Opening Session (Agenda Item 1)
Strategies for Livestock Research in the CGIAR (Agenda Item 2)
Towards a CGIAR Strategy for Genetic Resources (Agenda Item 3)
CGIAR Medium-Term Resource Allocation: 1994-98 (Agenda Item 4) and Future Strategies and Structure for the CGIAR (Agenda Item 5)
The External Review Process: Impressions of an External Review Panel (Agenda Item 6)
Future Reviews (Agenda Item 7)
King Baudouin Award 1994 (Agenda Item 8)
Future Meetings (Agenda Item 9)
Other Matters (Agenda Item 10)
1. The 62nd Meeting of The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was held between 19-23 October 1993 at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington D.C., USA, with Dr. Alexander McCalla in the Chair. Among the participants were TAC Members, a number of observers, consultants and resource persons, and staff of the CGIAR and TAC Secretariats (Annex 1).
Opening Remarks
Adoption of the TAC 61 Report
Adoption of the Agenda
Report from the CGIAR
2. Dr. McCalla declared the meeting formally open and welcomed those TAC Members and observers present. He noted that Dr. Seme Debela would not be able to attend TAC 62 for personal reasons. Since very few observers had been present at TAC 61, he again introduced those TAC Members who joined the Committee in 1993: Dr. André Berkaloff (France), Sir Ralph Riley (UK) and Dr. Ammar Siamwalla (Thailand). He proceeded to thank Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Director General of IFPRI, for hosting TAC 62 and invited him to address the meeting.
3. Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen expressed his appreciation to TAC for its very favourable comments on IFPRI's Medium-Term Plan proposals (MTP). He reported on the Centre's recent progress in developing its research, training, information and outreach programmes. IFPRI was actively participating in the current debate on food and the environment and was ready to assume leadership in developing a vision for the needs of food, agriculture and the environment by the year 2020. He concluded by wishing TAC Members a most productive meeting.
4. The report was adopted without any amendments.
5. The agenda for TAC 62 was adopted without any modification. It included the following major items: the Report of the Steering Committee on Livestock Research in the CGIAR; a proposed strategic stripe review of genetic resources in the CGIAR; CGIAR Medium-Term Resource Allocation: 1994-98; a revised Chapter 13 of the TAC Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies; and the external review process. In addition, there would be a presentation on IFPRI's programmes in: micronutrients, agricultural research and policy; and output market reform. Participants were invited to suggest other matters which required attention at TAC 62, and two topics were proposed: a report by a CGIAR Task Force, chaired by Dr. Stein Bie, on the CGIAR response to UNCED's Agenda 21; and a meeting organized by former USA President Jimmy Carter which had been attended by the TAC Chair.
6. Mr. Alexander von der Osten, Executive Secretary of the CGIAR, reported on recent developments in the CGIAR, particularly: the future Chairmanship, governance and the financial situation; the agenda for ICW'93, and a business plan for the CGIAR Secretariat. Regarding the Chair of the CGIAR, Mr Von der Osten announced that Mr. Rajagopalan was due to retire at the end of 1993 and that consultations about the new Chair were ongoing. The selection of a new Chair would be announced during ICW after consultation by the World Bank with members of the CGIAR. On governance, Mr. von der Osten informed TAC Members about the establishment of both an Oversight and a Finance Committee at the CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting 1993 and gave a short overview of the terms of reference, activities and membership of the two Committees. He also reported that good progress was being made in the discussions on the integration of INIBAP into IBPGR/IPGRI and of ILCA and ILRAD into the new Centre for International Research on Livestock (CIRL).
7. The financial situation of the CGIAR was not optimistic: core contributions during 1993 were estimated at US$ 234 million, compared with US$ 247 million during 1992, which entailed a reduction of 5% in nominal terms and 9% in real terms. The amount of complementary funding was estimated at US$ 70 million which was equivalent to the 1992 level. It was estimated that core contributions during 1994 would be further reduced to US$ 225 million, and that total funding of the CGIAR during 1994 would amount to approximately US$ 302 million.
8. At ICW'93 the major topics on the agenda would be: the TAC Report on CGIAR Medium-Term Resource Allocation: 1994-98; the revised Chapter 13 of TAC's Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies; discussion of plant genetic resources and intellectual property issues; and 1994 budgets for the centres' programmes.
9. With respect to the CGIAR Secretariat, Mr. von der Osten reported on the development of a business plan. The Secretariat would continue to have science advisers but recruitment for vacant positions would be delayed until after the finalization of the report of the Oversight Committee.
10. The TAC Chair recalled the Committee's Report on Priorities and Strategies for Livestock Research in the CGIAR and the report of the CGIAR Working Group on this topic, chaired by John "Taff" Davies, which were considered and endorsed by the CGIAR at MTM'93. The Chairman of the CGIAR subsequently appointed a Steering Committee on International Livestock Research which was chaired by Dr. Lucia Vaccaro. The Steering Committee was to prepare a report by ICW'93 and TAC was to be informed about the progress made. This report, together with the comments of ILCA and ILRAD, was therefore on the TAC agenda.
11. Dr. Vaccaro introduced the members of the Steering Committee and then presented the report. She stated that throughout its deliberations, the Steering Committee had been guided by TAC's recommendations on priorities and strategies for livestock research and on the consensus already reached within the CGIAR regarding the importance of livestock in sustainable development. The proposed strategy gave priority to ruminants in mixed production systems.
12. Research for the new centre would fall within the seven main areas identified by TAC. It would be driven by demands arising from farm-level problems and be of an integrated multidisciplinary nature to ensure a holistic approach. The centre would focus on strategic research of a global or transnational nature. It would work in close collaboration with other IARCs and advanced research institutes. There would be close links between livestock-related research in the TAC-endorsed ecoregional programmes and the new centre.
13. The Steering Committee had proposed that the new entity would be called the Centre for International Research on Livestock (CIRL). It would integrate the relevant programmes of ILCA and ILRAD and their facilities would be used as a base for the new Centre. The Centre would offer the CGIAR a unique opportunity to provide the holistic approach to livestock research required by the strategy, which in turn would widen the scope for the application of results. It would play a catalytical role in promoting inter-centre collaboration, including the CGIAR plant-orientated programmes on specific topics of livestock-related research and institution-building.
14. The Steering Committee considered that CIRL should be set up as soon as possible and proposed a timetable for doing so by 1 January 1995. The sequence of events had been outlined in the timetable, which would ensure that the Board of Trustees for CIRL would be involved in the strategic planning process and that the Boards of ILCA and ILRAD could endorse the strategic plan before their dissolution.
