the conclusions and recommendations by Mandi Rukuni, Panel Chair, the Center's response by Just Faaland, Board Chair, and Kanayo Nwanze, Director General, and the TAC commentary by Joachim von Braun, TAC Member. Highlights of the Committee Discussion The ad hoc committee: * Concurred with the overall conclusions of the Review Panel and TAC that WARDA has transformed itself into a well managed scientific institution, with notable achievements such as the development of inter-specific rice hybrids, and praised the Center's partnerships and effective and efficient operation. * Noted that WARDA's Board and Management welcomed all the Panel's recommendations but offered different views on two of them- namely, giving higher priority to crop and resource management of rainfed rice, and reorganizing the research program on rainfed rice. * Noted that WARDA is in a unique position to recommend policy changes that are important to food security challenges in the region; * Noted the high political conmuitment to WARDA, even though Membership contributions remain low; * Agreed that seasonality issues are important in the context of WARDA's work on the sustainability of rice-based production systems; and * Agreed that WARDA should undertake a comprehensive analysis of gender issues. Conclusions and Recommendations The ad hoc committee: * Thanked the Panel for an excellent report and WARDA for the high level of cooperation; * Noted that some of the recommendations have already been implemented; * Concluded that WARDA is poised to contribute further to rural development in the rice growing areas of Africa; and * Strongly encouraged continued support to WARDA. Decision: The Group considered the External Program and Management Reviews for ICARDA, IWMI, and WARDA, and endorsed the ad hoc committee's conclusions and recommendations. 46 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 SI MM AI Y OF PI R C I E II IN S Reportfrom the Centers Per Pinstrup-Andersen, chair of the Center Directors Committee, presented the Centers' report on the CGIAR Strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and the work of the task forces on Central Asia and the Caucasus, natural resource management, and intellectual property rights. The CGIAR Strategy for SSA was developed in response to a recommendation of the third System Review. The strategy is an example of a very successful partnership with regional associations and NARS, including the Special Program for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR) and the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). Goals of the initiative are to increase food security and reduce poverty in SSA; to improve the competitiveness of African agriculture; and to enhance and improve the sustainable use of natural resources in the region. In close collaboration with regional and national institutions, the Centers see their role in SSA by the year 2020 as having contributed to the African agricultural research community's goals of attaining food security and poverty eradication through research, policy support and capacity building based on the environmentally sound management of natural resources. The strategy is centered on four principal elements: 1. Germplasm and natural resource management technologies that offer clients a wide range of options for enhancing productivity in an environmentally sustainable manner. 2. Technology dissemination and farmer empowerment to catalyze the adoption of innovations that will increase food security and incomes of the poor. 3. Policy research to provide options that foster enabling environments for the adoption of these innovations and strengthening NARS in this area. 4. Capacity building to help develop further a cadre of qualified, experienced, and motivated African research and development specialists, managers and policy makers who will lead the region in attaining the goals of the shared vision for Africa. Most importantly, this strategy will be implemented through innovative and effective partnership mechanisms based on joint planning, execution and evaluation of future activities, effective communication, and mutual trust and respect among all partners. Regarding the work of the CDC Task Forces: * The Task Force on Central Asia and the Caucasus (CAC) has developed a strategy and structural format which has been endorsed by TAC. At the Luceme meeting, the Group had decided to strengthen activities in CAC. Funding has been expanded and there is now a well-functioning partnership with eight NARS and nine Centers as well as NGOs and donor institutions. * The Task Force on Natural Resource Management (NRM) has continued a web-based dialogue and is convening a meeting on the scientific basis for better NRM, which will take place at ICLARM in August. A full report on activities and accomplishments will be presented at ICW2000. * The Task Force on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources met in Dresden and launched a process for updating the guidelines adopted at MTM98. Most Centers have now completed the IP audits. Charting the CGIAR's Future-A New Vision for 2010 47 SU MM AI Y Of PI DO E E II1 IS Chair Hubert Zandstra reported on the outcome of the PARC meetings. Center Directors are pleased with increased emphasis being given to public awareness and resource mobilization and strongly support the working group report developed under Alex McCalla's leadership. Center Directors will work with Future Harvest, CBC, PARC, and the working group to develop a business plan. Following final decisions at ICW2000, priorities should include implementation of the recommendations by PARC, allocation of additional CGIAR funds, and expansion of the present Future Harvest board to between 12 and 15 members. Finally, Mr. Zandstra noted the CDC proposal that the Centers be known as "Future Harvest Centers." Decision: The Group received the Centers' report on programmatic developments in the System and the Public Awareness and Resource Mobilization Committee's report on public awareness and resource mobilization. 48 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 S U1A I Y OF PI 0 C E E D IN GS Reports from CGIAR Cosponsors and Committees The Group received and adopted the recommendations of the Cosponsors and the Oversight, Finance, Science Partnership, Genetic Resources Policy, Private Sector, and Non-Governmental Organization Committees, as well as the Center Directors Committee and the Committee of Board Chairs. Cosponsors' Report World Bank representative Robert Thompson presented a report on behalf of the CGIAR cosponsors - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, United Nations Development Programme and the World Bank The Cosponsors met at MTM 2000, with Chairman Serageldin presiding. Highlights of the discussion and decisions follow: • The Cosponsors reviewed the results of the Consultative Council's meeting at MTM 2000 to discuss the companion paper to the TAC vision statement. The Council recommended that the Group adopt TAC's strategic elements, discuss any proposals on structure that the Centers were ready to discuss at MTM2000, and adopt an action plan and schedule of next steps. * Regarding TAC membership, the Cosponsors recommended the extension of Joachim von Braun and Richard Harwood for another two-year term and endorsed the TAC Chair's recommendation to search for candidates to fill the other two membership slots. * The Cosponsors noted that, due to financial reasons, UNEP can no longer maintain its status as a cosponsor; however, it remains a CGIAR member. * The Cosponsors noted that following the integration of TAC and IAEG, IAEG has been replaced by a Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) which will serve as TAC's principal instrument for all system-level evaluation and imnpact assessments. The TAC and IAEG Secretariats have been integrated into a single service unit based at FAO, Rome. * The Cosponsors noted the progress of GFAR and the need to discuss details of future CGIAR support at ICW2000. * The Cosponsors received a report that the search for the CGIAR Director is underway. The Search Commnittee expects to identify a short list of candidates who will be invited for interviews and a public seminar at the World Bank during the summer of 2000. Oversight Commnittee Andrew Bennett presented the report of the Oversight Commnittee and announced the new members: Bongiwe Njobe-Mbuli, Ruth Haug, Emmy Simmons, Gilles St. Martin, Juan Restrepo, and Zhao Longyue. The Committee thanked Mervat Badawi, who stepped down at MTM 2000, for her outstanding contributions. The Committee welcomed the two TAC reports on the CGIAR vision, strategy, and structure. The Committee praised the approval of a clear timetable for follow up on the action proposals and accepted the mandate to convene the synthesis group in early October. On the follow up to the third Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 49 SU MN AI Y OF PI DC I E II Ng S System Review, the Committee reported on the progress of the Retrospective Review, which will provide a draft report for discussion at 1CW2000. Regarding the Centers, the Committee encouraged the Secretariat to continue the successful Board orientation program initiated at ICW99, congratulated new IWMI and CIAT Directors General Frank Rijsberman and Joachim Voss, and encouraged the Boards at CIFOR, ICRAF, and IITA to follow similar process in their search for new Directors General. Regarding activities at the System level, the Commrittee * expressed regret about the decision of the current chair, Mr. Serageldin, to step down, and welcomed the announcement of Ian Johnson's appointrnent; * noted with regret UNEP's decision to withdraw as co-sponsor for financial reasons; * welcomed the report on the Longer-term Financing Strategy; * congratulated Dr. Paroda and the organizers of GFAR2000 on a successful conference; and * announced that the current Committee Chair will step down at ICW2000 and a new Chair is being selected. Finance Committee lain MacGillivray presented the report of the Finance Committee. (For details on the 1999 financial results and 2000 financing plans, see pages 39 to 40.) The Committee discussed progress on five financial policies during its meeting at MTM2000. Indirect Costs: Ernst & Young, India, is conducting a review of Center practices for indirect cost accounting and computation. The review includes an assessment of existing center practices and a pilot program at five Centers based on a "value chain" framework. The next step is to test the approach at the remaining 11 centers and to initiate consultations with the investor community. Liquidity Management: An inter-center working group is examining the possibility of pooling excess cash available at individual Centers to maximize financial returns. The Finance Committee is considering a proposal from Citibank which offers 2 percent higher returns (7 percent instead of 5 percent) on an investment pool. Accounting Manual: Revised accounting policies, based on a review by Price Waterhouse- Philippines, are being implemented by the Centers. Among changes in the format of the financial statements are: * Different categories of reserves (e.g.: Operating and Capital) will be combined in a single category as "net assets." * Fixed asset lines in financial statements will exclude buildings and structures; past investments m buildings will not be subject to depreciation accounting. Internal Audit: An intemal audit team, jointly sponsored by ICLARM, IRRI, IPGRI, and the Secretariat, has been established. The team is undertaking compliance programs at the three sponsoring Centers and has been helpful in problem solving at two other Centers. Financial Systems. Following a survey of Center financial systems, a pilot project based on an "information warehouse" concept was initiated. The Committee will be briefed at ICW2000 on the project's success. 50 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 t UMM AN Y OF PI ICE E [I RC S Science Partnership The Science Partnership Committee held its inaugural meeting at MTM2000. In his statement to the Committee, Chairman Serageldin underscored the need to increase and strengthen CGIAR scientists' linkages with the rest of the scientific community. The Committee clarified its role * to help the CGIAR increase partnerships with the broader scientific community; * to help the CGIAR anticipate how scientific advances can be used to pursue its mission and goals; and * to contribute to strategic thinking and planning sought by TAC. Committee members discussed the TAC vision and strategy paper with Chair Emil Javier, and supported TAC's recommendation "to bring modem science to bear on difficult productivity and institutional problems." 'Me Committee endorsed the adoption of an integrated approach to NRM research, recognizing the importance of both modem and local traditional knowledge. Regarding partnerships, the Committee will help identify potential collaborative arrangements with advanced scientific institutions and plans to interact with Center Directors at ICW2000. Genetic Resources Policy Committee Chair Geoffrey Hawtin reported on the activities of the Genetic Resources Policy Committee. * International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. The Conmmittee encouraged all CGIAR members to work actively to further advance the renegotiation of the FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. Special attention should be given to ensuring that national governments appreciate the importance of an early conclusion to the renegotiation. * National Legislation. The Committee encouraged CGIAR members to help ensure that national legislation in their respective countries take into account the importance of open germplasm flow so that CGIAR Centers can continue to serve their many partners within and beyond the host country. * Implementing the FAO-Center Agreements on Germplasm. The Committee endorsed the Centers' actions to standardize practices regarding Material Transfer Agreements (MTA) fbr designated germplasm and recommended that all Centers move with deliberate speed to implement and publicize the procedures used with the standardized MTA format. The Committee commended the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme for its work on genebank standards and strongly endorsed the creation of an endowment to support Center genebanks. * Designated Germplasm under FAO Agreements. The Commnittee thanked IPGRI for moving forward the analysis of the implications of new research techniques and changing policy environment on CGIAR trusteeship responsibilities. The issues that remain are complex, and should be a principal focus of the committee's work in the coming months. The Committee plans a fuller report on these matters for CGIAR members following its September 2000 meeting. In the interim it commends the IPGRI paper to the CDC for its consideration. * Central Advisory Service (CAS). The Comnnittee recommended that CAS work with Centers to exchange experiences with respect to IPRs. The Committee plans to review this issue further at its next meeting. * GFAR report on Genetic Resource Policy activities. The Committee welcomed this initiative, and expressed its hope that the effort would underscore the unique nature of Plant Genetic Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 50 IM MAIY OF PROCEEIINcS Resources for Food and Agriculture and the important role of in situ/on-farm conservation in general and women in particular. Some concern was expressed that the initiative take into account the special needs and opportunities in countries with smaller NARS, particularly in connection with the TRIPS agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity. * Underutilized and Neglected Crops. The Commnittee is looking into reports that neglected and underutilized crops may not be covered by an agreed Multilateral System. Private Sector Committee The Private Sector Committee (PSC) met at MTM2000, interacting with Chairman Serageldin and TAC Chair Emil Javier. The Committee commented on the TAC Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR, emphasizing the need for technology partnerships with public and private providers of advanced research, a regional approach to research plannming, an independent body for handling IPR matters, and more emphasis on defining how CGIAR products would reach the end user. On the issue of partnerships, the Commnittee noted the complexities of collaborations with the private sector. For example, the private sector would be interested in helping to finance projects with clearly defined objectives and project outcomes aimed at poverty reduction. Throughout the meeting, the Committee emphasized that the application of modem science is essential for achieving food security in developing countries. The CGIAR could serve in an "honest broker" role on biotechnology issues, providing a balanced view regarding the benefits of new technologies to policymakers, producers and consumers in developing countries. This could be done through a public information and conmmunication program about the potential benefits of science for increasing food production and availability in developing countries. The PSC proposed that a multi- stakeholder working group of CGIAR representatives (CDC chair, Secretariat Information Officer, Future Harvest) industry bodies (Biotechnology Council, Global Crop Protection Federation, and others) and selected NGOs be created. NGO Comniittee The Committee has set a goal of reducing membership to eight by ICW2000. Chair Miguel Alfienr will serve until ICW2000, when Ann Bayers Water will take the helm. The NGOC has been involved in the organization of numerous workshops in Washington, DC, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Rambouillet, France, the Philippines, and Berkeley, California. The Committee has also issued numerous publications including the proceedings of a workshop at IITA, an article for BMZ/BEAF, an issues paper for GFAR, and an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle. Chairman Altienr participated in the Consultative Council meeting in Rome, where he discussed the importance of sharpening the focus of CGIAR research on the needs of the poor farmers in marginal environments. NRM (including genetic resources) should be the backbone of the CGIAR research and partnerships with farmers organizations and NGOs should be the backbone of the CGIAR System. Center Directors Committee The CDC has collaborated extensively with TAC on the CGIAR vision and strategy, including developing proposals for improved IP management and governance and structural options. The CDC noted its appreciation for the participatory mode followed by TAC in allowing the Centers to express their views and opinions. 