The Questionnaire
The Replies
As part of the preliminary phase of the Strategic Study, CGIAR Centres and other research institutes were canvassed for their views on the CGIAR role in harvest and postharvest research. This was done through a questionnaire sent to all CGIAR Centres and a selected group of institutions conducting postharvest research of an international scope.
The questionnaire addressed three issues: i) the substantive focus of research to be supported; ii) the organizational models through which such research should be implemented; and iii) the level of support appropriate for the overall portfolio.
Research focus
Considering that the CGIAR includes activities in crop and livestock production, fisheries and forestry, and to concentrate the attention of the reader on the research foci for such activities, questions under this section avoided the issue of "postharvest" definitions and boundaries. Taking a broad view of postharvest-related activities, they offered a choice of possible research areas ranging from one end of the food chain to the other - breeding to market. Thus, identified areas focused on:
· Product Quality: the characterisation of biochemical and physical components affecting either nutritive quality or the industrial processing of primary products; the identification of genes governing such qualities; and germplasm enhancement.· Harvest and Storage: the development of harvest mechanisation and storage facilities for small producers; the integrated management of storage pests and diseases; germplasm enhancement for resistance to factors causing storage losses.
· Utilisation and Marketing: the identification of opportunities for product diversification; the processing of primary products (e.g., drying, milling) and by-products (e.g., straw, waste water) and the assessment of demand for product development.
· Policies and Institutions: the dissemination of technology; the promotion of small-scale enterprises to apply technology; the establishment of grading rules and quality standards; and the design of development policies to improve infrastructure and political stability in marginal areas.
Organizational Models
The set of organizational options presented in the questionnaire ran essentially along two main lines of inter-institutional relations: initiatives within the broad CGIAR family: and the involvement of outside suppliers through contract arrangements. Within the internal mode, two of the options presented dealt exclusively with CGIAR Centres:
· Centre-operated programmes.
· Inter-Centre collaboration
Two others, involved broader collaboration:
· Centre collaboration with national research systems, including networks.
· CGIAR Systemwide programmes.
The remaining possibilities were based on contracting the research to outside organizations:
· Research contracted to public sector organizations.
· Research contracted to private sector organizations.
Level of support
Questions in this area were seeking a relative assessment of present funding levels, by asking if they were considered to be "about right", "too high", or "too low".
What follows are the main characteristics of the replies from the different respondents on the three issues addressed by the questionnaire. Full replies are available from the TAC Secretariat.
On Research Focus
1. From CGIAR Centres
As expected, all 13 replies focus on mandated crops, which to a certain extent, condition Centres' views. It should be noted, however, that Centres responsible for the so-called "poor farmers' crops" (i.e., low value crops, such as roots, tubers and millet; "orphan crops", such as the andean crops; and non-timber forest products) appear to be the main advocates of increased CGIAR involvement in postharvest research.
In general, their suggestions focus on the development of technological innovations, and not so much on the analysis of socioeconomic environments hindering the application of available technology. They do not see any particular advantages of direct involvement by the Centres in research on postharvest problems, especially those lying beyond the "farm gate".
The main conclusions could be summarized as follows:
· Replies indicate that to different degrees Centres consider all areas as appropriate for CGIAR support, ranging from minor support to harvesting (few Centres), through moderate support for utilisation and marketing (evenly split), to the maximum for identifying problems and opportunities and research on the quality and storage of primary products (large majority). This could be interpreted as recognising that any research on postharvest problems includes a set of related processes linking field production to final marketing. Some Centres went further and related their view that all areas of research were appropriate as indicating that postharvest problems should be viewed in the context of comprehensive, integrated systems.· Among the main research areas, those relating to the identification of problems and opportunities, and to the quality of primary products, were unanimously indicated as deserving support. The main reasons behind this may be summarised as:
i) the importance of research on genetic diversity in traits determining quality in food, feed and other products, in order to capture the price advantages of better quality;ii) the public good characteristics of research outputs from these areas; and
iii) the closeness of such research areas to existing programmes in the Centres.
· A few Centres considered storage as an area deserving CGIAR support. Most of them focused their attention on losses in "poor farmers crops" caused by pest and diseases, and by their perishability at ambient temperatures, especially for small-scale farms operating under low-input conditions.
· Replies on the appropriateness of CGIAR involvement in utilisation and marketing research would indicate somewhat controversial positions among Centres. Some argue that, in addition to primary processing, research on market demand, consumer acceptability and market development should also be included - in line with the current thinking about food chain systems. Others are of the opinion that the CGIAR should limit this research to the primary processing phase. These Centres do not see as appropriate investing in research on the transformation of farm products into consumer goods, except as part of an ex-ante priority setting exercise. Their view is that, given the commercial opportunities, such transformations should attract investments from the private sector. Irrespective of their views on the scope of utilisation and marketing research, there seems to be a general consensus among "pro-market" Centres on two issues. First, that the focus of such research should be on small-scale operations at the level of the farm or village. Second, that although solutions to utilisation problems are location-specific, CGIAR contributions should concentrate on methods to analyse, design and develop solutions; which could be considered as "international public goods".
· Two areas were identified under the "others" category, namely policy and training. The former is based on the assumption that certain types of post-harvest technology are less location-specific than production-related technology, and can easily be adapted to a wide range of different circumstances. The role of policy pertinent to market and trade would then be critical for enhancing the utilisation of available postharvest technology. Training is suggested as a way of redressing the imbalance in current attention to post-production problems, broadening the target group to include the private sector, NGOs and other groups, especially those giving access to women at the village level.