15. With respect to funding, the Steering Committee did not foresee that the proposals to establish CIRL would result in major savings for the CGIAR but rather would ensure greater cost effectiveness of investments. Multilateral sources would be required for global strategic research, but core funds would also have to be assigned to ecoregional activities. It was recognized that, in general, better mobilization of bilateral, regional and national funds for core CGIAR activities would be required.
16. The Steering Committee recommended that at ICW'93 the CGIAR should set up an Implementing Group to build on the momentum achieved and to ensure a smooth start to CIRL's operation. There should be two task forces: one to deal with the strategic planning for CIRL; and the other, composed mainly of ILCA and ILRAD staff, to make proposals on administrative and programme matters and to also identify those elements of the existing MTPs of ILCA and ILRAD which could meet the criteria of the unified strategy. Dr. Vaccaro recognized that the proposed timetable was extremely tight but still realistic. She concluded her presentation by recalling the main recommendations as listed in the report of the Steering Committee.
17. In the ensuing discussion, TAC Members complimented the Steering Committee for the rapid progress they had made. Clarification was requested about the proposed links between global and ecoregional livestock research, respective responsibilities of the proposed Implementing Group and task forces, the proposed alternative funding sources, and the strategic planning process. TAC Members stressed the importance of maintaining momentum in the progress of ongoing livestock discussions.
18. In her response, Dr. Vaccaro emphasized the need for programme funding which would enhance close collaboration between centres and other partners. It would also allow for alternative funding mechanisms and the involvement of bilateral as well as multilateral donor agencies. She considered that there was a need to build on the experiences and knowledge gained by the existing livestock programmes, but yet that there was also a need to bring in fresh perspectives from outside. The proposal to have an Implementing Group, as well as task forces, had to be seen in this perspective.
19. Other speakers asked questions about the following topics: the relative priority of livestock research in WANA and Latin America compared to SSA; the balance between animal research per se and production systems work; the important role of animals in resource conservation and degradation; the composition of the Board of CIRL, and the criteria for the choice of a headquarters site.
20. Dr. Dieter Bommer, acting in his capacity as Chair of the ILCA Board of Trustees, noted that the proposed timetable was too tight to develop a new integrated strategy. He proposed that the Implementing Group should only develop the broad principles on which the new strategy should be based and let the strategy itself be developed by the Board of the new Centre. He stressed the need for centres, other than ILCA and ILRAD, and NARS to be part of the strategic planning process. Finally, he expressed concern about the current difficult financial situation of the livestock Centres.
21. ILCA's Board and Management had produced a formal statement with respect to the Steering Committee's report, which was presented by Dr. Hank Fitzhugh, Director General of ILCA. The Board was very supportive of the work of the Steering Committee but raised questions about the timetable for the strategic planning process. They even wanted to hasten the integration process of the two livestock Centres. The Board had also expressed its appreciation for the conciseness of the documentation and the clarity of the arguments. Finally, Dr. Fitzhugh expressed concern that the attention of ILCA and ILRAD staff should not be overly diverted to CIRL, but that there was a need to concentrate on ongoing research.
22. Dr. Ross Gray, Director General of ILRAD, recognized the importance of the Steering Committee's report which he endorsed. He stressed the need not to lose the valuable expertise already gained by ILRAD. Dr. Gray cautioned that the development of a strategic plan for CIRL should not lead to duplicating TAC's work on CGIAR priorities and strategies for livestock research. Dr. Gray also expressed the need for TAC guidance on resource allocation issues, particularly with respect to the balance of effort between global and ecoregional, and between animal health and animal production research. Finally, Dr. Gray noted that he preferred the timetable of the Steering Committee to that of ILCA, which had proposed accelerating the timing.
23. Dr. Vaccaro noted that livestock problems in Latin America and WANA were not necessarily of lower priority than those in sub-Saharan Africa. Animal research could not be separated from production systems research, and the contribution made by livestock had to be measured in terms other than just tons of milk and meat. Dr. Vaccaro acknowledged the important role of animals in resource conservation and degradation and considered such arguments as self-explanatory. She agreed that the expertise of the existing centres should not be ignored, but, at the same time, it should not be allowed to dominate CIRL.
24. In concluding the discussion, Dr. McCalla expressed his sincere appreciation of the work of Dr. Vaccaro and her Steering Committee. He also valued the positive and constructive contributions of the centres involved in livestock research, particularly ILCA and ILRAD.
25. This item was also discussed by TAC in the joint meeting with Centre Directors and Board Chairs. With respect to the report, Drs. Gray and Fitzhugh reiterated the viewpoints of their respective Centres. In the ensuing discussion, it was noted that the development of CIRL represented an institutional experiment for the System, and that there was a need to document the experiences gained in the process.
1 Also discussed in the joint session with Centre Directors and Board Chairs on 23 October 1993.
26. The TAC Chair recalled that at TAC 61 the Committee considered a revised draft prepared by IBPGR, in collaboration with the Inter-Centre Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources entitled, The Role of the CGIAR in Plant Genetic Resources: Towards a Systemwide Strategy. In the ensuing discussion TAC agreed to conduct a stripe study of genetic resources in the CGIAR, with an initial focus on plant genetic resources (PGR) as an input towards the formulation of a CGIAR strategy for genetic resources. The study was to be undertaken in close cooperation with the TAC/Centre Directors' Committee on Plant Genetic Resources. The Committee therefore met in September 1993 to develop terms of reference for the study and a list of specific issues to be addressed. This resulted in a paper entitled, 'CGIAR Responsibilities for Plant Genetic Resources', prepared by Sir Ralph Riley for consideration at TAC 62.
27. Sir Ralph introduced the paper by outlining: the terms of reference for the study; issues to be considered by the review panel; a panel profile; the process of consultation to draw inputs from the major stakeholders; and a provisional timetable. He stated that the draft report would be completed in time for discussion with the Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources in early February 1994. The final report would be discussed at TAC 63 in March 1994 during a joint session with Centre Directors, and by the Group at MTM'94 in May 1994.
28. Sir Ralph stated that the review would be largely in the form of a desk study, and would be led by TAC. It would exclude consideration of organisms other than plants, although further studies may be needed in the future to ensure that the CGIAR addresses issues related to its responsibilities for genetic resources of ruminant animals, fish and certain micro-organisms. The study would be concerned with CGIAR strategies, and while it must be aware of the current concerns relating to intellectual property rights and plant breeders' rights, such issues would be outside it's brief. In addition, local management of PGR work in individual centres would not be part of the study, because it will be addressing strategic issues to ensure security of the collections, including financial protection.