52 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 I I1MA I Y Of PROC E EI 91S Chair Hubert Zandstra reported to CDC on the outcome of the PARC meetings. Center Directors are pleased with increased emphasis being given to public awareness and resource mobilization and strongly support the working group report, developed under Alex McCalla's leadership. Center Directors will work with Future Harvest, CBC, PARC, and the working group to develop a business plan. Following fnal decisions at ICW2000, priorities should include implementation of the recommendations by PARC, allocation of additional CGIAR funds, and expansion of the present Future Harvest board to between 12 and 15 members. Finally, Mr. Zandstra noted the CDC proposal that the Centers be known as "Future Harvest Centers." Regarding finances, the CDC acknowledged the efforts of the European Commnission to address the 1999 funding issues. The CDC expressed warm farewells to Chairman Ismail Serageldin, whose efforts since 1994 put the CGIAR back on the map in terms of image, and to Frona Hall, for doing an outstanding job in ensuring the smooth and effective running of CGIAR meetings. Center Board Chairs The CBC met five times during MTM2000,interacting and consulting extensively with Chairman Serageldin, TAC Chair Emil Javier, Finance Chair lain MacGiJlivray, Oversight Committee Chair Andrew Bennett, World Bank Representative Robert Thompson, PSC Chair Sam Dryden, the CDC, the Consultative Council, and other stakeholders. The CBC/CDC will undertake a work program covering four interrelated elements of the system renewal package, contributing to the work of TAC, the Oversight Committee, the Consultative Council, and other CGIAR groups. The four elements are 1. implementation of outcomes of the TAC vision and strategy paper; 2. system structure, govemance, and management; 3. policy and practice relating to the ownership, management and trading of intellectual properLt, and 4. the efficiency of processes by which the Centers, as suppliers of intemational public goods research and related processes and services, interact with partners, donors, recipients, and other stakeholders, as buyers and users of those services and products. The CBC/CDC will undertake additional work on the structural and govemance implications of the efficient development and conduct of research into NRM issues. Among other highlights of the discussions: * The CBC is generally supportive of the draft Longer-Term Financing Strategy but cautioned that successful resource mobilization will require large investments of time, effort and funding. * The CBC has endorsed an annual orientation program for new Board mernbers, based on the successful pilot program following ICW99. Decision: The Group approved the two-year extension of TAC Members Joachim von Braun and Richard Harwood, and welcomed new members of the Oversight Committee - Bongiwe Njobe-Mbuli. Ruth Haug, Emmy Simmons, Gilles St. Martin, Juan Restrepo, and Zhao Longyue. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New 7ision for 2010 53 SMM A BY Dfi PIlOtEE3IVS Future CGIAR Meetings Speaking on behalf of the South African government and the Ministries of Agriculture and Land Affairs, and of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, Siphiwe F. Mkhize reaffirmed South Africa's offer to host MTM2001. The Group applauded South Africa's involvement and participation in the CGIAR and expressed appreciation for the invitation to host MTM2001. ICW2000 ..... October 23 - 27 ................. Washington, DC MTM2001 ..... May 21 - 25 ................. South Africa ICW2001 ..... October 29 - November 2 ............ Washington, DC MTM2002 ........ May 27 - 31 .To be determined ICW2002 ....... October 28 - November 1 . Washington, DC 54 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SM MN AR Y OF PI R C E ED I RC S Other Business International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources Several Members raised concerns that national and intemational arrangements governing access to gerrnplasm appear likely to grow more and more restrictive, which could threaten continued production of international public goods, including conservation itself These international arrangements, it was noted, are being developed without direct CGIAR involvement and without an appreciation of their effects on the poor. The International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources is currently being revised to harmonize relevant provisions with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) within the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. It is urgent that the revision be completed because of the risk that national access legislation, under consideration in a number of countries, mnight foreclose or restrict the option of multilateral approaches. Over 50 countries are currently considering legislation governing access to biodiversity in the context of the CBD; however, few countries appear to be making provisions for the special needs of agriculture with respect to exchange and recombination of germnplasm. At ICW99, the Group endorsed the statement of the Panel of Experts on Access and Benefit- Sharing of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture convened by the Secretariat of the (CBD): "In developing national legislation on access, parties should take into account and allow for the development of a multilateral system to facilitate access and benefit-sharing for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture." At MTM2000, the Group again emphasized the urgency of the problem. Members welcomed GFAR2000's adoption of the "Declaration on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture." The declaration strongly supports the ongoing revision of FAO's Intemational Undertaking and encourages countries "that are considering or reviewing legislation on intellectual property, to do so in such a way that they do not restrict the exchange, transfer and use of germplasr in crop improvement programs." Decision: The Group expressed concern that the lack of an international agreement on a multilateral system of access, exchange, and benefit-sharing for genetic resources for food and agriculture poses a major threat to the future of international agricultural research. Reaffirming the importance of GFAR's Declaration on Plant Genetic Resources of Food and Agriculture, the Group encouraged individual members to bring the Declaration to the attention of appropriate authorities and to utilize additional technical information available through IPGRI. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 201 0 55 SUMMARY OF PROCEII NCS Chairman's Summation, AfTM2000 Introduction Colleagues and friends. I usually end our meetings with a Chairman's Summation. And, as usual, the end-of-meeting report from the Secretariat will be available outside. As this is my leave taking, I propose to do something slightly different. I will, as usual, give you my summation. In addition, however, I will share some parting thoughts with you. Thanks As always, I preface my summation with an expression of appreciation to all those who contributed to the success of this meeting. I want, in particular, to thank all of you around this table for your engagement that helped in the effective resolution of critical issues. I challenged you at this meeting to move at a speed somewhat different from what is normal to the CGIAR, and to do so in a manner that required a robust exchange of views on matters of substance. I appreciate your positive response to the challenge. I especially want to thank the chairs, rapporteurs, and members of yesterday's working groups. The openness of the discussion was exemplary, and bodes well for the future of the CGIAR. Our thanks are due now to * the German Government for hosting this meeting; * the local authorities in Dresden for their support and cooperation; * Jochen de Haas, the head of the German delegation, for his untiring efforts in all aspects and in all stages of planning and carrying out this meeting; * Renee Emst and her colleagues from BEAF who coped with our requirements and demands cheerfully and efficiently; * Jurgen Richter of DSE and the staff team he brought together for their exceptionally capable support; * Martin Raich of the Bellevue Westin hotel, the hotel's conference staff, and all other hotel staff, who were unfazed by an extraordinary influx of international visitors; * the interpreters who enabled us to understand each other; * the organizers of GFAR whose discussions enriched our own; and * Alexander von der Osten, for his outstanding management of all aspects of MTM2000. As always, we could not possibly have brought our MT1M to a successful completion without the commitment and competence of the CGIAR Secretariat. However, let me take a moment to go beyond just their work at this meeting. I want to tell you, unambiguously, that Secretariat staff serve your interests - the interests of the CGIAR, the international Centers, our partners, and clients - with a competence and commitment that is not easily replicated. I know from personal observation and experience that they do so every day, whether in Washington or elsewhere. They deserve unqualified appreciation and esteem. 56 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 SI MMARY OF PI O C E E 5INg SS Now, let us in the usual manner thank the Secretariat for all that it does, and let us thank all those responsible for the way the meeting has unfolded. Activities and Decisions Although our pnrmary focus at MTM2000 was on the visioning exercise, our agenda included a number of other business items. Alex McCalla provided the setting for a thoughtful discussion of the report on a long-term financing strategy. The working group that Alex chaired now has a clear charge to complete its work and present its final recommendations at ICW. We heard from the Centers on programmatic developments in the System, endorsed the framework of the 2001-2003 research agenda, and approved funding requirements of $340 million for 2001. I trust that these funding arrangements will be fully met, with none of the "shocks" that some Centers recently faced. We took note of the EPMRs of ICARDA, IWMI, and WARDA; heard an analytical presentation by Robert Evenson on the impact of CGIAR research on germplasm improvement; and received a number of recommendations and reports from CGIAR committees. From Vision to Action In my opening statement, I outlined several propositions that could help the Group to focus its discussions sharply, and come up with an agreed process for moving from the new vision crafted by TAC to action. These were not prescriptive propositions. You were free to review them, modify them, reject them, or adopt them. In an effort to tease out all the issues that follow up actions must take into account, we broke out into a number of working groups yesterday, to discuss the substance of future planning. The working group arrangement worked exceptionally well. The results of their brainstonring are out on the table, and can be considered by the various units charged with moving from vision to action. Proposition 1 dealt with the new vision, and was adopted. The Group adopted the seven principles or 'planks' outlined in TACs proposed new CGIAR vision statement, and broadly endorsed that statement's definition of the heartland of the CGIAR. The final iteration of the vision paper, incorporating comments made at MTM2000, will be ready by the end of August, will be shared by all, and will be ready for final disposition at ICW2000. Propositions 2 through 5 outlined a process for managing the changes that are urgently required, and suggested a timetable that would have brought these issues to closure by ICW2000. These suggestions were discussed by one of the working groups yesterday. Follow-up arrangements and schedules were worked out, and were adopted this morning. Thus, the propositions have fulfilled their purpose, and do not need further discussion now. We now have clear assignments and a timetable for action from MTM2000 onwards. It has been agreed, as well, that it should be left to the incoming Chairman to decide the timing of the next meeting of the Consultative Council, which could be before or after ICW. This is consistent with an earlier decision that the Council would be convened at the Chairman's discretion. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 57 SUIIMAIl nfi PRIIEE IN93 Propositions 6 and 7 covered the composition and functions of the Consultative Council. Decisions on these issues will be deferred until after governance matters have been resolved. An eighth proposition from the floor referred to the GFAR/CGLAR relationship. While all supported the strong ties that exist between GFAR and the CGIAR, we agreed that more specific aspects of that relationship will be reviewed at ICW2000. There are some issues that came up in discussions that we have left for future resolution. We need to do much better in terms of gender issues, not as a matter of political rhetoric, but in a transparent effort that to ensure that we respect the role of women in agriculture and agricultural research. This is not something that we can evade or ignore. I appeal to all of you to support the gender program - it is grossly underfunded. We need, as well, to improve the way we communicate the results of research to appropriate publics. Clearly, despite the outstanding efforts of Barbara Rose and "Future Harvest", current efforts are inadequate. We need to mobilize professional help. Finally, at the request of several Members, I suggest that a strong signal is required expressing the concem of the agricultural research community that the lack of an intemational agreement on a multilateral system of access, exchange, and benefit-sharing for genetic resources for food and agriculture poses a major threat to the very future of international agricultural research. Conclusion Again, colleagues, I thank you for your cooperation. Let me stop here on the summation of MTM2000 - before I take the liberty of sharing my farewell thoughts with you. 58 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 SUM MAR O IF P ROC E E II NC S Chairman's Farewell Comments Introduction Colleagues and friends. "Partzng is such stt sorrw," as Shakespeare reminded us. I must confess to a certain sense of anticipation as I go out to meet my future. These are encriagong times for those of us who believe that the yesterdays of the hurnan stoty can inspire great tomorrows. They are dclMg times for all of us who are commnitted to building new lives for the "wretched of the earth," using science and technology as the instruments of change. They are exhilarating trmes in the world of science. I see all these elements coming together in a life of inquiry and creativity ahead. And yet, how can I not feel the burden of sorrow, knowing that when I bring down the gavel today, I will be ending my formal relationship with you - my friends, colleagues, and collaborators. I consider it a special privilege to have worked for the CGIAR during the past six-and-a-half years. I thank you for sharing the hopes and aspirations, the joys and sorrows, of my tenure. What is most important is that together we tria - even if we did not always succeed. And in trying together... .what a journey it has been, from Delhi to Dresden. My predecessors assured me that of all the positions they held at the Bank, none was more satisfying than the association with the CGIAR. Despite the great diversity of their experience at the Bank and outside it, they felt most attached to CGIAR chairmanship. Those are my sentiments as well. The six chairmen who preceded me brought an outstanding blend of passion and compassion to their tasks: Dick Demuth, Warren Baum, Shahid Husain, David Hopper, Wllfried Thalwitz and V. Rajagopalan. I was proud to follow the path they trod. As I said to you in New Delhi, I very much wished to live up to their high standards. I hope I did. Appreciation I have been helped in my chairmanship by many of you. They are numerous and you will miss your flights if I try to name them all. Suffice it to say that my knowledge has been enriched and my attitudes shaped by colleagues and friends along the whole continuum of the CGIAR - from the sage wisdom of M. S. Swaminathan to the infectious enthusiasm of Fernando Chaparro. From the solid professionalism of Alex McCalla to the humane caring of Ruth Haug. From the subtle wit of Andrew Bennett to the wry humor of Jochen de Haas, the commitment of Paul Egger, the wisdom of Klaus Winkel, the thoughtful voice of experience expressed by Raj Paroda, the exuberance of Teresa Fogelberg, the sound judgment of Johan Holmberg, the unremitting loyalty to the CGIAR of Ian MacGillivray, the brilliance of Henri Carsalade, the fervor of Cyrus Ndiritu, and the initiative of Sally Shelton who led the return of the US, and so many, many more. But here I am slipping again, and taking the risk of keeping you here for a long, long time. Let me not do that. Let me only say, thank you, one and all. I say a special "thank you" to my teachers who brought me to agriculture and have consistently added to my understanding over the years. There were: Formal teachers during my academic studies, Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 9 SU MM A RY OF PR O C EEI * IINg Collegial teachers - my colleagues and nominal subordinates, but teachers nevertheless, during my professional life, Real life teachers - the farmers themselves, who always inspired me by the nobility of their spirit, their knowledge, and their triumphs over adversity. I offer my heartfelt thanks to the academic who, many years ago, introduced me to agriculture. At the time, he was a young assistant professor at Harvard, by the name of Walter P. Falcon. He has continued to influence my views, and the manner of their expression. You are a friend, and a great help, Wally. I turn now to CGIAR Centers. They have been described as the "jewels in the crown" of the CGIAR System. They are indeed very special Centers of scientific excellence, mobilizing science to serve the needs of the poor. Where else but at CGLAR Centers does this magnificent combination flourish? Whatever we say and decide at our meetings, it is the Centers that transform our words into living reality. I visited the Centers as soon as my duties as Chairman began. Center scientists took the tirne to explain their work to me, and because of that, I have become a more effective ambassador on their behalf. I was impressed by their pursuit of scientific excellence, and inspired by their devotion to the CGLAR mission. I was exhilarated by the exciting possibilities of their work. They deserve our admiration and our gratitude. I thank all the scientists in the CGIAR constellation. I thank the board chairs and their colleagues for their dedication to maintaining scientific excellence at the Centers. They are such a wonderful group of colleagues. I thank the Center directors - too often, not heard adequately at this table - who have all become my close friends. They are characterized by a sense of vision, and of unremitting commnitment to a noble cause. I respect them all, and will not cease to speak up on their behalf. I count on you to protect their interests. The raism dkte of this group, surely, is to enable Center scientists to function effectively and without corrosive challenges to their morale. I want to mention three colleagues who were stalwarts of my term. Alex McCalla was my gift from the CGIAR to the Bank. We actually gained from