2. From other Research Institutes
Only one of the nine replies from the consulted institutes mentions "poor farmers' crops" as the appropriate focus for postharvest research in the CGIAR. Several of them, however, indicate the need to include fruit and vegetables, given changes in consumption patterns and impact on food security. As in the case of replies from the Centres, very few of those from non-CGIAR institutes elaborate on the rationale for CGIAR Centres to conduct the particular type of research being suggested.
The main conclusions could be summarised as follows:
· The overall pattern of "appropriateness" for CGIAR support to the five areas is similar to that expressed by CGIAR Centres. Harvesting is still lowest, but relatively higher than among the Centres. Replies are again split evenly among those considering it appropriate for the CGIAR to have a role in utilisation and marketing, and those that do not. And the same strong support is given to the remaining areas concerned with identifying problems and opportunities, quality of primary products and storage.· Among the few replies that addressed specific research areas, the following may be noted. In the area of identifying problems and opportunities there is a suggestion that this approach should document both the causes and extent of losses, and analyse sociocultural impediments to minimising loss. The product quality area is almost unanimously seen as being the most appropriate for CGIAR support. The role of Centres is characterised as first understanding problems and opportunities in harvesting, storage, utilisation and marketing, and then addressing generic issues affecting the availability of improved varieties from their breeding programmes. Another prominent actor in this field sees the need for CGIAR expertise as being limited to quality evaluation, harvesting and storage, because utilisation and marketing are, and should be, better handled by other national research and development institutes. Policy is mentioned again among the "other" areas, jointly with a systems methodology to evaluate postharvest activities and actors from production to end use.
On Organizational Models
1. From CGIAR Centres
In general, Centres see a set of the suggested models as being appropriate to carry out postharvest research, depending on the research focus and the various contributions that interested parties could make. Although only two Centres attempt to match models with research focus, it seems clear that all of them assume that the collaborative mode is essential to carry out postharvest research. Germplasm enhancement for pre-defined qualities would be the activity closest to the "Centre-operated programme" model. But even in this case it is recognised that such research should be done in co-operation with national research systems (model 2 of the questionnaire).
Collaborative models are seen as most appropriate by a great majority of the Centres, especially those involving Centres and national research systems. Only one Centre does not entirely share such views. While it agrees on Centre collaboration with national programmes, it is of the opinion that postharvest activities are too crop and location specific to benefit from inter-centre collaboration. Reactions to the "Systemwide" option show again a large consensus among Centres, but this time indicating that such a model is not an appropriate mechanism within which to conduct postharvest research. They see the crop and cultural specificity as not making postharvest research amenable to the Systemwide model. Ecoregional arrangements are viewed as more appropriate.
In the case of using capabilities lying outside the broad CGIAR family, through contract arrangements, many Centres consider them to be viable alternatives, but do not elaborate on their rationale. The few that do so indicate a preference for working with the public sector, especially NGOs and Food Science Departments. There are also several Centres that do not consider this model appropriate at this stage in the development of the "business", particularly in the village context. But again, no rationale is given in support of that opinion.
2. From other Research Institutes
As with the Centres, non-CGIAR institutes also see various combinations of the suggested models as being most appropriate for conducting postharvest research - and again, collaborative models involving national research systems and Centres are the preferred choice. In this instance, however, even Systemwide programmes are considered an appropriate model, with a similar emphasis given to contracting to outside organizations. Nevertheless, contracting arrangements were the only ones to be considered inappropriate by a few of those who responded.
In general, the impression given is that postharvest research should be carried out in a collaborative mode. In this context, the respondents see the national research systems as playing a preponderant role in the definition of priorities, while the Centres are visualised as facilitators or co-ordinators of participatory approaches to the adaptation of existing technology to changing circumstances.
On Level of Support
1. From CGIAR Centres
In their replies several Centres, and especially those committing resources to postharvest research, elaborate on the potential contribution of postharvest activities to the achievement of sustainable increases in production. In addition to the effect on income generation of "backward and forward linkages" between production and marketing, it is argued that rates of return to investments in post-harvest research should be higher than those in production research, given the early stages in the development of the "information curve" for the former.
In this context, the Centres are of the opinion that relative levels of support are too low, for the following reasons:
i) the impact on poverty alleviation of reducing product and quality losses in commodities produced by the poor;ii) the importance of utilisation research for increasing product value and food security;
iii) the potential return to further investments in an unexploited field, especially under the increasing rural-to-urban migration; and
iv) the high research costs, in terms of investments in quality testing labs and assessing market information.
There are several Centres, however, that consider present levels "about right". Some of them believe that much of postharvest-focused research is covered by germplasm enhancement and ecoregional activities; while others see the need for re-allocating resources (from research on technology innovations to that on adoption), rather than to seek additional funds for post-harvest research.
2. From other Research Institutes
All institutes find the existing level of support to be too low, on grounds similar to those presented by the Centres.
Replies were received from the following:
Centres:CIAT, CIMMYT, CIP, ICARDA, ICLARM, ICRBAT, IFPRI, IITA, ILRI, IPGRI, IRRI, ISNAR and WARDAOthers:
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)
German Council for Tropical and Subtropical Agricultural Research (ATSAF)
Centre for International Cooperation in Agricultural Research for Development (CIRAD)
Cornell University (Fruit and Vegetable Science)
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) - AGSI
Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales y Agropecuarias
Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria
International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
International Union of Food Science and Technology (IUFoST)
Overseas Development Administration(ODA)/Natural Resources Institute (NRI)
Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Research Section
Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC)