29. The proposed terms of reference were as follows: (i) to study the ways in which CGIAR discharges its responsibilities for plant genetic resources conservation; and (ii) as appropriate, to recommend ways in which the CGIAR strategy should be changed to recognize its place in a global system for biodiversity. It was envisaged that the study would be based on wide consultations with national and international agencies, NGOs, the private sector, centres and donors.
30. Dr. Geoffrey Hawtin, Director of IBPGR, stated that the issues related to ex situ conservation need to be on the agenda of the International Convention on Biological Diversity. There was a strong CGIAR representation at the meeting of the Convention in Geneva, and the CGIAR would be expected to make a significant input into the deliberations of the Convention in the future. The stripe study should therefore make it known that the CGIAR System was coherent and could make a contribution towards a global system on the conservation and utilization of biodiversity. Dr. Hawtin informed the Committee that the Inter-Centre Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources had agreed to broaden its scope to include animal genetic resources. It had also changed its name to Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources.
31. Dr. Hans Gregersen, Chair of the Standing Committee on External Reviews, informed TAC that the Standing Committee had endorsed the proposal to conduct a TAC-guided stripe study with external inputs.
32. In the ensuing discussion it was pointed out that the main issue which had provided impetus to the proposed stripe study was the fact that, although the CGIAR was a big and significant player in this subject matter area, it had neither a coherent programme priorities nor a strategy. It was felt by many TAC Members and observers that while fish and ruminant livestock genetic resources were important, the stripe study should focus on the pressing issues of plant genetic resources, and perhaps plan simultaneously what was needed for the animal genetic resources component in a subsequent study.
33. It was pointed out by several Centre Directors that while they supported the proposal to conduct a stripe study, it would be counter-productive to make unduly critical pronouncements about how plant genetic resources were being handled in the CGIAR System. The evidence suggested that there was a great deal of recognition of the leadership role of IBPGR in collaboration with FAO, and that a tremendous effort was being made by centres to speak with one voice and to operate coherently. It was also noted that the importance currently being given to plant genetic resources in the CGIAR has improved considerably compared to 15 years ago, and that there has been a substantial improvement in facilities and the capability to manage them. However, while local management of genetic resources activities in centres could be accepted as satisfactory, there was a need for a coherent Systemwide strategy.
34. It was noted that while the CGIAR was well known for its ex situ collections, there was a lot of interest in involving the CGIAR in in situ conservation, particularly with regard to forestry and fisheries. Furthermore, a proposal by the CGIAR Task Force on the follow-up to UNCED's Agenda 21, suggested that the CGIAR and its collaborators should take up an initiative to explore methods for effective in situ germplasm management. However, it was not clear how this proposal related to what was being suggested for the stripe study. In addition, questions arose regarding whether CIFOR would have in situ collections in future and what kind of trusteeship role it would play. It was considered unlikely that any CGIAR Centre would have significant control of the in situ conservation territory, although the stripe study could develop concepts and information.
35. Finally it was agreed that the stripe study should be undertaken by an external panel with strong TAC participation. The panel would consist of four members plus the chair, a consultant and one TAC resource person. The terms of reference were subsequently amended to read: To study the ways in which the CGIAR discharges its responsibilities for genetic resources conservation; and as appropriate to recommend options to TAC for a change in the CGIAR strategy to recognize its place in a global system of biodiversity.
a) Medium-Term Resource Allocation: 1994-98
b) Impact of Budget Shortfalls on the Centres
c) Chapter 13: Future CGIAR Strategies
36. The Chair recalled that at TAC 61 the Committee finalized its views on priorities and strategies for the CGIAR, and made recommendations for Medium-Term Resource Allocation: 1994-1998. Subsequently, the staff of both Secretariats, under the guidance of the TAC Chair, drafted a report incorporating TAC's recommendations and the process followed to arrive at them. The draft report was circulated to TAC Members for comments before it was finalized and distributed to Members of the CGIAR, Centre Directors and Board Chairs for discussion at ICW'93.
37. A similar procedure had been followed in developing the revision of Chapter 13 of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies. However, for logistic reasons already foreseen at TAC 61, it had been impossible to send the final report for clearance to TAC Members before its submission to the CGIAR. The TAC Chair therefore requested comments from TAC Members on the final report to ensure that it accurately reflected TAC's views on future strategies.
38. Dr. McCalla noted that comments had already been received on the CGIAR Medium-Term Resource Allocation document from ICRAF, CIP and ILRAD and these would also be considered by TAC. He pointed out a printing error on page 93 of the report. Two important paragraphs relating to the evaluation of the work of IFPRI had been omitted, but he noted that a revised page 93 had been circulated. Dr. McCalla also wanted TAC to discuss the impact of recent budget shortfalls on the activities of the centres.
39. The TAC Chair noted that ILRAD had requested a re-classification of the construction and equipment of the new cattle containment facility, from complementary to core, in its response to TAC's interim commentary on the Laboratory's MTP proposals for 1994-1998. However, the issue had not been explicitly addressed in the report on CGIAR Medium-Term Resource Allocation: 1994-98. He had subsequently referred the matter for consideration to the Joint Standing Committees on Resource Allocation and Priorities and Strategies.
40. The Standing Committees recalled that this proposal had been strongly supported in the recent ILRAD External Review report and that TAC had endorsed the recommendations made therein. Furthermore, they noted that no such facility yet existed in sub-Saharan Africa and that the facility was considered necessary to further ILRAD's work in the development of novel vaccines against theileriosis and other tick-borne diseases. Consequently, the Standing Committees proposed that TAC should endorse ILRAD's request for re-classifying the construction of the containment facility as a core activity. This endorsement did not however imply a change in the level of the resource envelope assigned to ILRAD in the MTP process. TAC agreed to re-classify the construction and equipment of the containment facility along the lines proposed by the Standing Committees.
41. The TAC Chair also noted that CIP had expressed disappointment about the Committee's decision on the proposed ecoregional initiative for the Andean area. CIP had requested the following modifications in TAC's position, which would:
· recognize CIP as the convening centre for natural resources management research in the Andes;· support explicitly the investment of up to 5 % of the approved core envelope for this purpose;
· agree to exempt additional donor funding for this initiative from the balancing funding mechanism; and
· recommend similar support for the ecoregional initiative in the Andes as recommended for the WANA region.