that act of gift- giving because what it did was to infiltrate "Mr. CGIAR" into the Bank. Michel Petit moved from the position he held, overseeing the Bank's work on agriculture, to serve as the Bank's "point man' for agricultural research. He did more than most others have done to strengthen the NARS and foster the development of the GFAR. He also brought passion and caring to the work of the Finance Committee in a difficult period of transition. Alexander von der Osten has been my counselor and companion from the beginning. Whatever you think I have achieved is the product of his collaboration with me. We were a team. His loyalty to the CGIAR knows no bounds. He works behind the scenes, without fuss or fanfare, attempting much and achieving much for all of you. His determination and ability to nurture increased Southem Membership are widely recognized. It is a great loss for the CGIAR that the rules of retirement compel him to leave. Nevertheless, it is fitting that his final MTM as Executive Secretary should be in the land of his birth. Good luck, Alexander, in whatever you decide to undertake post-ICW. Good luck to your charmiing family as well. And I would be remiss if I did not mention the CGIAR Secretariat - Ravi, Sel,uk, Manny, and the entire team, those who are here in Dresden, as well as those in Washington. Their contribution to the CGIAR is invaluable. I want especially to thank the retirees such as Ernest (my companion over sleepless nights 60 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 I UMM AI Y OF PIG C E EII NC S of work) and the young stalwarts such as Salah Brahimi, who tirelessly support the CGIAR mission. But it is no secret to you that Sarwat Hussain has been my special friend and closest assistant - he initially came from ICRISAT via the US to the Bank, and now back to the CGIAR. Sarwat, hearty thanks from a grateful colleague. From Renewal to Rebirth Colleagues and friends. The CGIAR faced multiple crises from shortly before I began my term. I will spare you the details. You know them well. To overcome the crises as we did was no mean feat. The best known of the problems che CGLAR faced was the serious financial crunch of 1993 and early 1994; a downturn aggravated by incoherent funding arrangements. The funding crisis, however, was like the tip of an iceberg. What lay submerged beneath the surface of immediate attention could have turned out to be far more life threatening. We toiled together to surmount the problems. The 18-month program of renewal that was inaugurated in New Delhi in May 1994 redesigned the vision of the CGIAR, refocused its research agenda, strengthened some of its governance mechanisms, and stabilized its finances. From the shaky $220 million of 1993 to the $340 million of today is a great leap forward. The crumbling confidence of Center scientists was shored up. I cherish that experience, and honor al those whose combined effort produced demonstrable results. In my judgment, however, the single most significant long-term effect of the 1994/95 renewal was the growth of a sense of "openness." Nothing manifests that new spirit better than the transformation in the dynamic of CGIAR Membership. This Group is today a fully South-North enterprise. Twenty-two country Members of the CGIAR are from the South, and twenty-one from the North. There were none from the South in 1971, and only seven in early 1995, before the Lucerne meeting. Now if only we could do as well in terms of gender diversity, we will all gain. That is a parting charge from me to ad of you. I do not mean to dismiss or denigrate the role major investors played in creating the CGIAR, and will continue to play in the future. However, the broadening of CGIAR Membership brings the representatives of our partners and beneficiaries right to this table. That is crucial. The spirit of partnership that takes concrete form in Southern Membership has spilled over into other areas, as demonstrated by vibrant partnership committees, especially the NGO and Private Sector Committees, and in the vitality of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR). The CGIAR served as catalyst to help set up the GFAR that combines all components of the international agricultural research system - from the perceptive farmer in her field through the deeply caring members of civil society institutions to the creative scientists in their laboratories. These are all key elements of the legacy of renewal. But renewal does not end with one convulsive spurt. There are always challenges ahead. I said at ICW95 that, in Churchill's pithy phrase, we were only at "the end of the beginning." More- much more- would need to be attempted and achieved. The time has come for action, once again. It is a time not simply for raeual but, truly, for relrti. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 61 SUVMARY OF PIPCEEIIN S Sweeping Forces of Change We are at the start of a new century, when we are confronted with momentous change. The forces of globalization are sweeping across the planet. Never before have the national boundaries of sovereign states been as permeable to the power of ideas and the transactions of commerce. The infornation and commniucation technologies (ICT) revolution that sends billions of dollars across the world with the click of a mouse and the flight of an electron is but a symptom of the deeper changes being wrought in our perceptions of ourselves and of others. While these forces have undoubtedly created enormous wealth and well-being for many, they have tended to exacerbate the inmities between and within countries. In the realm of the knowledge-based society, which is inexorably pressing on our future, we are challenged to deal with such vexing issues as the emergence of proprietary science; to summon the will and the innovative skills to design new regimes that are fair to all, and that can forestall that most vicious of all forms of discrimination, sciicapaydxid. Remember, however, that there is another side to globalization as well. Globalization has created a rising awareness of the inter-connectedness of the human family, and is at the heart of the increasing assertion of the universality of human rights, including women's rights and children's rights. It has led to a multiplication of caring and concemed intemational NGOs that represent an important dimension of the emerging intemational civil society. It is found in the environmental movement, which reminds all humans that they are stewards of this earth, and that together we must wok with nature, not agiinst it. Of course, the farmers knew that all along, and we must combine their wisdom with our discoveries in the realms of science. Let us re-dedicate ourselves, in that spirit, to being what I have previously called the "new abolitionists." We must be as dedicated to abolishing hunger and poverty, as an earlier Coalition of the Caring was dedicated to abolishing slavery. In all we undertake, we will find that the set of forces which have the greatest impact upon our work are the profound revolutions of ICT and DNA. ICT The key to ICT is not just the wireless technology, but also and more profoundly the dita1 nt ion. By finding the wnmtn biy lanzage of ones and zeros, we suddenly see things that appeared impossible become possible and the possible become commonplace. Boundaries are erased. Telephony not only becomes mobile, but is linked to the intemet. Television, computers and telecom become one. Image, music, data, and voice are all binary bits that can be manipulated and moved on a common digital mode. This extraordinary trnrtnnmaime Jnol forced enormous changes in the businesses that functioned within each of its component parts. Mega-mergers, acquisitions, and the emergence of the new have become commonplace. The landscape is being transformed. The fast eat the slow. New names appear with mesmerizing frequency. Govermments are running after the new realities, trying to make regulations meaningful in this world of dizzying change. For those in that business it is truly 'change or die!" Yet despite the astronomic numbers and wealth of the new technology companies, this technological revolution is also a democratizing one. It can empower the weak and the poor if only we have the imagination to see how the benefits can be hamessed properly. 62 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 SI 6MARY OF PI DC I E EII N S From M. S. Swaminathan's info-villages that have captured universal attention to the inherent open access of the internet, the forces of the civil society and of diversity find in the new technologies powerful tools to "remain local while going global." The dialectics of connectedness and fragmentation can be combined to the benefit of the poor and the environment with imagination and perseverance. DNA In the biological sciences, finding the common ATCG language of DNA is also causing transformative changes in approaches to the practice of science and what is "doable." We are living in a time unmatched for the opportunities that it provides the biological sciences. It is an exhilarating time, similar to what physics experienced in the glorious 40 years between 1905 and 1945, when all the concepts were changed, from cosmology to quantum physics, from relativity to the structure of the atoms. Today we are decoding the DNA blueprints of life, we are learning to manage the deployment and expression of genes, we are mobilizing bactenra to do our work, and we are manipulating the very building blocks of life. Like physics in the first half of this century, we are confronted by profound ethical and safety issues. Unlike prior work in biological sciences, our future research will be complicated by the new issues of proprietary science. The Challenge to the CGIAR So, we live in the world of these transformative technologies and vast global currents. We must seize the momentous opportunities offered us, but also remain true to our mission. We must have the courage to seize the future and bend it to our will. We must fashion out of our dreams for better tomorrows the realities of a better world for our children and our children's' children. We must be guided by the inspiring words of Margaret Mead: "Neuer dout that a 5nall gvup jdh0*, amwe cti n c dvgV the wv1amei it is the only tng that ewr has." This requires change, not just in what we do but in how we do it. Our science itself is undergoing changes. The new approaches- the contextualization of research, agroecology, natural resource management, genomics, and more- raise as many exciting new questions as they answer old ones. To many in the science world, these are times when, as Daniel Boorstin once observed, the modern discoverer is rather a quester, whose achievements are measured not in the finality of answers, but in the fertility of questions. Let us enjoy the quest together. Recognizing, as we must today, that from the farmer in her field to the scientist in her lab, we are all problem-inventing as much as problem-solving animals, our vision for the future must therefore be one of flexibility and nimbleness - our vision must be as open-ended as knowledge, as random as play, as surprising as human imagination and ingenuity, as dedicated to the empowerment of the weak as our sense of shared humanity But as we do all this, we must protect the heartland of the CGIAR, which we have just redefined yet again at this millennial meeting. It is not that the heartland changes so much over time. Rather, it is that the manner in which we are going to do the science in that heartland changes and has to change yet again. Our comrnitment is the same, but the manner in which we view how to approach the problem changes. In the words of T S Eliot: Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 201 ( 3 SUM MAI Y OF P OCE III * ICS "We shall not cease fn explring, And dx end of all our exploring, Will be to an*e ubxue sted, And knowtheplaceforthefirst tex" I have confidence in our scientists. They are always open to the new. Like all scientists they are dedicated to truth, honor, and a constructive subversiveness... for science advances only by overthrowing the old. They will establish measures of effectiveness and impact of what works and what does not. They will arbitrate arnong competing claims, alternative visions and paradigms by the standards of science: scientific evidence, rigorous analysis, and rational debate. And in articulating choices, I know they will be guided by the wise criteria of M. S. Swamriinathan: seek out what is pro-poor, pro-women, and pro-environment. Let me only add that each of us must at all times look into our hearts and obey Gandhi's exhortation. 'Ra#1 dx face of the pxmest and dxtueakest human uyon u hawe seem and ask yourselffte step 3oiu aonplate is going to be ofan- Investments in fixed assets came to $203 million in 1999 down from $227 million in 1998. This followed a change in accounting policy on depreciation of land & buildings, which revert Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 95 A N N E X E S back to host governments at the cessation of a Center (see detailed explanation in the Section IV, 1999 Finance Report). >- Funds decreased by $2 million to $95 million. Operating funds decreased by $5 million to $47 million, representing 49 revenue days, or about two months of funding requirements. The capital fund increased by $3 million to $48 million and represents 23 percent of the net assets value of CGIAR capital stock. * Member funding of $330 million, combined with Center generated income of $12 million, came to total funding of $342 million. Agenda investment of $347 million resulted in an operating deficit of $5 million. However, included in the $330 million of member funding is $5 million of income which will be expensed in 2000. True operating deficit in 1999 is, therefore, $10 million. Spending trends * Personnel spending was lower in percentage terms, continuing recent trend). * Investment allocations by undertakings consistent with previous trends. By region, investment in SSA rose from 40 percent in 1998 to 42 percent; declined in WANA from 10 percent to 9 percent and in LAC from 18 percent to 17 percent. Investments in Asia remained at 32 percent. Agenda item No 2: 2000 Decisions Finance Committee recommendations: * Confirmation of the 2000 CGIAR financing plan at the approved level of $340 million. - World Bank funds: >- Approval of disbursement of second tranche ($3.8 million) of Bankfunds at levels indicated at ICW99. >- EC adjustment package proposed by the Centers - conversion of $8 million out of the $12 million loan package put in place in February in response to the EC crisis. >- Funding of special requests for $2 million. The Finance Committee will henceforth consider special requests only at ICW when approvingfinancing plans. >- Allocation ofpartnershipfunds. Overall * 2000 funding point forecast by Centers is $352 million, consistent with their lCW99 projections but higher than the approved financing plan of $340 million. As noted at ICW99 this forecast includes a 50 percent reduction in German unrestricted funding in 2000. It also includes more modest declines in unrestricted support from Sweden and Denmark Hence, there does not appear to be a need to revise the financing plan. * Following the procedural default by EC on its 1999 contributions, the Finance Committee authorized a loan to Centers of $12 million, representing about 75 percent of the 1999 shortfall of $16 million in January 2000. The loan has been financed from CGIAR reserves ($2 m), 2000 funds set aside at ICW99 ($3 million) and a call on 2001 funding of $7 million. $5 million of the loan has been disbursed to Centers. * The EC has taken steps to implement a funding package for 2000. The size of the package, Euro 25 million, will allow some coverage, possibly about $5 million, of the $16 million shortfall in 1999. The internal EC approval process is on schedule with formal announcement possible in June/July 2000. The nature of the contribution has changed from unrestricted to targeted and this may pose some challenges in full utilization of the funding in 2000. 96 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 A N11 E X E S * Center financing updates point to four Centers being significantly (>5 percent) below their financing plan target. The four Centers predicting significant deviations are ISNAR (-20 percent); IWMI (-10 percent); and ICLARM (-5 percent); - all affected by the loss of EC funding in 2000 - and WARDA (-13 percent). The other twelve Centers expect to be funded either marginally above (range 1 percent to 7 percent) or marginally below (range -1 percent to -4 percent) the financing plan level. * No improvements in disbursements. Use of Bank funds. At ICW99, out of a total of $45 milion. * $37.25 million allocated to Centers on a matching basis (12 percent of non-Bank funding); Ouwanespmktl by dxt Cnee do not appear to require any sWicn*ia adjustmns ofmatdngfinds. * Special allocation of $1.75 milion allocated as folows: $0.6 milion to ICRAF; $0.6 milion to IPGRI; $0.3 m. to IITA for system-wide programs and $0.25 m. to CIMMYT to rebuild tropical maize station. * $1 milion allocated to partnership activities: * $5 million to be allocated at M 2000. At MTM2000 the following requests were submitted for additional funding. EC-related: * ICLARM: $1.8 milion to cover the loss of EC funding in 1999 and 2000. Genetic Resource Program: 0.6 million to compensate for reallocation of EC funding from SGRP to other IPGRI projects. E EC compensatory action: CDC has proposed the folowing action requiring an allocation of about $8 milion to cope with the EC problem: >-Conversion of about 60 percent of the loan into a grant for all Centers ($7 milion) >-An additional 40 percent for Centers not receiving EC funding in 2000. ($1 milion). Identified at ICW99: * CIP $1.7 milion to support a downsizing and to rebuild its reserves. * CGIAR Central Asia Program: $1 million. * IFPRI/ISNAR indicators project: $0.3 milion (four year commnitment). * SPIA/TAC/IFPRI Poverty project: $0.25 million. New requests: * CIMMYT: $0.25 miDlion rice/wheat facilitation unit. Partnership activities * Costs of support through June 2000 for NGOC/PSC/SPC/GRPC - $0.3 miDlion. * Global Forum - To be determined at ICW2000 after the completion of the planned review. * Search process for TAC Chair and CGLAR Director and Oversight Committee comrmissioned Review of reviews - $0.1 million. * Working Group on longer-tenn financing Strategy (through ICW2000): $0.4 milion. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 97 A N N [ X E S Proposed actions: * Endorsement of the CDC Proposal for conversion of the loan into a grant as proposed. To be financed by using $2.9 million from the $5 million set aside from 2000 funds, drawing down $2.1 million from reserves and committing $3 million from 2001. * Special requests: Endorsement of special requests for the Central Asia Program, IFPRI/ISNAR Agricultural Indicators Program, TAC/SPIA Poverty project and the Rice-Wheat Initiative. For the Rice-Wheat Initiative, the Finance Committee will not consider any future requests. * Partnership initiatives as proposed. * $0.5 million for CIP to support its downsizing efforts. Agenda item No 3: 2001 Please refer to MTM document MTM/00/04 dated April 16, 2000 titled "Financial Requirements of the 2001 CGIAR Research Agenda". Decisions: Finance Committee Recommendations: * Financial planning target for 2001 in context of likely 2000 outcome of $340 million. a In view of the special EC action taken in 2000 the matching World Bankfunding be limited tol] percent. Process steps: * Following CGIAR endorsement at this meeting, Centers will prepare financing plans by mid- September. - TAC will review program implications and highlight issues in September. - The Finance Committee will review financing plans prior to CGIAR consideration at ICW2000. * Centers prepared plans for 2001-2003 in the context of 2000-2002 Medium and Term Plans (MIPs) reviewed last year and 2000 likely outcomes. * TAC reviewed the proposal at TAC78, Paris, 27 - 31 March, 2000 and confirmed that with the exceptions noted in the TAC's observations ("2001 CGIAR Reseah Agenda and Initial Ptvposalsfor 2003", SDRJTAC: IAR/00/16), the plans are broadly in line with those approved last year. * TAC recommends extension of the 2000-2002 MTP to 2003, subject to the Group's action on a new vision and strategy for the CGIAR. Process observations: * This is the fourth year under the MTP process adopted at MTM97. As expected, TACGs review has increasingly become light" in March, noting directional changes over a three year time frame. * All Centers have fully incorporated the project approach in their planning and the transition to the log-frame approach is on target: all Centers have translated the standard financial tables into the log frame outputs and most have followed the log-frame terminology in describing their project portfolio. * The September review of financing plans will be more focused on the budget year. Financial dimensions: * 2000-2002 MTPs called for funding of $385 million in 2001 to support an investment program of $400 million. Overall, Center proposals are broadly in line i.e., funding of $367 million, 98 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 A NNEX ES supplemented by $12 miDion in Center income to support an investment program of $379 million in 2001. * In the context of the 2000 financing plan of $340 million, the funding proposals represent an increase of $27 million or 8 percent. This is ambitious. Agenda item No 4: CGIAR Longer Term Financing Strategy Please refer to MTM2000 document MTM/00/05 dated April 26, 2000 titled "A longer term financing strategy for the CGIAR" Decisions Finance Commnittee recommendations: * Endorsement of the proposal to set up a CGIAR/Future Harvest organization to implement the longer term financing strategy and public awareness initiatives * Authorization to implement, under continued Finance Committee oversight, proposed interim steps including development of a business plan, explore financing possibilities and develop a governance mechanism for the CGlAR/Future Harvest organization. In January 1999 the Consultative Council requested CGIAR Finance Committee Chair Alex McCalla to lead the implementation of the CGIAR System Review recommendations on resource mobilization and public awareness. At MTM99, the Group endorsed Mr. McCallas proposal that a consulting company, The Conservation Company, be engaged for the task and that a working group representing the Centers, Members, CGIAR public awareness and resource mobilization professionals and the Public Awareness and Resources Committee of the CDC guide their work. At ICW99, the Group discussed an interim report from the consultants and endorsed the propositions from the Finance Committee that: * the CGIAR Longer Term Financing Strategy should be based on the continuation of ODA funding with some proportion being supported by non-ODA funding from DAC countries, expansion of Southern financial participation and private sector; and - a single CGIAR mechanism should be used for implementing a harmonized, but not centralized, approach for resource mobilization and public awareness. At MThM2000, the Group will consider a draft report of the working group. The report highlights the potential for financing as much as 15-40 percent of CGIAR requirements from non-public sources. To realize the potential, it recommends that the CGIAR launch an enhanced public awareness/resource mobilization (PA/RM) effort that builds on current efforts. Specifically, the proposed CGIAR/Future Harvest mechanism would have expanded marketing and fundraising capacity in each region of the world; support and work with national efforts; and support Center efforts and work to build Center capacity. Annual costs to adequately staff and provide an operating budget and consulting support are estimated at about $1.5 to $2 million. The creation of regional nodes or hubs and partial support of Center PA/RM staff would increase costs by approximately $1 million, bringing the total initial investment to $2.5 to $3 million. Clearly, the initiative cannot be fully launched until there is a new vision for the CGLAR for the 21st Century. However, in the interim, the following key steps are recommended: * Prepare a business plan for the operation of the proposed entity identifying resources required and potential non-CGIAR funding sources. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 99 A1N1N E X E S * Increase resources for public awareness activities at Centers and Future Harvest. * Engage fundraising expertise to help develop and implement plans. * Pilot promising, high priority alternative financing initiatives to gain experience and test their feasibility for CGIAR application. Agenda item No 5: Financial Policies, The Finance Committee provides oversight on CGIAR financial policy issues as the apex financial body of the system and because implementation of some of the issues requires action by the membership. Under its guidance, the CGIAR Secretariat is collaborating with Center finance professionals, and outside experts as necessary, in pursuing a program on financial issues underpinning prudent and cost effective use of resources by Centers. The Finance Committee has endorsed this collaborative approach to addressing financial policy issues of concern to all components of the system and has authorized its continuation. At this meeting the Finance Commnittee received the following progress reports. Since MTM99, the Finance Committee has reviewed accounting policy, financial management guidelines, exchange rate management, indirect costs, intemal audit, and financial systems. At this meeting, updates are provided on ongoing projects (indirect costs, internal audit and accounting policies, financial systems). A new project on liquidity management is being introduced. More detailed notes are provided on indirect costs and liquidity management. Indirect Costs: Last year, the Secretariat in collaboration with the Centers initiated a study by Ernst & Young, India to review CGIAR Center practices for indirect cost accounting and computation. The objective of the study was to develop common standards that will bring about transparency in computation of indirect costs leading to their recovery from all funders of restricted activities. Following a review of existing Center practices last year, an approach based on a "value chain" framework proposed by Ernst and Young was piloted at five Centers earlier this year. ICRISAT, the lead Center, has distributed the proposed methodology to all Centers. In brief, Center costs would be collected under five broad headings for computing indirect costs. The note on indirect cost prepared by ICRISAT provides fuller treatment of the proposed methodology. The next step in the process is testing the approach by the remaining eleven Centers. Simultaneously it would be helpful to start consultations with the investor community, under the Finance Committee leadership, on the proposed approach. A final report is expected by ICW2000. Liquidity Management: An interCenter working group has been examining the possibility of pooling excess cash available at individual Centers from time to time in order to maximize financial returns. The paper (provided separately) prepared by IRRI, the lead Center, summarizes a proposal from Citibank that offers about 2 percent higher returns (7 percent compared to. 5 percent at the present) if Center cash is pooled. This will be accomplished by instituting longer-term maturities and including a small equity component in the investment pool. Finance Committee views are solicited on the acceptability of this approach. Accounting Manual: The CGIAR follows the principle to periodically review CGIAR accounting policies to ensure their compliance with the ongoing revisions of generally accepted principles, both International and US. In mid 1998, the Secretariat engaged Price Waterhouse, Philippines to examine the CGIAR accounting manual and propose relevant revisions. Ms. Rose Javier, Partner, Price Waterhouse led the project with oversight provided by a small working group of Center staff from ICLARM and IRRI and the Secretariat. The revised accounting policy manual is in effect as of July 1, ' Notes on Indirect costs and liquidity management are provided separately. 100 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 A I11 E X E S 1999 with all Centers expected to be in compliance by the end of 2000. Three Centers have implemented the approach and have not flagged any implementation difficulties. From a general perspective, readers will find the following changes in the format of the financial statements. * Different categories of reserves used in the past (e.g. Operating and Capital) will be combined into a single category termed as "Net Assets. " * The Fixed asset lines in financial statements will exclude Building and Structures, and past investments in buildings will not be subject to depreciation accounting. Internal Audit: At ICW99, the Finance Committee reviewed and endorsed a proposal by ICLARM, 1RRI, IPGRI and the Secretariat to jointly sponsor an intemal audit teamn, initially based in Asia. The Finance Committee noted the proposal to be an innovative approach to deal with fiduciary issues where an individual Center is hard pressed to make the necessary budget available to support the required expertise and hence collective action is required. The audit team, led by Mr. Hock-Chye Ong has been in place since early February. The four partners serve as a board for the audit team. In addition to undertaking compliance programs at the three member Centers, the team has also been helpful in problem solving at two other Centers. Financial Systems: At ICW99, the CGIAR Secretariat announced the launch, in collaboration with Center staff, of a survey of Center financial systems to position the CGIAR to fully benefit from advances in information technology and process improvements in financial processes and procedures in the past few years. Four surveys have been completed and have already led to an initial round of discussions on common system platforms. A pilot project based on an information warehouse concept, by which financial information required by all components of the system would be easily available through the Intemet, has been initiated for the semi-annual exchange of financial information between the Centers and the Secretariat in the context of the resource allocation process. Experience with the pilot will facilitate exploration of whether the concept can be extended to normal Center financial operations. This is of particular relevance to those Centers who are considering upgrading their financial infrastructure in the near future. The Finance Committee will be briefed at ICW2000. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 101 ANNEXES Report of the Genetic Resources Policy Committee Participants: M. S. Sn n Clhaimnan Robert Bertram, USA Stemz Bie, CDC Marcio de Miranda Santos, CBC QCm Felipe Morales, NGOC Gni6&e GCimer, Switzerla Ga+ey Hawti, Senetary Patrick Hefer, PSC Sirkka ho, TAC Gaekin Mkamanga, NARS GCiGarf7h str~ Sz1en Gny Fouder, Resowre Person Observers: Femando Capm, Executzte Soetary, GFAR Vitmra Henson-Apolonio, CAS, ISNAR Agenda Item 1: Renegotiation of the International Undertaking 1. Progress is being in made in the development of a new Intemational Undertaking (U). The work of the negotiators has been aided by several informal meetings in which perspectives have been shared and common ground staked out. The CGIAR has played an active role in the deliberations, for example by providing technical analyses, through active participation as resource persons in the negotiating sessions, and by contributing to a series of informal meetings among key countries. An example of the progress in the negotiations is that countries are now focusing clearly on the development of a Multilateral System of Facilitated Access and Benefit-Sharing, rather than on bilateral approaches. Major areas under discussion include the range of crops to be covered under this Multilateral System (its scope), the terms of access thereto, and the means to generate and share benefits, within this multilateral framework. The overall effort is seen as addressing the special needs of agriculture and food security in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2. The Committee sees both the possibility of progress as well as some potential pitfalls in the path ahead. Consensus language has been reached on Farmers' Rights, which is seen as being focussed at the national level. On the matter of scope, it has been agreed that the revised IU will cover all plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Within this framework, countries are developing a Multilateral System, and discussions continue on several possibilities for its coverage, ranging from just a few to many crops. At present, a compromise is emerging in which major food crops important to global food security, and where substantial international interdependence exists, would be covered by the Multilateral System. Access would be facilitated at low transaction costs to the germplasm of crops included within the Multilateral System, in order to maintain germplasm flows important to plant breeding and food security. Examination of benefit sharing presents a major challenge, but opportunities exist to underscore access- related benefits associated with a Multilateral System, as well as specific activities in the areas of conservation, use and capacity building. A number of positive incentives for countries and institutions associated with the Multilateral System are being explored. 102 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 A I N E X E S 3. Minimally, the CGIAR would look to the new IU to establish a Multilateral System covering the major mandate crops of the CGIAR Centers. The CGIAR also needs a policy atmosphere that will permit continued free movement of germplasm and assurance that the CGIAR can continue to generate and distribute germplasm-based international public goods in the form of varieties, stocks, segregating populations etc., and relevant information. By clarifying benefits associated with the Multilateral System, countries may increasingly contribute new genetic material to the international genebanks and germplasm screening and improvement networks. 4. Concerning the ultimate legal and institutional status of the IU, a number of options are possible for linking to both the CBD and FAO. There is general agreement among the members of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture that the IU should be legally binding. In connection with the global food security and conservation objectives of the Commission's work, it is in the interest of the CGIAR and the larger objectives of intemational public goods research that the IU be concluded at an early date. A completed IU should ideally clarify and secure the status of the germplasm held in trust by the CGIAR Centers, under the Center-FAO agreements; this "designated germplasm" is the foundation of many CGIAR and NARS efforts to provide international public goods and increase food security, globally and at the local level. Clear information on the past and present impacts associated with use of a wide range of plant genetic resources around the world will be very useful in quantifying benefits and communicating them to important audiences around the world. The studies commissioned by the Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group will help commnunicate the impact of the CGIAR and the benefits associated with multilateral co-operation and unrestricted access. 5. A number of actions could be taken by the CGIAR to help Governments reach a positive outcome to these negotiations, and establish an effective, transparent and non-bureaucratic Multilateral System that addresses the special needs of agriculture. Exarnples include: * surveys and analyses of germplasm flows * transactional costs * genetic erosion * genetic interdependence * the feasibility of using the Convention on Biological Diversity's definition of "country of origin" as a basis for bilateral negotiations, and * funding needs and opportunities. 6. In addition, analyses could be undertaken to construct alternative scenarios as a means of informing decision-makers and increasing awareness of the negotiations. It may be necessary to describe the situation in terms of risks, as well as benefits. Topics might include: * bilateral vs. multilateral frameworks * the scope of the Multilateral System (numbers of species and crops covered) * impacts of including or excluding forages, horticultural species, or minor or underutilized crops * the expected extent of germplasm flows under different regimes, and * the issue of "country of origin" for PGRFA under the CBD. 7. The Committee's view is that the CGIAR and IPGRI in particular should remain important sources of technical and policy input to the ongoing negotiations. The negotiations may highlight the role of the Global Plan of Action, which was developed under the guidance of the Commnission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and adopted by 150 countries at the 1996 Leipzig Conference on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Many of the 20 activity areas discussed in the plan are central to genetic resources activities of the CGIAR Centers. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 103 ANIF I X E S 8. The Committee also discussed the eventual legal status of the Intemational Undertaking. Several options are possible, from a protocol under the CBD to a freestanding FAO agreement. Matters relating to the governing body and implementation approaches will be significant considerations in developing an acceptable and effective status for an eventual agreement. 