42. In the ensuing discussion, TAC Members recalled that the Andean area was not considered a high-priority ecoregion in the Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies. It therefore re-confirmed its earlier decision that the proposed activities on resources management in an initial phase should be considered as part of the complementary programme. Moreover, TAC recalled its recommendation in Chapter 13 of the Report on CGIAR Priorities and Strategies, stating that further core support for the Andean initiative beyond the germplasm conservation area should be dependent upon the development of an inter-regional mechanism, to ensure 'spillover' of benefits to other highland cool tropics with summer rainfall. While TAC Members generally acknowledged that there were high priority research issues to be addressed through a CGIAR initiative in the Andean region, they saw no compelling reason, on the basis of available information, to change their earlier recommendations.
43. The TAC Chair informed TAC Members of a letter written by Dr. George Holmes, Chair of the ICRAF Board of Trustees, to Mr. Rajagopalan, Chair of the CGIAR. The letter expressed disappointment that TAC's recommendation for ICRAF to be funded at 90% of the planning resource envelope, could be interpreted as reflecting a lack of confidence in the work of ICRAF.
44. Dr. Holmes, who was present at the TAC discussion, provided further elaboration on both these letters. He was particularly concerned about the potentially negative effect of TAC's recommendations on ICRAF donors' attitudes, because the current text could give a wrong impression to the reader.
45. In the ensuing discussion, the TAC Chair recalled that the initial envelopes assigned to centres had been tentative because they had only been based on demand factors. In a subsequent phase of the resource allocation process, TAC Members had also considered institutional aspects and factors related to research supply. Therefore, the recommendation for a 90% envelope did not mean that TAC was unappreciative of ICRAF's proposals or that it reflected a negative evaluation of ICRAF. It was TAC's view that the envelope assigned to ICRAF still represented a substantial increase compared to its actual level of current funding. TAC was also concerned about the sustainability of ICRAF's proposed rate of growth.
46. The TAC Chair recalled that at the MTM'93, donors and Centre Directors had requested a statement by TAC on the impact of budget shortfalls on centres' activities and management. Subsequently, the TAC Chair had invited each centre to provide him with information in this regard which was collated by the Secretariat for consideration by the Joint Standing Committees for Priorities and Strategies and Resource Allocation.
47. Dr. Muchnik who had chaired the Joint Meeting of the Standing Committees on Priorities and Strategies and Resource Allocation reported on the outcome. The nature of the responses received from the centres varied greatly, ranging from general statements to highly-specific quantitative information. It was therefore difficult to build a clear overall picture across the System. However, the impact of the budget shortfalls was particularly strong on the 13 pre-expansion centres, because these new centres were still in a growth curve when contributions to the CGIAR started to decline.
48. Dr. Muchnik provided the following overview and summary of the responses received, which were augmented by further System-level information provided by the CGIAR Secretariat. Between 1990 and 1993 the index in real terms of core funding of the 13 pre-expansion centres declined from 107 to 86 (1986 index = 100). That meant that funding was down by 26% in real terms. It was estimated that between 1990 and 1994, the reduction in real funding would be approximately 33%. Between 1990 and 1993 the number of actual Senior Scientist Years (SSY) declined from 781 to 709. The figure of 709 SSY in 1993 compared with a figure of 897 SSY, which was approved by TAC for the MTP period.
49. This rapid decline in funding had necessitated ad hoc, and at times disruptive, adjustments in the programmes, management and organization of the centres. The four new CGIAR Centres were in a growth mode during this period, but growth was also significantly restricted because of this funding situation. The Standing Committees' comments focused on the impact of funding shortfalls on the 13 pre-expansion centres. In general, there had been three types of responses:
· reductions in the number of staff and in the scope and number of programmes;
· contingency responses, by running down reserves and working capital;
· constrained rate of growth.
A few illustrative examples are summarized below:
1) Reductions in staff and programmes
· a marked reduction in institution-building activities i.e. training, information and network activities, particularly at:
|
|
CIAT: |
reduction in institutional development services by 47%; |
|
|
CIMMYT: |
reduction of institution-building activities by 44%; |
|
|
ILCA: |
reduction by 30% of training and network activities; and |
|
ISNAR: |
reduction in number of countries it can serve. |
· a reduction in the scale and scope of research programmes resulted in:
- virtual disappearance of research on mangrove swamp rice at WARDA;- decline of production systems work at CIMMYT by 55 %;
- reduction of production of new virus-clean materials by 50% for potatoes and 65% for sweet potatoes at CIP;
- phasing out of the research on antigens in the trypanosomiasis thrust of ILRAD;
- major reductions in scope in all rice ecosystem programmes at IRRI.
2) Contingency responses, running down reserves and working capital
· At the System level, centre expenditure increased from 96% of total income in 1990 to 99% in 1992. The annual operating surplus declined sharply from US$ 14 million in 1990 to US$ 2 million in 1992;
· Year-end indebtedness increased in 1992;
· CIP working capital had been reduced;
· Delay in accumulation of capital replacement reserves for several centres; and
· IITA considers that any further reduction in financial resources could undermine the Centre's physical infrastructure.
3) Constrained rate of growth
· slowdown in implementation of new initiatives;
· postponement of high priority work on biodiversity at IBPGR; and
· delay in implementation of new resource management programmes at CIAT.
50. The effect of reduced investment in research would have a lagged impact in the long term. Both short-term effects (institution-building), and long-term structural effects (research) were to be expected. Cuts in research programmes did not appear to be proportionately higher than in administration. Centres' management had acted in a responsible fashion in their dealings with funding decreases. Funds to support scientists in the System appeared to be modestly increasing, rather than decreasing, on a unit basis. Centres' management was ensuring that although the number of international staff was decreasing, the financial support per scientist was at least holding constant. This meant that to date, purely administrative salary costs were not increasing as a percentage of total expenditure.
51. This topic was discussed further by TAC in a joint session with Board Chairs and Centre Directors. The TAC Chair presented the findings of TAC and a discussion took place to consider the issues raised. Speakers expressed concern about the impact of budget shortfalls on institution-building activities, particularly training. The meeting noted, however, that it was relatively easier to postpone institution-building activities than, for example, those related to breeding. Training could always be resumed when funds permitted.
52. TAC Members endorsed the revised Chapter 13 of the Report on CGIAR Priorities and Strategies and expressed their appreciation to the Secretariat for its work. It was noted that several issues related to the proposed ecoregional programmes, such as accountability, alternative sources of funding, and the need for new modes of operation, would require further elaboration. One TAC Member remarked that the section on fisheries had, perhaps unintended, negative connotations.
53. Representatives of donor agencies commended TAC's approach to the implementation of ecoregional programmes, although several questions clearly remained about the accountability issue. It was also felt that the administrative problems associated with programme funding should not deter the centres from becoming involved in such initiatives, that greater attention should be given to priority setting of ecoregional activities, and that the rationale for support of some of the ecoregional programmes in Chapter 13 needed strengthening.