9. Conclusion: The GRPC encourages all CGIAR members to work actively to further advance the renegotiation of the FAO International Undertaking. Special attention should be given to ensuring an appreciation among all relevant governmental bodies at the national level of the importance of an early conclusion to the renegotiation to the ability of the CGIAR to achieve its research and global food security objectives. Agenda Item 2: National Legislation 10. Over 50 countries are currently considering legislation governing access to biodiversity inthe context of the CBD. Few countries appear to be making provisions for the special needs of agriculture with respect to exchange and recombination of gernplasm. For example, the OAU has endorsed model legislation that provides no special status for agricultural germplasm. Legislation is also being prepared in relation to Article 27.3 (b) of the WTO/TRIPS Agreement. An unintended effect of many of these new laws could be to greatly reduce access to agricultural biodiversity, hindering agricultural germplasm exchange and increasing transaction costs. Such legislation could, if adopted, make it more difficult for countries to subscribe to a Multilateral System, since the passage of such legislation would have established a bilateral, transactions-based approach. Furthermore, the prospect of revising recent legislation might involve further delay. For these reasons, a pro-active approach that seeks to accommodate the special needs of agriculture under a new Multilateral System would be helpful. Even if a Multilateral System is adopted fairly soon, some CGIAR Centers and NARS may in the meantime face problems in their distribution of, and access to, gernplasm. Many of the countries that the Centers work in, however, are also members of the CGIAR, are active in the renegotiation of the IU, and have a strong interest in protecting the efficiency and effectiveness of the Centers. 11. The Committee welcomed the recommnendation from a CBD-convened panel of experts last October that called on countries drafting national legislation regarding access to biodiversity to leave open options for adopting a multilateral approach to PGRFA. The Committee noted the constructive participation of several CGIAR-affiliated experts on this panel. The CGIAR endorsement of the spirit of the Panel's recommendation at ICW99 was a positive move. The Comrnittee also noted that the 1999 FAO Conference had stressed the importance for countries that are developing relevant legislation to do so in such a way that would enable them to take into account and allow for the elements of this new international agreement. 12. Recommendation: That CGIAR delegations seek to ensure that national legislation in their respective countries take into account the needs for contingencies that allow for the eventual requirements of a Multilateral System for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in selected crops. 13. Centers' agreements with the Host Countries follow a variety of models, but all are clearly designed to respect national law. In a few instances, special mention was made of the need for free movement of gernmplasm (respecting quarantine, etc.), but it is not clear how strong these provisions will remain in a changing policy and legislative environment. In the event that new legislation limiting the movement of agricultural germplasm is adopted, restrictions on the ability of Centers to distribute even designated germplasm could result. Such a situation would soon compromise the effective operating of the Centers at the intemational, as well as host country, levels. It would pose a significant handicap to the effective functioning of Centers, hindering their ability to serve national programs and other partners in developing countries, and possibly providing impediments to their ability to attract funding from traditional or new sources. 104 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 A N N E X E S 14. Recommendation: That CGIAR members hosting individual Centers seek to ensure that legislation takes into account the importance of open germplasm flow, to make it possible for the Centers to serve their many partners, within and beyond the host country. Agenda Item 3: Implementing the Center-FAO Agreements 15. Centers are in the process of assembling updated lists of designated material to provide to FAO. Through the Systemwide Genetic Resources Program (SGRP), Centers are undertaking a review of the degree to which they have implemented the agreed procedures for using Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs). While all Centers are now using the standardized MTA, not all have completed the agreed procedures for publicizing the new terms and conditions. The Committee encourages speedy completion of this process, and welcomes the adoption of the standardized fornat. The Committee was also informed of the work of the SGRP to develop a streamlined labeling system that would cover mixed shipments of designated and non-designated germplasm. 16. Recommendation: The Committee endorsed the actions of the Centers to standardize practice with respect to MTAs for designated germplasm. The Committee recommends that all Centers move with deliberate speed to implement and publicize the procedures used with the standardized MTA format. 17. The Committee received a report from the SGRP about a new MTA that has been developed for non-plant genetic resources (microorganisms, aquatic animals, livestock). Explanatory guidelines for the acquisition and transfer of such germplasm have also been drafted. Both were endorsed by the ICWG-GR at its February meeting. The Committee also reviewed a funding plan for upgrading Center genebanks following the System-wide Genebank Review. The plan will be presented to TAC for consideration at its upcoming meeting. 18. Recommendations: The Committee commended the SGRP for its efforts to develop documentation necessary for the conservation and distribution of agriculturally significant micro- organisms. The Committee also acknowledged the significant progress made in reviewing genebank standards, and commended the SGRP for developing a comprehensive plan and related budgets for meeting appropriate operational and infrastructural requirements. The Committee looked forward to TAC's review of the upgrading plan, and believes that undertaking a system-wide effort to upgrade genebank standards would be an important step in seeking substantial, non-traditional sources of support for the conservation of the genetic diversity held in trust in CGIAR genebanks, which constitute a critical bulwark for agricultural sustainability and global food security. Agenda Item 4: Designated Germplasm under FAO Agreements 19. The Center-FAO agreements governing access to designated germplasm have now been in effect for nearly six years. A key means for implementing those agreements has been the through the use of Material Transfer Agreements. Centers' experience using MTAs has been satisfactory, but over time some areas have emerged where greater clarity is needed. 20. IPGRI has produced a thorough and informative analysis of various possible interpretations of the term "gennplasm and related information" in the context of Center-FAO agreements, and how derivatives might be determined for the purpose of permitting applications for intellectual property rights (IPRs). In this context, it appears that the word "germplasm" is usually understood to mean 'accessions." This is in line with current CGIAR practice, in which trusteeship responsibilities are viewed as requiring Centers to ensure that individual designated accessions remain in the public domain and fully available for use. The paper considers that if "germplasm" were to be considered to mean genes or alleles, this could Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 105 A N N E X E S lead to greatly diminished interest in, and use of, the collections by a wide range of breeders in both the public and the private sector. 21. A second area for interpretation is how derivatives are treated - i.e., how much genetic change must occur in order for a recipient to be able to apply for intellectual property protection over material derived from such accessions, and still be in conformity with the terms of the MTA. The Committee reviewed the various alternative mechanisms examined in the paper for quantifying changes that could occur in the breeding process (allelic differences, allelic frequencies, phenotypic differences, specific breeding steps, and combinations thereof). Another way to consider these matters, also presented in the paper, was whether or not the material (at accession and/or genetic level) would remain available for direct use and for developing further derivatives. This last approach takes as its starting point the objective of the agreements with FAO governing designated material - that the material remain in the public domain, available for use. The paper suggests that, in line with such an approach, it was necessary to "employ a definition which, while allowing for IPRs, aims to ensure that the designated accession or the designated accession and its components remain available for use by other recipients in defined ways." The paper points out that the goal of this approach would be to keep the material in the public domain while encouraging research on, and use of, designated accessions. 22. Reflecting new developments in scientific research, an MTA might thus need to incorporate an unambiguous reference to the permissibility of recipients applying for intellectual property rights on inmovations produced using the designated material, provided that they are not permitted to claim rights that would restrict further use of the accession or related information by others. 23. The Commnittee recognized that Governments were currently negotiating a number of related questions in the context of the International Undertaking. Interpretation of such matters would thus need to be provisional, pending completion of the negotiation of the new IU, including any eventual provisions on benefit sharing. It was noted that clarity on access and use provisions as a result of the completion of the revision of the IU would help the Centers' collections to grow and to be used. 24. Recommendation: The Committee expressed its thanks to IPGRI for moving forward the analysis of the implications of new research techniques and changing policy environment on CGIAR trusteeship responsibilities. The issues that remain are complex, and should be a pnrncipal focus of the GRPC's work in the coming months. The Committee plans a fuller report on these matters for CGIAR members, following its September, 2000 meeting. In the interim it commends the IPGRI paper to the CDC for its consideration. Agenda Item 5: Central Advisory Service 25. The Committee received an update of progress in the development of the new Central Advisory Service (CAS) on Intellectual Property located at ISNAR. Most of the IPR audits commissioned last year have now been completed. Although the focus of those audits was on the appropriate use by the Centers of proprietary technology owned by others, the Commnittee noted that the Centers are also monitoring their own innovations, to ensure adequate protection for both continued development and delivery to partners. There is a need to review, and possibly revise, the IPR Guidelines, and there is much to be gained from Centers working together to exchange experiences and strategies. An initial step would be for the CAS to work with the Centers to develop a report on their experiences with IPR. The Committee hoped that it would be able to review such a report at its next meeting. 26. Concerns were raised about the actual and potential effects of IPR on the functioning of intemational or regional trials coordinated by Centers. These trials often include lines from a variety of sources such as NARS, but they could be affected as IPRs are increasingly being used to protect materials under development. 106 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 ANNEXES 27. Recommendation: The Committee recommended that CAS work with Centers to exchange experiences with respect to IPRs, including in the context of national legislation. The Committee plans to review this issue further at its next meeting. Agenda Item 6. Global Forum Report on Genetic Resources Policy-related activities 28. Dr. Femando Chaparro presented a report on GFAR and its activities concerning plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). GFAR is planning an in-depth program on agro- biodiversity and the importance for NARS of the emerging Multilateral System, at its upcoming meeting m Dresden (May 20-23). The meeting will highlight the special nature of (PGRFA), and the actual and potential benefits of a multilateral approach to their conservation and use. GFAR is working with FAO, IPGRI and others to develop a series of briefs on strategic issues including legislation, IPR, germplasm flows, generation and sharing of benefits, and plans to follow up with stakeholders on these matters. 29. Recommendation: The Committee welcomed this initiative, and expressed its hope that the effort would underscore the unique nature of PGRFA and the important role of in situ/on-fann conservation in general and women in particular. Some concem was expressed that the initiative take into account the special needs and oppormuities in countries with smaller NARS, particularly in connection with the TRIPS agreement and the CBD. Agenda Item 7: Updates on Developments in International Fora 30. Biosafety Protocol: The "Cartagena Protocol," which was completed in Montreal in late January, 2000, addresses the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (LAOs) that may have an adverse effect on biodiversity with a specific focus on transboundary movements. It was pointed out that the protocol should help provide greater clarity for Centers working with transgenic technologies. The protocol will likely lead to more countries enacting biosafety regulations which would, in turn, be helpful to the Centers, since they do not work on certain biotechnologies, such as gene transformation, in countries lacking an adequate regulatory framework. 31. WTO/TRIPS: IPGRI presented a surmary of recent events surrounding the WTO agreements including TREPS, and the Agreement on Agriculture. A new round of global trade negotiations was held in December 1999 in Seattle, Washington, USA, but the talks were suspended as a result of protests by non-governmental organizations and complaints by developing countries of marginalization in the process. At subsequent meetings, member countries have discussed refonrs in the areas of institutional transparency and capacity building in developing countries. The TRIPS Agreement is due to be reviewed in the year 2000. 32. WIPO: IPGRI provided a briefing on WIPO activities in two areas: biotechnology and indigenous knowledge. IPGRI is represented on the Working Group on Biotechnology and is thus able to monitor progress closely and make others aware of CGIAR activities. 33. UPOV: UPOV now has 44 members, 11 of which have ratified UPOV 91. In addition, some 90-100 countries have or are currently considering legislation to implement PVP. Agenda Item 8: Underutilized and Neglected Crops 34. The Committee reviewed progress of on-going efforts by IPGRI and the MSSRF in the area of underutilized crop species. The activity is building on the GRPC-sponsored workshop held in early 1999. Discussions with IFAD and other potential donors are underway. IFAD has indicated interest in these crops, particularly with respect to food security and the income needs of the poor, and proposed Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 20W0 107 A N N E X E S that a consortium of donors support this initiative. Some important objectives include: enhanced food security through a broadly based production system; links to income generation and poverty alleviation; nutrition enhancement; and adaptation of some species to drier and other less favored production environments. Marketing was highlighted as a matter of special significance, and one in which expanded research efforts by CGIAR Centers might be appropriate. 35. A policy area related to underutilized crops that is of some concem is what crops Governments would finally agree to include in the list of crops to be included in the Multilateral System under the revised Intemational Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. At present, the list is being discussed on the basis of two criteria: food security and interdependence. Most, if not all, of the CGIAR mandate crops are likely to be included on the agreed lists. Nevertheless, based on current negotiations it does not appear likely that most species that are categorized as underutilized, neglected or minor crops will be included. Many such species may, however, be critically important for food security at the local or national level and may to some degree be conserved by CGIAR genebanks. 36. Further consideration needs to be given to the special conservation and utilization needs associated with such crops. Moreover, concems were raised as to whether their exclusion from an eventual Multilateral System might lead to a decline in the already scarce resources allocated to research on, and conservation of, such crops. From a policy standpoint, the Committee believes that a further analysis is warranted of the implications of a Multilateral System that does not encompass all the Centers' in-trust germplasm holdings (e.g., thousands of genebank accessions of underutilized and non-mandate crops) and that this should be taken up in a future meeting. 37. Recommendations: The Committee agreed that this is an opportune time to consider the role of the CGIAR with respect to underutilized crop species, particularly as part of a review of Center mandates and a consideration of how these may evolve in the future. The Committee noted that the upcoming Global Forum at Dresden includes discussion of a GFAR brief that reviews the importance of links between production of a crop and its ultimate consumption. From a policy standpoint, the Committee plans to explore the implications of a Multilateral System that might not encompass the full holdings of CGIAR in-trust germplasm. Agenda Item 9: Date and Place of Next Meeting 38. It was agreed that the next meeting of the Committee would take place from 6 to 8 September in The Hague, The Netherlands, at the invitation of ISNAR. 108 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES Report of the NGO Committee Meeting Report of activities of the CGIAR NGOC during period ICW99 - MTM2000 Committee Composition The Committee has set as a goal to reach a size of 8 members by the end of ICW2000. This goal will be achieved by the stepping down of various current members who will be replaced by new members already on board (Peter Rosset, Food First, USA and Juan Sanchez, CIED, Peru) and new to be appointed female members from Asia and Africa. During the MTM-ICW2000 period, current NGOC chair Miguel Altieri will serve as co-chair of the NGOC with Ann Bayers Waters, who should assume as Chair after ICW2000. Activities Workshops During this period the NGOC engaged in a number of activities including the organization of various workshops: * Intemo Work&slp on Scaling Up Suoxssfid Sustnaable Agiag we Inwrs. Washinon DC, Ocmbe 22-23, 1999. 