54. Dr. McCalla noted that the ICRAF Board Chair had written a letter to the CGIAR Chair. In the letter he had expressed disappointment that in the revised Chapter 13 of the Report on CGIAR Priorities and Strategies, TAC had again raised the question of a two-centre model for forestry and agroforestry. Action by TAC had not been formally requested.
55. Dr. McCalla also raised the issue of the implications of further declines in funding, for example; how the planning and implementation of proposed Systemwide initiatives should proceed, and whether there was a need to prioritize the proposed ecoregional initiatives. Other TAC Members stressed the need for a re-structuring and consolidation of the CGIAR should funding declines persist. A discussion also took place on the statement that in a situation of further funding shortfalls, the need for two forestry centres might have to be reconsidered. TAC Members recognized the sensitivity of this issue and expressed appreciation of its formulation in Chapter 13, which correctly reflected TAC's position.
56. This item was initially discussed by TAC alone and then in a joint session with Centre Directors and Board Chairs. The TAC session was chaired by Dr. Hans Gregersen, Chair of the Standing Committee on External Reviews. He recalled that the Third External Programme and Management Review of ICARDA included a chapter on the review process. The Committee had deferred the discussion of this chapter at TAC 61 until the Standing Committee on External Reviews had an opportunity to review it in greater detail.
57. Dr. Jock Anderson, Chair of the ICARDA External Review Panel, introduced Chapter 5 of the Report dealing with the external review process. Dr. Anderson stated that concerns would always be expressed about the opportunity cost of the resources involved in the external review process. Such concerns were expected to be more acute because the CGIAR System was facing severe resource constraints. The ICARDA External Review had experimented with several modifications in the traditional review approach, for example, by using a smaller panel, shortening the main phase, and making greater use of consultants and Secretariat staff. Chapter 5 of the Review Report offered comments and views on these modifications as well as on other aspects of the review process, particularly: the trade-offs between efficiency, efficacy and expediency elements in an external review; the scope of the review in relation to NARS-oriented issues; and survey instruments used in the review.
58. Dr. Anderson made the following main points:
· There were trade-offs between efficiency, efficacy and expedience elements in an external review, and the experience of the ICARDA Review suggested that the optimal solution in seeking the best point on the trade-off frontier across these three aspects had yet to be found. Given the differences among centres there could be different points, in which case there would be a greater requirement for fine-tuned planning for any particular review.· There was a need to explore some new approaches if NARS-oriented issues, particularly those related to assessing NARS' capacity, were to be adequately addressed in the future.
· The survey method used to solicit NARS' views on centre programmes and NARS-Centre collaboration should be re-designed.
· The method employed to survey ICARDA research staff was a useful review instrument but must be accompanied by further follow-up when interpreting the data.
· The combined programme and management review model should be the norm for the future.
· The practice of enhancing the panel by targeted consultants and Secretariat staff was useful and should be continued.
· The ex-ante shortening of the main phase by the panel was not a good idea in the case of the ICARDA Review.
59. Dr. Anderson stated that, in attempting to improve the review process, it was important to ensure that the credibility of the review process was protected for donors, because they were the primary clients of the review. However, the potential of enhancing research productivity through reviews should not be forgotten.
60. In opening the discussion, Dr. Gregersen stated that the Standing Committee's discussions had focused on three areas, namely: (i) the trade-off issues concerned with cost relative to expediency, independence and experience; (ii) the mechanisms and instruments used by external review panels, which should include more effective use of the experience gained and information gathered by other reviews and surveys, comparative data analysis, and centres' internal review processes; and (iii) the assessment of the capacity of NARS and NARS-CGIAR relationships to ensure a greater utilization of the centres' work, which would require access to a comprehensive information base on the CGIAR-NARS relationship that did not presently exist.
61. Questions were raised regarding the definition of NARS, given the fact that the CGIAR now supports investment in fisheries and forestry. It was pointed out that NARS include government-sponsored institutions and policy units involved in broadly-defined agricultural research, as well as NGOs, and private sector research organizations. All these should be consulted. It was suggested by several TAC Members and observers that there was a need for background knowledge to assess the NARS relationships with centres, and that short field visits alone were not adequate for this purpose. It was suggested by one TAC Member that a structured NARS panel meeting may be an option to consider.
62. It was pointed out that assessing NARS capacity during reviews was a very difficult task, although the information on capacity, where available, would be a valuable input. Several TAC Members and observers suggested that sources within and outside the CGIAR should be utilized more effectively for this purpose, including information available from the donors, FAO, World Bank, ISNAR, etc.
63. In drawing the TAC discussion to a close, Dr. Gregersen expressed appreciation to Dr. Anderson, TAC Members and observers for their valuable comments which would be used as an input by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Secretariat Working Group in their continuing deliberations on the review process. He stated that in March 1994 the Standing Committee expected to consider a report by the Inter-Secretariat Working Group on how to strengthen the review process, and would propose action on the basis of the report and discussion of the topic at TAC 62.
64. In the joint session, the TAC Chair stated that the topic of how to improve the review process was an ongoing item for TAC. This was because the review process was essential for the integrity of the CGIAR System, and was important to donors as it eliminated the need for conducting separate donor reviews of centre-based core programmes. Consequently, the review process was a crucial component of accountability in the CGIAR. However, the process was expensive, time consuming, and variable in quality. He noted that the earlier discussion of this topic at TAC 62 had been constructive and was stimulated by both Chapter 5 of the ICARDA Review Report, and a report from the Inter-Secretariat Working Group on External Reviews.
65. Several Centre Directors expressed agreement with many of the views expressed in Chapter 5 of the ICARDA Review Report. However, it was pointed out that while there were trade-offs between the size of the panel and the time required, the size and composition of the panel should be related to the issues that needed to be addressed. In this regard, it was suggested that a much greater use of centres' internal review processes could be made to enable the external review process to be more focused. It was suggested that the role of Secretariat staff on the review team should be clarified to the centre under review from the outset. It was also pointed out that the questionnaire survey of centre research staff must be conducted carefully and sensitively.
66. In concluding the discussion in the joint session, the TAC Chair thanked Dr. Anderson, and stated that because of the large set of trade-offs involved in the review process, there were no easy solutions. However, this was no excuse for not experimenting with some of the new ideas proposed.
Progress on IIMI, CIP, CIAT and IITA External Reviews
Mid-Term Review of ICLARM
Public Policy and Public Management Research
CGIAR Delivery Mechanisms
CGIAR's Work on Roots and Tubers
Chapter 5 of the ICARDA External Review Report
Strengthening the External Review Process
Other Items on the Standing Committee's Agenda
67. Dr. Hans Gregersen, Chair of the Standing Committee on External Reviews, reported on: the progress on the External Reviews of IIMI, CIP, CIAT and IITA; the Mid-Term Review of ICLARM; Inter-Centre Reviews/Studies; Chapter 5 of the ICARDA External Review Report on the external review process; an Inter-Secretariat Working Group Progress Report; and items on the Standing Committee's agenda.
IIMI
68. The Panel composition of the First External Review of IIMI was as follows:
|
Prof. Bernard Tinker |
UK |
Chair, Soil Science |
|
Prof. Alain de Janvry |
France |
Economics |
|
Prof. Jan Feyen |
Belgium |
Soil and Water Engineering |
|
Dr. Srinivasan Umapathy |
India |
Management |
|
Prof. Norman Uphoff |
USA |
Consultant, Irrigation Management |
|
Mr. Dan Carroll |
USA |
Consultant, Governance |
|
Ms. Elizabeth Field |
|
CGIAR Secretariat |
|
Dr. Amir Kassam |
|
TAC Secretariat |
69. The Committee was informed that the initial phase of the Review would be conducted at IIMI Headquarters from 7 to 11 November 1993, followed by visits to institutions and field locations in Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Niger and Burkina Faso from 12 to 20 November 1993. One of the Consultants, Prof. Norman Uphoff, would also visit Indonesia and the Philippines. The Panel Chair and the Management Consultant, Mr. Dan Carroll, would visit IIMI Headquarters from 29 November to 5 December 1993 to attend the Internal Programme Review and Board meetings. The main phase of the Review would be conducted from 17 February to 8 March 1994, while the Review Report would be considered at TAC 63 in March 1994, and by the Group at MTM'94.
CIP
70. Dr. Gregersen reported that the Fourth External Review of CIP would be conducted by a panel of four persons including the chair, and supported by consultants. The panel would include expertise in: crop improvement/crop protection (1 person); crop and natural resources management (1); socioeconomics/policy (1), and management (1). He recalled that planning of the Review had begun in consultation with the Centre. A short-list of potential panel chairs was considered at TAC 61.
71. TAC noted that the Standing Committee had approved a list of potential programme and management candidates for panel membership, and a shortlist would be prepared in consultation with the panel chair and the Centre. The tentative dates proposed for the main phase were from 23 January to 12 February 1995, with the initial phase to be conducted sometime during the period from mid-July to mid-September 1994. The report of the panel would be considered at TAC 66 in March 1995, and by the Group at MTM'95.
CIAT
72. TAC noted that the Fourth External Review of CIAT would be conducted by a panel of five persons including the chair, and supported by consultants. The panel would include expertise in: crop improvement/crop management/crop protection (2 persons); natural resources management (1); socioeconomics/policy (1), and management (1).
73. Planning of the Review had begun in consultation with the Centre. A short-list of potential panel chairs was considered at TAC 61.
74. TAC was also informed that the Standing Committee had approved a list of potential programme and management candidates for panel membership, and a shortlist would be prepared in consultation with the panel chair and the Centre. The tentative dates proposed for the main phase were from 1 to 20 February 1995, with the initial phase to be conducted sometime during the period from mid-July to mid-September 1994. The report of the panel would be considered at TAC 66 in March 1995, and by the Group at MTM'95.
IITA
75. The Committee noted that the Fourth External Review of IITA would be conducted by a panel of five persons including the chair, and supported by consultants as required. The panel would include expertise in: crop improvement/crop management/crop protection (2 persons); natural resources management (1); socioeconomics/policy (1), and management (1). There would be a member common to both the IITA and CIAT Review Panels to deal with inter-centre issues on cassava.
76. Planning of the Review had begun in consultation with the Centre. The tentative dates proposed for the main phase were from 10 to 30 April 1995, with the initial phase to be conducted during the period from late November to early December 1994 to coincide with the Board meeting of the Centre from 28 November to 1 December 1994. The report of the panel would be considered at TAC 67 in July 1995, and by the Group at ICW'95.
77. TAC considered a short-list of potential panel chairs, and noted that the Standing Committee had approved a list of potential programme and management candidates for panel membership which would provide candidates for selection in consultation with the panel chair and the Centre.
78. It was recalled that the Second External Review of ICLARM was scheduled for 1997, and a Mid-Term Review in early 1995, as recommended by the Report of the First External Review Panel in January 1991. The recommendation was endorsed by TAC and the CGIAR because there were reservations at that time about ICLARM's management and programme. The situation at ICLARM subsequently deteriorated. However, there had been a gradual improvement since the Board workshop, held at the time of the last Board meeting, and since the appointment of Dr. Larry Stifel as the Director General and Dr. John Dillon as Board Chair.
79. As there appeared to be no compelling reason to change the timing, it was proposed that the Mid-Term Review of ICLARM be conducted in early 1995 by a panel of two people (one on management aspects and the other on programme aspects), as well as resource persons from the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats. TAC suggested that the panel be supported by a consultant in either aquaculture or capture fisheries, depending on the area of expertise of the programme panel member.
80. The proposal to undertake a strategic stripe study of public policy and public management research was made by the Committee at TAC 61. The Standing Committee proposed that the study should be TAC led/guided with external inputs as appropriate, which would be similar to the stripe study of genetic resources (i.e. a panel of four to five persons, with at least two from developing, and two from developed, countries; involving mainly a desk study and significant input from the centres). The following terms of reference were suggested:
(i) To study the ways in which the CGIAR identifies, plans and carries out public policy and public management research.(ii) To suggest a System strategy and alternative structural options for such research.
The study would be conducted in several phases. The initial phase would be a desk study by the Secretariat followed by an assessment by a panel. Comments would then be solicited from the centres, NARS, donors, etc., before proposing a future System strategy and defining modalities for Systemwide collaboration.
81. In endorsing the proposal, TAC considered that more staff work was needed to define the boundaries of the proposed terms of reference, particularly with regard to socioeconomics and institution-building research. It was also considered important to define the boundaries of the policy and management research which the study should examine. TAC proposed that the study should be completed in time for discussion at TAC 65 in October 1994 and at ICW'94.
82. The need to undertake a study of CGIAR delivery mechanisms in different regions, starting with West Africa, was discussed at TAC 61. The Standing Committee endorsed the proposal to define more cost-effective ways of organizing the CGIAR presence in the region. The study would be TAC led/guided with external inputs as appropriate, as well as inputs from NARS, the World Bank, FAO, donors etc.