38 participants from some 25 institutions who attended the Workshop which was organized by the NGO Committee of the Consultative Group on Intemational Agricultural Research (CGIAR) with support from the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) with the general assumption that there are successful local level sustainable agriculture initiatives which, although spreading on their own through the informal social structures, may be further expanded or scaled up with direct intervention. There are however institutional, political, technological and methodological factors that keep the scaling up activities from realizing its fullest potential of diversifying the benefits and spreading these benefits to more people more quickly. Overcoming these constraining factors is the overall challenge to the scaling up process. The Workshop participants shared and discussed the current and emerging views on the process of scaling up based on their work and related experiences. These took off from looking into the factors and principles explaining success of local level initiatives and how these experiences may be extrapolated and then examining what irnpedes scaling up the experiences and how these may be overcome. As the meeting progressed, the discussions converged along two major sets of agenda. These are on (i) clarifying further the scaling up concepts, approaches, principles and issues; and (ii) the role of CGIAR in the whole process of going to scale. There was a general acceptance in the meeting that scaling up is not just about technologies but is more a development process of scaling up a vision starting from that of the farmers. It is a process for expanding learning and organizational/community capacities to identify and solve new and different problems and adapt to changing situations. It is expansion resulting from not just having more numbers of fanners and larger areas, but also from evolving roles and responsibilities that go with improved capacities and diversification of benefits. In being able to canry on with the discussion on what else constitutes the scaling up process, participants had to go into clarifying concepts and definitions which the Workshop initially intended to bypass. Scaling up, scaling out and scaling down processes had to be differentiated but to later recognize that the up, out and down concepts in fact comprise particular sets of pattems in going to scale. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 109 A N1N E X E S For many of the participants scaling up connotes a vertical movement of experience, knowledge, impact and effects higher up the levels of local organization of rural community or society. This implies involving more stakeholder groups up the ladder from farmers to extensionists and NGO workers to local officials, to researchers to policy makers/ministers to donors. Scaling out is horizontal spread within a sector, particularly farmers. Both scaling up and scaling out implies adaptation, modification and improvement (not just replication) of particular technologies and techniques but more importantly of social and agroecological principles and processes. Scaling down is more particular to the replication of whole programs, not just technologies or principles or processes, by breaking them down into smaller programs or projects to facilitate planning, implementation and accountability at lower levels. Some see this as decentralization or devolution and therefore equate these processes with scaling out as well. In this document going to scale is used as the generic term comprising of scaling up, scaling out and scaling down. However, inasmuch as scaling up appears to be the more common terminology in use, it is used interchangeably with going to scale in this document. In discussing the concepts associated with scaling up, at least five dimensions of scaling up emerged during the meeting. These included the institutional (vertical integration), the geographical/spatial (horizontal spread), the technological, the temporal, and the economic or cost dimensions. In all these dimensions sustainability, participation and capacity building were common themes. Furthermore, the Workshop implied three general strategies adopted by an implementing organization in dealing with the issue of scaling up relative to how it conceptualized its project/program intervention. These were (i) spontaneous scaling up, (ii) scaling up after achieving initial local success, and (iii) inclusion of the scaling up plan right from the start of project. 'F Brazilan Multi Stakebolder Workshop on AgrecaI R e9wach, Seropedica-RiodeJaneiro, Nozeer 12- 13, 1999. Professionals from EMBRAPA, UFRRJ, other universities and NGOs as well as from other state research and extension organizations met to discuss the state of the art of agroecological research targeted at smallholder agriculture in Brazil. The group assessed progress and weaknesses of current research efforts, and also identified the opportunities for establishing a working group to expand research and outreach in key areas in order to further advance the scaling up of sustainable agriculture. * Inteamtonal Naural ResoManagqnen Workshop, Ramnbiole4 Franc, Dewnr 14-17, 1999. This workshop was convened by the CGLAR NGO Committee and the Global Forum for Agricultural Research, as a preparatoty workshop for the GFAR meeting in Dresden, scheduled for May 2000. The aim of the workshop was to gather an international audience of participants from research institutes and civil society organizations from Europe, Africa, Latin America and Asia in order to discuss and review the status of three global initiatives being proposed as a main focus of the Natural Resources Management NRM) component of GFAR. For each initiative, namely Interdev (a mutualistic and de-centralized information system on development experiences), Prolinnova (an initiative aimed at building global partnerships in order to promote local innovations) and PolicyNet (a research network on demand driven global policy issues pertaining to NRM), a comprehensive strategy was set up, encompassing the issues of partnerships, conceptual progresses and operationalization. For Interdev, a timetable and action plan for the experimental phase were devised and a policy to enlarge partnership was drawn. For Prolinnova, four areas of partnership were defined and a procedure to establish partnerships was defined. For PolicyNet a collaborative process was initiated on the issue of innovation in Genetic Resources Management, for which a concept paper will be written for circulation prior to the GFAR meeting. In addition, links and synergies between the three initiatives were identified and means to complement them explored. A global vision of the NRM component of GFAR progressively emerged. 110 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 A1N1N E X E S A Steering Group was formed to formulate that vision in a concept paper to be collectively written for presentation in Dresden in May. Each initiative will also be presented separately at Dresden and leading participants were identified in order to organize the preparation of these presentations. Besides Dresden, which is undoubtedly a crucial time for each initiative to make itself known and to gather support, a strategy for their long-terrn sustainability (including funding) was outlined. Both the NARS Secretariat and the GFAR Steering Comnmittee pledged support for all three initiatives. Going To Scale * Can We Bring More Beneits to More People More Qwckly? An irternational workshop held April 10- 14, 2000 at the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR), Silang, Cavite, Philippines was a follow through to the discussions initiated during the CGIAR NGO Committee Workshop on Scaling Up Sustainable Agriculture Initiatives held October 22-23, 1999 at the World Bank, Washington, D.C. One of the main objectives of the workshop was to generate 'guideposts' and a list of available/emerging tools for development stakeholders, particularly sustainable agriculture practitioners, for use in their scaling up efforts. More specifically, workshop participants analyzed selected experiences/initiatives toward a better approximation of: - how to plan for scaling up - including when and what to scale up and with whom and with what resources; * how to implement and monitor the impact of the scaling up process - be it to scale out, down, up or a combination of the strategies therein. The workshop was launched with two keynote presentations, "Thinking through the Issues" and "Scale SEED Process of Integrated Social Development," which provided the overview of scaling up to include the different dimensions. This gave the participants the opportunity not only to understand the basic concepts and principles but also be able to reach an agreement on what scaling up means. The lessons and suggestions on how the concepts and principles of scaling up are to operate and to be managed vis-a-vis the many considerations and issues highlighted in the Washington workshop were extracted/generated from nine selected case studies. The selected cases were initiatives, projects or programs which are considered to have gone to scale to some extent. The workshop participants, other than the case presenters, did not present their scaling up experiences during the workshop plenary. They, however, wrote their initiatives as additional inputs to the thematic (small) group discussions. These additional papers also form part of the workshop document on highlights of proceedings. A documentation and publication, both in print and electronic forms, on Gang to Scal - BriWng More Benqits to More People More Q"ickly was produced. The publication contains the generated issues, concepts, principles, guidelines and a list of available/emerging tools for development stakeholders' particularly sustainable agriculture practitioners for use in their scaling efforts; and, the highlights and synthesis of the follow through workshop. The publication will be made widely available at Dresden. 'FInteomatizal Worksip on EcokWaI Irpacts of Transgic C?rps, Berkeley, Cal#m March 2-4, 2000 attended by 21 scientists from ten Universities, two Centers, five NGOs, and one private company. After two and half days of discussions the group arrived at the following conclusions and recommendations: Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 111 ANNEX ES Although no catastrophic impacts have yet been recorded from the massive use of transgenic crops, the known and potential risks are substantial from an ecological point of view. It was generally agreed that because of the widespread use of transgenic crops, and the impossibility of effectively removing them once they are released, even more effects might persist and accumulate and eventually cause senous ecological impacts. For example nobody can really predict the impacts that will result from the Bt toxin that is released into the soil from roots during the growth of thousands of hectares of Bt com, or the effects to the soil and general ecosystem from pollen during corn tasseling and as a result of the incorporation of tons of plant residues after crop harvesting. Not enough research has been done to evaluate the environmental and health risks of transgenic crops, an unfortunate trend as most scientists feel that such knowledge was crucial to have before biotechnological innovations were up scaled to actual levels. There is a clear need to further assess the severity, magnitude and scope of risks associated with the massive field deployment of transgenic crops. Much of the evaluation of risks must move beyond comparing Genetically Modified Crops (GMC) fields and conventionally managed systems to include altemative cropping systems featuring crop diversity and low-external input approaches. This will allow real risk/benefit analysis of transgenic crops in relation to known and effective altematives. The potential for ecological risks is to a large extent "event and context-specific." The particular risks which may be identified for the first wave genetically engineered (GE) offerings do no exhaust the list of potential risks from events yet in the pipeline. By the same token, ecological risks identified in the US or Canada may not be relevant to risks in Malaysia or Mexico - whether due to gene flow issues or to disruption of natural pest controls in more biodiverse environments. Risks in a "normal" weatheryear may not be predictive of those in a dry year (e.g. RR soybean stem splitting in Georgia), or to those experienced by farmers burdened by sporadic pest outbreaks. In short, identification and quantification of risks seems likely to remain an obligation and ongoing complement to the development and release of each new GE crop. The repeated use of transgenic crops in an area may result in cumulative effects such as those resulting from the buildup of toxins in soils. For this reason, risk assessment studies not only have to be of an ecological nature in order to capture effects on ecosystem processes, but also of sufficient duration so that probable accumulative effects can be detected. The application of multiple methods will provide the most sensitive and comprehensive assessment of the potential ecological impact of transgenic crops. Further empirical studies of the ecological impact of commercial-scale cultivation of transgenic plants are clearly needed, particularly with regard to the following questions: * Which cultivated plants have sexually compatible wild relatives that could become troublesome weeds after inheriting fitness-related transgenes, and to what extent will this conversion to weediness occur? * Will the propagation of certain transgenic plants result in the evolution of newly resistant plant pests (microbial pathogens, insects, and weeds), and if so, how can the evolution of these resistant biotypes be delayed or avoided? * What effects will plant-produced pesticides have on the population dynamics of non-target organisms, especially beneficial predators, parasitoids, pollinators, components of soil food webs, and fundamental ecological processes? Ecologists can provide valuable input in the planning and evaluation of high-risk genetically engineered plants, but does documenting the risks of such crops entails the best use of scarce ecological talent? Or should ecologists devote their time and skills to developing the best environmentally sound 112 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES approaches to deal with real agricultural limitations, which in many cases are management options not related to biotechnology but rather to agroecology? Overall the group felt that although biotechnology is an important tool, at this point alternative solutions exist to address the problems that current GMCs are designed to solve. The dramatic positive effects of rotations, multiple cropping, and biological control on crop health, environmental quality and agricultural productivity have been confirmed repeatedly by scientific research. Biotechnology should be considered as one more tool that can be used, provided the ecological risks are investigated and deemed acceptable, in conjunction with a host of other approaches to move agriculture towards sustainability. Publications * Towards more effective implementation of IPM in Africa, proceedings of a workshop held at IITA, Cotonou, Benin, March 29-April 3, 1999 Integrated pest management (1PM) is increasingly recognized as a vital element in sustainable agricultural development. In rPM, farmers use their knowledge of ecological processes in the agricultural system to combine a variety of compatible tactics to increase the productivity of crops and reduce the impact of pests, diseases and weeds. Pesticides are used as little as possible, if at all, with corresponding benefit to farmers"'income, human health and the environment. Although a number of promising IPM options are becoming available, adoption of IPM at farm level, especially in Africa, is disappointingly slow. Poor communication between farmers and researchers is believed by many stakeholders in the agricultural development process to be a constraint limiting IPM adoption. Experience elsewhere has shown that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can play a key role in brokering exchange of relevant information, empowering farmers and thus promoting the understanding and adoption of IPM. However, in Africa, NGOs so far lack the access to information and other key resources to play these roles effectively. As a contribution towards addressing this problem the NGO committee of the CGIAR, in collaboration with the Intemational Institute of Tropical Agriculture (OITA), convened a week-long workshop in March 1999 at Cotonou in the Republic of Benin. Thirty-six participants from 14 African countries took part in the workshop. Twenty delegates represented NGOs while the remainder came from national extension organizations or research organizations (national and international) with a special interest in the use of IPM in sustainable agricultural development. A variety of participatory activities helped participants to analyze constraints to IPM implementation in Africa and identify opportunities. Discussion sessions enabled participants to exchange first-hand experience of IPM implementation and to become familiar with principles, key issues and emerging options and supporting resources for IPM in Africa. On-farm, facilitator-led and farmer-led sessions were given special emphasis to help participants become familiar with participatory approaches that are now widely recognized as crucial to the success of IPM implementation. A tour of the IITA-Benin station offered participants an insight into novel IPM options that are currently being generated by research. Action planning led to formulation of resolutions and the formation of a Task Force to follow up on the recommendations. The intemet website: http://www.cgiar.org/spipm/news/ngomtg/ngowkmenu.html was initially established to publish the outputs of the workshop and subsequently to serve as a focal point for exchanging informnation on follow- up activities. a Managing knowledge for local innovation, Article for BMZ/BEAF "spotlight" on Knowledge Management by Ann Waters-Bayer, NGOC member. Scientific databases on agriculture are expanding by the minute, but it is difficult to apply the information directly to development practice. Non-governmental development organizations (NGOs) have conceived an information system that combines scientific and local knowledge about agroecology and natural resource management (AE/NRM) and is intended mainly for development practitioners. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 113 A N N E X E S Promising technologies and experiences in NRM will become accessible via an interactive development database "InterDev." Much documented knowledge comes from science, but how can local innovations - products of knowledge generation by resource users - be fed into InterDev? How can other farmers be helped to access and apply information about these innovations in their own settings, so that they can generate new site-specific knowledge? "Prolinnova" (Promoting Local Innovation) addresses such activities "before" and "after" InterDev. Studies of the processes and conditions of generating and spreading improvements in AE/NRM should inforrn decision-makers at various policy levels - therefore the need for a research network "PolicyNet." At the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) in Dresden, InterDev, Prolinnova and PolicyNet will be presented as an integrated set of mechanisms to strengthen partnerships in research and development in AE/NRM. New paths in development-oriented research. Why this initiative? Mainstream agricultural research has developed technologies applicable on well-endowed land. Meanwhile, many NGOs work directly with smallholders in marginal areas to develop site-appropriate technologies and strengthen local capacities to meet new challenges. These NGOs have learned to appreciate dynamnic indigenous knowledge. Many "success stonres" of development in smallholder fanning derive from local knowledge and experimentation. At the farn level, the innovations are often biophysical measures following ecological principles; at landscape level, they are often institutional new ways of jointly managing common resources. The innovations may be site-specific, but the ideas can inspire farmers in other areas and provide starting points for experimentation. Spreading these innovations can accelerate leaming by others trying to improve their land-use systems. In AE/NRM, especially where climatic variability is high, key factors for success are not external inputs, but labor, knowledge, and local management capacity. Scientific research in AE/NRM must aim not to develop perfected technologies, but to develop local capacity to manage resources flexibly, access useful information, test new ideas, assess the results, and adapt to change. This demands new partnerships in generating and managing knowledge. First steps Initial ideas were developed by European-based NGOs offering information services in agricultural development. A meeting of these NGOs in Brussels and at the European Forum on Agricultural Research in Wageningen in early 1999, and at a North-South meeting near Paris in late 1999, provided oppormuities to develop the ideas further. A Steering Group with members from Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe prepared a concept paper (see http://www.egfar.org) which is circulating widely by email for reactions and suggestions, and hopes for lively discussion and action planning at the GFAR. Meanwhile, first steps are already being tested. InterDev. In the test phase for this shared database, initially seven organizations focus on three themes: agroecological farrning, agroprocessing, and urban agriculture. Each has interlinked database subsets on methods and technologies, practical experiences, resource organizations and individuals, multimedia, and bibliographic references. Mechanisms for description, validation, classification and exchange are being developed so that the information can be downloaded and adapted for local use, at the same time as local experience enriches the global database. 114 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 ANNEXES Prolinnova. To scale up the promotion of local innovation in AE/NRM through farmer-NGO- researcher partnerships, four types of activities are planned: 1. Identifying and documenting local biotechnical and institutional innovations 2. Joint stakeholder analysis of research approaches and methods to stimulate imnovation, including analysis of a) investigating local innovation, b) joint action in further developing innovations, and c) jointly evaluating innovations and impacts 3. Training researchers i the new approaches and methods through various activities, including participation in muiti-stakeholder learning groups 4. Regional and global research networks on AE/NRM based on local irmovation. PolicyNet. This research network will study options to improve NRM-related policy at local, national and international level, and make results available to policymakers. The collaboration is meant to strengthen the capacities of southern partners to conduct policy research. The initial focus will be on institutional and political conditions that favor development and spread of local innovations in NRM. Linkages InterDev is the pivot, where practice-proven information on AE/NRM flows together and is made accessible. Prolinnova includes mechanisms to identify and document innovations for InterDev, and to promote use of the information in participatory research. InterDev provides PolicyNet with data for comparative analyses and cases for studying conditions that influence innovation and scaling-up processes. The results of Prolinnova-inspired innovation and policy research flow back into InterDev. The initiative is designed to facilitate mutual learning by stakeholders in research for development of sustainable land- use systems, and seeks linkages with relevant existing initiatives. * Prospectsfor agroecologically based natural resource managementfor low-incomefarmers in the 21s century, issues paper prepared for the GFAR. Miguel A. Altieri and Jean Marc von der Weid, NGOC members. Alternative agricultural development approaches and agroecological technologies spearheaded by farmers groups and NGOs around the developing world are already making a significant contribution to food security at the household, national and regional levels in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Increasing smallholders agricultural productivity not only increases food supplies, but also increases smallholders incomes, reducing poverty, increasing food access, reducing malnutrition, and improving the livelihoods of the poor. Yield increases are being achieved by using technological approaches, based on agroecological principles that emphasize diversity, synergy, recycling and integration; and social processes that emphasize community participation and empowerment. When such features are optimized, not only yield enhancement and stability of production are achieved, but also a series of ecological services such as conservation of biodiversity, soil restoration, water harvesting, improved natural pest regulation mechanisms, etc. Agroecological approaches are increasing production under environmental conditions that are far from ideal, such as on eroded hillsides of Central America, high barren plateaus of the Andes, semi-arid areas in the West African Sahel, exhausted lands in eastern and southern Africa, sloping areas in the Philippines and remote forest margins in many parts of Asia. That yields can be doubled or more in these areas is due in part to the low base of production from which these farmers start. However, absolute yield levels can also become high. These are areas where the need to increase production is greatest and where the soil, climatic and other conditions are most unfavorable. So relative to the poor resource endowments and the urgent human needs, the levels of production being newly achieved are quite significant, and they provide food directly to households that are most vulnerable to food insecurity. These experiences which emphasize farner-to-farmer research and grassroots extension approaches, represent countless demonstrations of talent, creativity, and scientific capability in rural communities. They point to the fact that human resource development is the cornerstone of any strategy aimed at increasing options for rural people and especially resource-poor fanners. Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 115 ANNEX ES Promising research areas for evaluation and promotion of alternative technologies and policies include: green manures, cover crops, polycultures, improved fallows, agroforestry, aquaculture, crop- livestock mixed systems, IPM, biological control, organic soil management and nutrient cycling, processes of technology adaptation and adoption, supportive policies, institutional partnerships and market development. Results from agroecological initiatives are a breakthrough for achieving food security and environmental preservation among the rural poor in the developing world, but their potential and further spread depends on investments, policies, institutional support and attitude changes on the part of policy makers and the scientific community, especially the CGIAR and GFAR which should devote much of their efforts to assisting the 370 million rural poor living in marginal environments. But the task must be shared with NGOs and farmers' organizations. The ideal way to achieve a qualitative leap in agroecological research is to promote partnerships amongst the various stakeholders in agricultural development processes. One can imagine a variety of combinations amongst the following players: researchers, farmers, officially and NGO-employed extension agents, produce processing and marketing companies, companies supplying inputs (including small seed companies) and equipment, representatives of official programs, credit agents, environmental organizations, etc. Their roles will be quite differentiated, as will be the intensity of their inter-relations, but all will have a say about what products will reach the market, and how. Such partnerships must not be reduced to local alliances amongst partners in a development process, but must encompass broader national and international networks dealing with similar sets of problems, even in differing ecological realities. NGOs have already created such networks of alliances quite effectively, and their experience can be broadened to incorporate many more partners. Clearly the new kind of pro-poor research will demand paradigmatic and methodological changes, as well as a capacity to intensify interdisciplinarity, in order for development workers to be able to balance ecological, agronomic, economic, cultural and social concerns. In addition to obvious changes in the profile of researchers and extension agents themselves, there must be changes in institutional procedures, to make them more flexible and decentralized, and to modify today's prevailing systems of professional evaluation, which are a major limitation for interested researchers to be able to move towards agroecological approaches. Failure to promote a people-centered agricultural research and development due to diversion of funds and expertise to biotechnology will forego a historical opportunity to raise agricultural productivity in economically viable, environmentally benign and socially uplifting ways. * Can genetically engineered crops feed a hungry world? San Francisco Chronicle, March 30, 2000, Miguel A. Altieri Most proponents of agricultural biotechnology assert that genetically modified crops are essential to feed the 840 million undernourished people in the world, and to reduce the poverty of the 1.3 billion people who live on less than $1 per day. They believe that the biorevolution can be harnessed to serve the food and nutritional needs of the world's poor. But will such potential benefits of genetically engineered food crops ever become practical enough to rid the world of hunger? Pro-biotechnology scientists say that with new research methods, biotechnology can be used to develop new crop varieties that are drought tolerant, resistant to insects and weeds, able to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and even increase the nutrient content in the edible portion of plants. Proponents say modem biotechnology offers enormous opportunities to poor farners and low-income consumers in developing countnes. 116 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 A N1N E X E S The first problem with that argument is that there is no relationship between the prevalence of hunger and a country's population. For every densely populated and hungry nation like Bangladesh, there is a sparsely populated (but also hungry) country like Brazil. Even in the midst of superabundance in the United States, there are between 20 million and 30 million malnourished people. Thus, even though crop yields per acre improved dramatically between the late 1960s and the early 1990s, these advances in agriculture have only trimmed the ranks of the world's undernourished by 8 percent - to 840 million from 920 million. Poverty is the key reason why 840 million people do not have enough to eat. In the past 30 years, enough food was produced to feed everyone - had it been more evenly distributed. Hunger is not a matter of agricultural limits, but a problem of masses of people not having access to food or the means to produce it. Biotechnology proponents, however, argue that food production will not keep pace with the growth of the global population, which is expected to add 73 million people every year from now until 2020. The biotechnology proponents say hunger will persist unless the potential of biotechnology is realized. I say, if the root causes are not addressed, hunger will persist no matter what agricultural technologies are used. At most, biotechnology has the yet-unrealized potential to deal with the issues of quality and quantity of food, but does not address distribution and access. Insisting on technological solutions to hunger ignores the tremendous complexity of the problem. It is too easy to fall into the "paradox of plenty" - more food accompanied by greater hunger. Any method of boosting food production that deepens inequality is bound to fail to reduce hunger. This is particularly true for biotechnology, which is being promoted by private corporations to whom poor farmers (who produce most of the basic food crops in the developing world) do not represent an attractive market. For example, the new strain of rice that is capable of producing provitamin A, which is being heralded as the best that agrobiotech can offer the developing world, constitutes a solution that ignores the root causes of why there are 2 million children at risk of vitamin A deficiency. In rural areas of the developing world, food preferences are culturally determined. Asians will not likely consume "orange rice" in the midst of abundant white rice. In fact, Asian small farmers grow diverse rice varieties with varying nutritional content and adapted to a wide variety of environmental conditions. The resulting genetic diversity heightens resistance to plant diseases and enables farmers to derive multiple nutritional uses. If, as expected, transgenic seeds continue to be developed and commercialized exclusively by private firms, poor farmers will continue to find them too expensive to purchase. The few that will have access to bioengineered seeds will be hurt by becoming dangerously "dependent" on the annual purchase of such seeds. Choices are surely also being denied to poor farmers when private industries insist upon protecting biotech patents that deny seed saving, an aspect that is of fundamental cultural importance to traditional farmers, who for centuries have saved and shared seeds. Food production will have to come from agricultural systems in countries with the largest population growth. This poses a major challenge for biotechnology in these tropical countries where farmers are not only resource poor- with no access to credit, technical assistance or markets- but where about 370 million rural poor live in arid or semni-arid zones or in steeply sloped areas. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 117 ANNEXES In the past, such farmers were bypassed by advances in agriculture known as the Green Revolution because their soil, water, and labor methods were unsuited to the demanding and costly management practices of improved seeds and accompanying need for pesticides and fertilizers. Biotechnology wiEl exacerbate the problem even more. Some scientists and policymakers posit that a solution would be to increase government investments in biotechnology research. However, larger investments may not yield the desired results. Corporate legal rights to biotechnology is affecting the development of transgenic crops by public institutions. Moreover, the seed distribution channels and networks to reach farmers are being privatized, focusing on commercial farms rather than on poor farmers. Much of the needed food can be produced throughout the world by small farmers using agroecological technologies. In fact, new rural development approaches and simple technologies spearheaded by farmers groups and nongovernmental organizations around the developing world are already making a difference. These results are a breakthrough for achieving food security and environmental preservation in the developing world, but realizing their potential depends on investments, policies, institutional support and attitude changes on the part of policymakers and the international scientific community. Failure to promote such people-centered agricultural research and development will miss a historic opportumity to raise agricultural productivity in economically viable, environmentally benign and socially uplifting ways. Other activities On April 10-11, Miguel Altieri participated in the CGIAR Consultative Council meeting held at FAO in Rome. Although no major decisions were made at this meeting, the NGOC Chair stressed the importance of CGIAR research sharpening its focus on the poor farmers living in marginal environments throughout the developing world (estimated at 370 million). NRM (including genetic resources) research should be the backbone of the CGIAR, and biotechnological innovations used as tools only when appropriate as a complementary approach. Partnerships with NGOs and farmers organizations will be crucial for the scaling up of already successful NRM experiences and the mobilization of a critical mass to rapidly achieve sustainable agriculture in areas so far bypassed by modem science. Task forces inclusive of grassroots organizations can be a flexible and fast organizational instrument to act at the local level. A regional approach to NRM is the only sensible way to create viable partnerships between research and development agencies in order to mobilize human and material resources to crystallize NRM approaches in specific ecosystems of each region. The protection of the public and free access nature of CGIAR's work can be best achieved by concentrating on NRM and downplaying types of biotechnological work increasingly becoming subjected to proprietary measures. The example of the golden rice for which there are 30 patents is a good reminder for the system as it advances its pro-poor agenda in a complex world of privatized science and patented innovations. 118 Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 ANNIXES Report of the Twelfth Meeting of the Private Sector Committee The 12th meeting of the CGIAR's Private Sector Committee (PSC) was held at the Westin Bellevue Hotel, the conference hotel for MTM2000, in Dresden, Germany on May 19-20, 2000, under the chairmanship of Sam Dryden. Members Claudio Barriga, Badrinarayan Barwale, Wallace Beversdorf, Barry Thomas, Seizo Sumida and Florence Wambugu attended. Robert Horsch could not participate. Selcuk Ozgediz and Waltraud Wightman, CGIAR Secretariat, served as Secretary. Gerard Barry Monsanto) attended as an observer. The Committee also interacted with Ismail Serageldin, CGIAR Chairman, and Emil Javier, TAC Chair. Agenda 1. Inbriiin 2. Otrvwofrent dh&pnmts affecting CGIAR 's parneysips wint the Prht Sector 3. Vision and strategyfor the CGIAR 4. Interactons ith X CGIAR Chair and the TA C Chair 5. OdxrBusiess 5.1 Possibilies of Prawte Sectr iwnwith the CGIAR 5.2 C Gn,cm ocutwath to nd users 5.3 Fuuremw vtigs 1. Introduction In the absence of Sam Dryden (unavoidably delayed), Selcuk Ozgediz opened the meeting by welcoming members and observers to the Private Sector Committee (PSC). Wally Beversdorf agreed to chair the meeting until Dryden's arrival. Members agreed to discuss the possibilities of Private Sector (PS) involvement with CGIAR Center activities and approved the agenda as amended. The report of the 11th meeting was adopted without amendment. Ozgediz provided a brief overview of the developments in the CGIAR since ICW99. At ICW, the Group agreed that the CGIAR needed to develop a vision and strategy to define where it should be, what it should be doing and producing, how it should be doing it, and with whom. TAC was asked to lead the exercise. Based on extensive consultation with stakeholders, and following meetings of the Consultative Council, CGIAR committees and major investors, TAC drafted two documents, "A Food Secure World for All: Toward a New Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR" and a companion paper, "Priority Research and Related Activity Themes." The Group was expected to discuss the new vision and strategy during MTM and to come to closure on this topic. Ozgediz also briefed PSC members on developments in the areas of finance and govemance. Research agenda funding in 1999 was $330 million, 3 percent lower than the 1998 level, mostly due to the EC's inability to meet its 1999 commitments for administrative reasons. Funding prospects for 2000 are within the Group approved level of $340 million. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Visionfor 2010 119 ANNEXES CGIAR governance is expected to be influenced by the departure of Ismail Serageldin, for whom MTM2000 would be the last CGIAR meeting as chair. Alexander von der Osten plans to retire after ICW2000. Ozgediz encouraged Committee members to nominate candidates for the position of "CGIAR Director" (the CGJAR Director will replace the Executive Secretary). A third partnership committee, the Science Partnership Committee (SPC), was established earlier this year to provide a closer link between the CGIAR and the scientific academia. The SPC is headed by Nobel laureate Wemer Arber. 2. Overview of recent developments affecting CGIAR's partnerships with the PS Dryden reported that he had attended several meetings- including an international forum convened by CvIMMYT in Tlaxcala, Mexico- that sought to determine how the private and public sector could join forces to make proprietary technology products available to subsistencefamers 2 in developing countries. There is great willingness on the part of the PS to share such technologies, as long as such action would not distort world markets. However, the industry unanimously agrees that proprietary technology products can only be made available in countries with a regulatory framework to protect the consumer and environment. 3. Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR Ozgediz provided a brief overview of the main components of TAC's vision and strategy paper for the CGIAR (including the companion paper on priority research and related activity themes). The PSC subsequently devoted a major part of its 12th meeting toward a discussion of the two documents. The principal conclusions were: * The PSC supports the vision and planks of the strategy, and encourages its implementation with emphasis on sharp focus, execution, and leadership. The PSC supports the CGIAR's efforts in establishing a framework for project portfolio management. These should include clearly defined objectives that are consistent with the CGIAR nission and clear to all those who are involved, so as to ensure the beneficial impact of projects. The PSC believes weak or absent links in the delivery of CG outputs have significantly weakened the impact of CGIAR investments. * The PSC encourages efforts by the CGIAR to establish and execute technology partnerships with providers of advanced research, technology, and other intellectual property (both public and private) to ensure rapid and efficient exploitation of discoveries to help alleviate poverty and hunger. * The PSC strongly recommends the concept of regional approach to research planning involving all CGIAR partners. The PSC strongly encourages the CGIAR to consider geographic alignment and leadership when addressing the issue of structural adjustments to the system to ensure accountability and speedy beneficial impacts. * As noted in prior comments regarding structural adjustments, the PSC encourages the CGIAR to form an independent body for handling IPR matters. 2According to one industry definition, subsismtfannm and their families consume more than 50 percent of a farm's produce. 120 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Visionfor 2010 ANNEXES 4. Interactions with the CGIAR Chair and the TAC Chair In their separate discussions with the CGIAR Chair and the TAC Chair, Committee members emphasized that the CGIAR needed to clearly define how its products would reach the end user. Otherwise there would be a considerable risk that it would not achieve its overall mission of poverty reduction. In the same context, members commented that germplasm conservation was a great service to mankind, but did not contribute to poverty reduction per se. This could only be achieved with appropriate linkages, e.g., germplasm conservation 3 genomics -3 germplasm improvement - improved varieties. The Chairman noted that germplasm is still available to everybod,y but the results of scientific research are not. Growing resentment in the developing world could lead to more and more barriers around the free movement of germplasm. It would be good if the agro-business sector could come up with creative mechanisms, such as licenses or research tool kits that could be updated on an annual basis. The World Bank president, the Rockefeller Foundation president, as well as the Ford Foundation have indicated their readiness to mediate. Public sentiments could be turned around if there were, say, five examples of 'Golden Rice' caliber: real products, with a demonstrated benign benefit, given away for nothing. Discussions with Emil Javier centered around the Committee's concems and conclusions regarding the new CGIAR vision and strategy. Comrmittee members acknowledged that the CGIAR Chair has been foremost in promoting the use of new research tools. However, it appears that this view is not shared by all. A united approach would help in convincing the pub]ic and the CGIAR's investors about the potential benefits of biotechnology for the poor in developing countries. The TAC Chair noted investors wanted impact but the CGIAR generally delivers intermediate products, such as seeds. It was up to others, such as the PS, to provide the linkage and to bring end products to the farmers' fields. 5. Other Business 1. Possibilities of PS involvement with the CGIAR Barry Thomas introduced the subject. He explained that the Global Crop Protection Federation's (GCPF) mandate was broadened from integrated pest- to integrated crop management and, more recently, to sustainable agriculture. Thomas could envisage the industry cooperating as a "Global Crop Science Federation", whose mandate would range from IPM to seeds, to biotechnology tools and products. In this case, CGIAR Centers could send all their project/funding proposals to the Federation, which would screen them and ultimately decide on their merits for funding (one- stop shop concept). Committee members agreed that this was an interesting concept that is worth pursuing. At the same time, consolidation in the biotech industry continues and is expected to lead to having only 4-5 major players. It may thus be easier for the CGIAR and the PS to reach common platforms and approaches regarding matters revolving around proprietary technology products. Regarding partnerships, there are two main avenues: purely philanthropic or project-based. Committee members agreed that tapping philanthropic sources for funding of public goods research is less likely to succeed in future, because most of the patents held on pesticides etc. have expired, resulting in the erosion of profit margins from industry sales and thus less 'surplus cash' that could be allocated to agro-industry foundations. Committee members emphasized, however, that the PS would be interested in helping to finance projects with clearly defined objectives and project outcomes that aim at poverty reduction. Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 201/) 121 A N1N F X E S Increasing the income of poor subsistence farmers would eventually make them business partners for the PS- a relevant outcome for the CGIAR, the poor and the industry. The likely success of such an approach would, however, depend on many factors, including the interpretation by the CGIAR of its 'intemational public goods' criterion. 2. Communication outreach to end users Throughout the meeting, Comrnittee members emphasized that the application of modem science is essential for achieving food security in developing countries. Currently, the public discussion on the use of biotechnology is dominated by NGOs, especially in developing countries. There is a need to diversify sources of information and broaden the discussion. However, if the PS launched such an outreach initiative, it would be seen as self-serving. The CGIAR could serve in a 'honest broker' role and help in providing a balanced view regarding the benefits of new technologies to policy makers, producers and consumers in developing countnres. This could be done through an information and communication program that informs the public about the potential benefits of science in increasing food production and availability in developing countries. To explore the possibilities of such an outreach plan, and to work toward the design and implementation of such a program, the PSC therefore proposed that a multi-stakeholder working group- consisting of CGIAR representatives (e.g., CDC chair, Secretariat Information Officer, Future Harvest) and industry bodies such as FIS, ISAAA, Biotechnology Council, and/or GCPF- be constituted. NGOs, such as the RF, could also be included. Action: Dryden to propose this to the CGAIAR during the forthcoming MTM; and all PSC members to discuss concept within their respective companies. 3. Future meetings The next meeting will be held before ICW2000 on Friday and/or Saturday, October 20-21, 2000 at the World Bank's headquarters in Washington DC. The major theme and draft agenda will be communicated at a later stage. Thanks The PSC believes the dialogue with the CGIAR has been very fruitful and wishes to record its appreciation of Chairman Serageldin's efforts and acknowledges his vision and leadership that enabled this interaction to come about. 122 Charting the CGIAR 's Future - A New Vision for 2010 A N1N E X E S Report of the Science Partnership Commitee The Science Partnership Committee (SPC) held its inaugural meeting on May 20, 2000 at the Westin Bellevue Hotel, Dresden, Germany. Participants in the meeting were Werner Arber (Chair), R. James Cook, Mouin Hamze, Lydia Makhubu, and Sudha Nair. CGIAR Chairman Ismail Serageldin joined part of the committee's meeting to share his vision and expectations for this third partnership committee formed under his leadership. TAC Chair Emil Javier was also invited to exchange ideas with the SPC. Manuel Lantin of the CGLAR Secretariat served as resource person on the workings of the CGIAR and provided background information on science-related issues under discussion in the CGIAR. Interaction with the CGIAR Chairman and the TAC Chair The creation of the Science Partnership Committee is part of the continuing efforts of the CGIAR to develop a more open system and is in line with the Third System Review's observation that "broadening and deepening partnerships and collaboration with other actors in the research-development continuum is of utmost importance to the future of the CGIAR" In his interaction with the Committee, Chairman Ismail Serageldin underscored the need to increase and strengthen the CGIAR scientists' linkages with the rest of the scientific community. He observed that science is rapidly advancing and running across disciplinary boundaries. The CGIAR should benefit from the discussions in other scientific fora of issues that are relevant to its work. The committee's meeting with TAC Chair Emil Javier presented an opportunity to discuss some elements of TAC's vision paper. The meeting was also very useful in identifying ways by which the SPC could contribute to some aspects of the work of TAC. The TAC Chair indicated that he would welcome an opportunity for the full TAC to interact with the SPC. Role of SPC The SPC understands its role in the CGIAR system to include the following: * To help the CGIAR establish linkages and increase its partnerships with the broader international scientific community. * To serve as a mechanism for monitoring the horizons of new and emerging areas of science and to help the CGIAR anticipate how the advances in science could be used to pursue its mission and goals. * To contribute to the strategic thinking and planning sought by TAC. TAC's Vision Paper The SPC discussed the key elements of TAC's paper "A Food Secure World for All: Toward a New Vision and Strategy for the CGIAR," focusing on the role of modem science in the pursuit of CGIAR goals. The committee supports TAC's recommendation "to bring modem science to bear on difficult productivity and institutional problems." It is-convinced that the application of knowledge and tools from functional genomics, GIS, remote sensing, information and communication technologies, and computing technologies could accelerate CGIAR's work and achieve its research objectives. It views modem biotechnology strategies, in its many new and emerging forms, as important tools and sources of knowledge for future improvements in agricultural productivity, food quality, and natural resource management. However, the SPC recommends that the selection of projects involving novel technologies Charting the CGIAR's Future - A New Vision for 2010 123 ANNIXES be responsible and reflective, particularly in the field of biotechnology. The SPC is willing to provide contacts with scientific experts ready to collaborate with CGIAR in order to insure sustainability, biosafety, long-term utility and public acceptance of projects to be taken up. The committee also endorses the adoption of an integrated approach to natural resource management research in the CGIAR. It considers NRM research as critical component of CGIAR research agenda for enhancing productivity and ensuring sustainability of production of crops, livestock, forest, and fish that are important to the poor. It recognizes the importance of both modem and local traditional knowledge in this field, and sees modem biotechnology and NRM as complementary and interdependent areas of science. Contribution to Development of Partnerships At the Center level, the SPC will help identify potential collaborative arrangements with advanced scientific institutions that utilize new knowledge and tools of modem science in addressing issues relevant to the goals of the Center. It is important for the committee to know where individual Centers' comparative advantages lie and the extent of "partnering work" that they have undertaken. To facilitate its work in this area, it will seek an opportunity to interact with the Center Directors during the next Centers Week. The SPC is overwhelmed by its broad charges considering the speed of developments in science, the size and diversity of the intemational scientific community, and the need for balance across the biological, physical, and social sciences. Some ideas have been generated to help facilitate this process. It hopes to develop them further into concrete proposals for presentation and discussion in its next meeting at ICW2000. 124 Charting the CGIAR's Future -A New Vision for 2010 Acronyms and Abbreviations ARI Advanced Research Institute NARI National Agricultural Research Institute CAS Central Advisory Service NARS National Agricultural Research System (s) CBC Committee of Board Chairs, CGIAR NGO Non-Govemmental Organization CBD Convention on Biological Diversity NGOC NGO Committee, CGIAR CDC Center Directors Committee, CGIAR NRM Natural Resources Management CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural OAU Organization for African Unity Research OC Oversight Committee, CGIAR DAC Development Assistance Committee ODA Official Development Assistance EC European Comrmission PARC Public Awareness and Resource Mobilization ECA Europe and Central Asia Committee, CGIAR EPMR External Program and Management Review PA/RIM Public Awareness/Resource Mobilization FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the PGRFA Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture United Nations PSC Private Sector Commnittee, CGIAR FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa PVP Plant Variety Protection FC Finance Committee, CGIAR RF Rockefeller Foundation FIS Financial Information System SGRP Systemwide Genetic Resources Program GCPF Global Crop Protection Federation SPAAR Special Program for African Agricultural Research GFAR Global Forum on Agricultural Research SPIA Standing Panel on Impact Assessment GIS Geographical Information System SPC Science Partnership Committee, CGIAR GMC Genetically Modified Crops SSA Sub-Saharan Africa GRPC Genetic Resources Policy Committee, CGIAR TAC Technical Advisory Committee, CGIAR IARC International Agricultural Research Centers TRIPS Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights IAEG Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group, UFRRJ Universidade Federal rural do Rio de Janeiro CGIAR UNDP United Nations Development Programme ICT Information and Communication Technologies UNEP United Nations Environment Programme ICW International Centers Week, CGIAR UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and ICWG-GR Inter-Center W'orking Group on Genetic Resources Cultural Organization IDB Inter-American Development Bank UPOV International Union for the Protection of New IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Varieties of Plants Development USAID United States Agency for International IGM Integrated Gene Management Development IIRR International Institute of Rural Reconstruction WANA West Asia and North Africa IPR Intellectual Property Rights WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization LMO Living Modified Organisms WTO World Trade Organization MSSRF M. S. swaminathan Research Foundation $ All financial data are given in US dollars MTA Material Transfer Agreement MTM Mid-Termn Meeting, CGIAR MTP Medium-Term Plan * Printed on recycled paper '4r CGIAR Secretariat The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433 * USA Telephone: 1-202-473-8951 - Fax: 1-202-473-8110 E-mail: cgiar@cgiar.org or cgiar@worldbank.org www.cgiar.org