83. The objectives of the study would be: to identify overlaps; to find gaps in current delivery mechanisms; to assess NARS' views on (and capacity to use) delivery mechanisms; and to suggest strategies/options to increase efficiency and effectiveness of delivery mechanisms. The following terms of reference were proposed for the study:
(i) To make an inventory of, and assess CGIAR facilities, personnel, programmes and activities, programme expenditure and level of capital investment in the West Africa region.(ii) To identify and propose: (a) cost-effective options for organizing and operating the future CGIAR presence in the region; and (b) whether the study should be expanded to other regions, based on the assessment of the usefulness of the West Africa study to the System.
84. The study would have four phases. The first phase would be the preparation of an inventory by the Secretariat, followed by an assessment by the panel. This would be followed by a phase to solicit comments on the analysis of the inventory from NARS, centres and other agencies in the region. The final phase would involve panel preparation of options for the future, including whether the study should be expanded to other regions.
85. TAC considered that the study would provide an inventory of CGIAR's regional commitments, and suggested that the desk study should include an overview of other actors in the West Africa region. TAC endorsed the proposals and suggested that the desk study be completed in time for consideration at TAC 63 in March 1994, when the Committee would decide on the next steps, including panel composition.
86. It was agreed at TAC 61 that there should be an Inter-Centre Review on CGIAR's work on Roots and Tubers to study how this could be organized more effectively and conducted more efficiently.
87. TAC endorsed the following terms of reference for the Review:
(i) To assess CGIAR's organization and work on roots and tubers, considering them both as commodities and as components in production and farming systems.(ii) To explore alternative institutional mechanisms for carrying out this work.
88. The inter-centre issues would be addressed during the Reviews of CIP, CIAT and IITA in 1995 through a small inter-centre panel. The panel would comprise an independent chair plus two panel members, and any necessary consultants. One panel member would be from the CIP Panel in order to provide expertise on potato/sweet potato, while the other would be the member or consultant common to both CIAT and IITA panels, in order to provide expertise on cassava and yams. TAC considered a shortlist of potential candidates for panel chair.
89. The Inter-Centre Review would begin simultaneously with the External Reviews of CIP, CIAT and IITA. The main phase of the Inter-Centre Review would be in May 1995 after the completion of the main phase of IITA in April 1995. The report would be considered at TAC 67 in July 1995 and by the Group at ICW'95.
90. The Committee was informed that the Standing Committee met with Dr. Jock Anderson, Chair of the ICARDA Review Panel, to discuss the issues raised in Chapter 5 of the ICARDA Review Report. The outcome of the discussion would be reported under Item 6.
91. The Standing Committee received a progress report from the Inter-Secretariat Working Group on External Reviews which met on 18 and 19 October to consider ways of improving the external review process. The Working Group meeting also included a meeting of an External Review Focus Group, where ideas were solicited from Washington-based individuals who had participated in external reviews.
92. The Working Group was in favour of two options for strengthening/modifying the current review model; the issues-driven review (option 1), and the strategic evaluation (option 2). Under option 1, the review would cover all programme and management topics as at present, but relatively more effort would be spent on the most important issues. Panels would be restricted to four or five persons, including the chair. Under option 2 (which could replace interim external reviews), the review would be conducted by two to four broadly-based persons, who were not necessarily disciplinary experts. The review would focus on: (i) commentary on the centre's overall performance and the strategic future direction proposed by the centre: and (ii) adequacy of the mechanisms in place for strategic planning, priority setting, peer reviews and quality control, financial and personnel management processes, etc.
93. The Working Group also discussed possible mechanisms to respond to the weakness of reviews in handling NARS-related issues. One of the options considered was to conduct periodic regionally-focused studies/reviews that would address broad issues of NARS' capabilities and the interface between NARS and CGIAR Centres.
94. The Working Group had proposed follow-up action on the following:
· Further development of the two options proposed for conducting external reviews.· Evaluation of these options relative to existing mechanisms using a set of agreed criteria.
· Development of a model for the regionally-based studies/reviews of NARS-CGIAR interface.
· Re-examination of the purpose, terms of reference and guidelines for external reviews, based on the recommended options, and proposal for modifications accordingly.
· Development of an approach (which could be an improved questionnaire survey) for the assessment of the NARS Centre interface to assist external review panels.
· Development of a questionnaire for the assessment of science quality and interaction with advanced institutions.
· Development of other guidelines/approaches to assessing performance of specific aspects of centres' programmes or operations.
· Consideration of possible improvements in the way thematic/inter-centre reviews are designed, organized and managed.
Commenting on the report of the Working Group, Dr. Gregersen, Chair of the Standing Committee, stated that they would propose future action on the basis of comments received during TAC 62 and the final report of the Inter-Secretariat Working Group expected in March 1994.
95. The Committee noted decisions reached on other items on the Standing Committee's agenda:
(i) Information: The Standing Committee had decided to proceed with its earlier suggestion of conducting an Inter-Centre Review on Information Activities, Needs and Strategy in the CGIAR. A brief concept paper would be prepared to synthesize the current state of the art on this subject and propose options for the Inter-Centre Review.(ii) Cereals: TAC had proposed an Inter-Centre Review of Cereals (excluding rice) to be conducted during 1996. The Standing Committee would prepare a proposal for TAC's consideration.
96. The TAC Chair recalled that in October 1991 TAC considered and endorsed a note prepared on the history, procedures and guidelines for the King Baudouin International Agricultural Research Award. The note recommended a continuation of current practice, with some fine tuning of the guidelines and criteria. TAC had then reviewed the original selection criteria for the Award which stated, It is suggested that the criteria should be flexible, but the overriding criterion is the actual or potential impact of the achievement in furthering the objectives of the CGIAR. The criteria were revised and included in the invitation letter sent to centres for Award submissions.
97. In the light of the recently completed Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies, TAC once again reviewed the criteria and revised them to focus on scientific excellence and relevance, and to make them consistent with the revised mission and goals of the CGIAR.
(i) Scientific value: This criterion covers aspects such as the degree of innovation and scientific achievement with regard to problem identification, research methodology, generation of new knowledge and the impact of research outputs on other areas of research and development.(ii) Collaboration with NARS: This criterion covers collaboration with respect to problem identification, conduct of research, training and the strengthening of national programmes,
(iii) Collaboration with IARCs: This criterion covers collaboration with respect to problem identification, conduct of research and the achievement of outcome.
(iv) Direct or indirect, actual or potential impact on resource-poor farmers and low-income people: This criterion covers the contribution made to raising income, lowering costs, improving quality of products and nutritional status of beneficiaries, with special emphasis on the equitable distribution of research results, particularly for women.
(v) Direct or indirect, actual or potential impact on sustainable production systems: This criterion covers the contribution made to the successful management of resources for agriculture, forestry, or fisheries to satisfy present and future human needs without degrading the environment or the natural resource base.
98. The order of presentation of the criteria did not imply a ranking, the criteria would be applied on a weighted basis when assessing the submissions, which were expected to be received in time for consideration at TAC 64 in June 1994. The winning entry would receive the Award at ICW'94. The TAC Chair agreed to write to the Centre Directors inviting them to make submissions by 15 March 1994.
99. The TAC Chair informed the Committee that donors who had contributed special funds to the TAC regular budget were not expected to do so in future because of the current and projected financial constraints in the CGIAR. Consequently, TAC would have to maintain the cost of its operations within the level of resources provided by the three Cosponsors; namely FAO, the World Bank and UNDP. The Cosponsors were also not expecting to increase their contribution to the TAC regular budget.
100. In order to accommodate the expected budget shortfall, TAC would have only two regular meetings per year starting from 1995. Both meetings would be held at CGIAR Centres. Furthermore, TAC and the TAC Secretariat would be downsized.
101. The following dates and venues were considered and approved for TAC Meetings in 1994 and 1995:
|
TAC 63: |
21-27 March 1994, FAO, Rome, Italy |
|
TAC 64: |
20-26 June 1994, WARDA, Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire |
|
TAC 65: |
17-22 October 1994, IFPRI, Washington D.C., U.S.A |
|
TAC 66: |
14-25 March 1995, CIP, Lima, Peru |
|
TAC 67: |
a seven-day window between 11-25 July 1995, IRRI, Manila, Philippines. |
(i) Meeting at the Carter Centre, Atlanta, USA
102. Dr. McCalla reported that about a year ago President Carter and UN Secretary General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, organized a conference on how aid could be made more effective and have greater impact. Participants included political and technical people. The conference recommended that President Carter should establish a Standing Panel of World Leaders to identify high priority efforts to be undertaken by aid agencies and countries to foster sustainable development along the lines of UNCED Agenda 21 and the Brutland Commission. However, President Carter was sceptical about the usefulness of aid and was not sure about the role of the proposed Standing Panel.
103. Subsequently, with the assistance of Dr. Uma Lele of the University of Florida, President Carter invited about 15 people to the Carter Centre, Atlanta on 9 September 1993 to advise him on what should be the highest priority for this 'blue ribbon' committee. Dr. McCalla represented the CGIAR. Other participants included: Mr. James Gustave Speth, Administrator, UNDP; Mr. Nitin Desai, Under-Secretary General, Department of Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development, United Nations; Mr. Kim Jaycox, Vice-President for Africa, World Bank; Mr. Keith Bezanson, President of IDRC; as well as representatives from IMF, USAID and several developing countries.
104. The meeting noted that developing countries went through an agonizing experience in seeking and implementing technical assistance projects, many of which failed. A few success stories were mentioned, such as the Sasakawa Global 2000 Project. Dr. McCalla had stressed the need for a working mechanism to make aid more effective, and to be able to identify what was both good and wrong with aid. In his view it was important to ensure that successful elements of the aid process should be emulated and given greater support. He indicated that the CGIAR was a good example of success. He also noted that the Carter Centre would be preparing a few case studies to identify mechanisms which work well at the country level.
(ii) CGIAR Follow-Up to UNCED
105. At ICW'92 Dr. Stein Bie of Norway presented a proposal for a CGIAR Action Programme to follow up UNCED. The proposal was later revised to incorporate comments made at ICW'92 and presented at MTM'93 in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The CGIAR Chairman appointed a task force consisting of Drs Stein Bie (Chair); lain C. MacGillivray (Canada), Pedro Sanchez (ICRAF); Hubert Zandstra (CIP) and Carlos Zulberti (UNEP) to refine the proposal for further discussion at ICW'93.
106. The Task Force recommended four initiatives for consideration by the CGIAR:
· Management and productivity of marginal soils.· Genetic resources - particularly in situ conservation of crop, animal, fish and forest genetic resources.
· Human resources.
· Agroecological database/GIS.
107. These initiatives would be funded through a separate funding window consisting of a trust fund under UNEP. It was intended that the programme should not divert funds already earmarked for other CGIAR activities.
108. TAC's views were needed on:
· Whether these initiatives were the kinds of priority programmes that the CGIAR might support.· How the programme related to the Systemwide initiatives proposed by TAC, e.g.; the stripe study of genetic resources; and the set of ecoregional proposals in the CGIAR Resource Allocation document which have a significant soils component.
· The focus on marginal soils as opposed to good soils.
· The relevance of the GIS initiative given the number of CGIAR Centres and other actors, particularly FAO, already involved in this area.
· Whether the CGIAR had absolute advantage for handling the human resources issue.
109. In the ensuing discussion TAC Members were concerned about the focus given to marginal soils in relation to marginal lands. Furthermore, they were of the view that CGIAR efforts should concentrate on good lands. The proposal was considered to be too ambitious given the low funding level envisaged. It was also unclear how the initiative could attract additional donor funds since most of the proposed activities were already incorporated in the centres' MTP documents for the 1994-98 period.
110. There was a need for close interaction between the genetic resources initiative and TAC's stripe study of genetic resources in the CGIAR. TAC noted that the genetic resources initiative contained only one component of the stripe study - exploring methods for effective in situ germplasm management - but also made reference to animal and fisheries which were not in the TAC study. TAC would point out to the CGIAR that animal genetic resources was an area also deserving special attention. Regarding the human resources initiative, TAC saw difficulty for CGIAR involvement under current financial constraints.
111. In concluding the discussion the TAC Chair stated that the CGIAR needed to demonstrate its involvement in UNCED Agenda 21, tap additional resources available for environmental and sustainable development activities, and package these in a manner consistent with its own priority agenda. TAC was generally pleased with the positive interest shown by donors and particularly by the CGIAR Task Force on the follow-up to UNCED Agenda 21. However, it considered the soils and genetic resources initiatives to be too narrowly focused. Furthermore, TAC was not convinced that the CGIAR had an absolute advantage in human resources development, and while welcoming the GIS initiative, it considered the resources earmarked to be inadequate. Overall, TAC was greatly encouraged by the attitude of donors regarding CGIAR involvement in the follow-up to UNCED Agenda 21 and commended the Task Force for its work.
