CHAPTER 4 - THE VISION AND STRATEGY

4.1 ICRISAT's Vision and Strategy

4.1.1 History and Current Situation

The fourth EPMR of ICRISAT conducted in 1996 emphasized the need for a strategic realignment of ICRISAT by adopting a new paradigm based on the strategic partnership model. Global germplasm research was to be located at ICRISAT's headquarters in India, while natural resources management research was to be concentrated in Africa. In response to the EPMR recommendations, the newly appointed Director General of ICRISAT in 1997 mapped out a new vision for ICRISAT with programmatic implementation for ICRISAT research. The vision was focused on the Centre's stature within the mandate region, its mission to increase food security, reduce poverty, and protect the environment through partnership-based (NARS) international agricultural research. A streamlined agenda and efficiency gains were sought by consolidating the former 12 Research Projects (operating under 7 disciplinary research divisions) into three Programmes, namely: the Genetic Resources and Enhancement Programme, the Natural Resources Management Programme, and the Socioeconomics and Policy Programme. Subsequently, a fourth programme was added in 2000 - The Information Resource Management Programme. The Vision statement spells out how resources are expected to be allocated over the various programmes and regions.

In genetic resources, ICRISAT adopted a new paradigm in strategic germplasm research, using "new science" to exploit the genetic endowment in its gene bank more systematically and fully. For the first time in its history, ICRISAT's genetic improvement effort was organized according to major topical thrusts (e.g., biotechnology, targeted crop improvement such as hybrid parents research), rather than by mandate crops. Land degradation and water use were proposed to be the two major thrusts of ICRISAT's NRM work. Work on technology components was de-emphasized but complemented with research on NRM problems faced at the watershed and agro-ecology levels. The main aim was to identify sustainable uses of the natural resource base that could help reduce poverty, promote food security and prevent environmental degradation. In the initial years following the EPMR, the emphasis of NRM work shifted from Asia to Africa but much of this was eroded over the past few years due to declining unrestricted resources (see section 5.3).

In the field of socioeconomic research, the emphasis was on the analysis of the potential of SAT agriculture, alternative investment strategies, input and product markets and policies. ICRISAT's research work increasingly became integrated with partners' needs and priorities. Inspired by the EPMR suggestion, the social science team of ICRISAT initiated the SAT Futures initiative, especially in scanning the changing global and agricultural research environment, and the consequences for the ICRISAT agenda.

The future trends and scenarios in agriculture in the SAT of the developing world (Ryan and Spencer 2001) were used as a basis for planning a new vision and strategy for the institute by the new Director General. For the Centres of the CGIAR, the latitude in choosing a vision is somewhat restricted, as the framework provided by the Consultative Group should not be violated. ICRISAT has properly recognized this and claims to be guided by the seven new planks of the CGIAR that are derived from its vision of a food secure world for all. The WEHAB (Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture and Biodiversity) principle underlies the strategy for 2000-2010. Key entry points for ICRISAT's strategic research objectives include a) food, through enhancement of cereal grains like sorghum, millets and others; b) nutrition, through legumes - chickpea, pigeonpea and groundnut; c) health, through biofortification and removal of toxic food contaminants; and d) livelihoods through diversification of income generation, which leads ICRISAT beyond its mandate crops and involves both agriculture and non-agriculture. ICRISAT's vision is open-ended and is the improved well-being of the poor of the semi-arid tropics, which it hopes to accomplish through 'agricultural research for impact'. The visions will serve at first until 2010, but may actually need to be extended far beyond this date.

The ICRISAT mission statement elaborates on the vision in that it promises to pursue the vision while insuring the protection of the environment and in partnership with many stakeholders. The promise of the mission statement to conduct 'Science with a human face' is not further elucidated. The Centre's mission focuses on the SAT's poor and aims to improve their livelihood by improving: (1) production and nutrition and affordability of the mandate crops; (2) diversity of use of staples; (3) sustainable use and management of natural resources; (4) techniques and tools to manage risk; (5) diversity of income generation; and (6) delivery systems to key clients.

The strategy of ICRISAT is to accomplish its mission through problem-based, impact-driven regional and local projects that are subsumed in six Global Research Themes (GTs). These projects are to reflect specific regional strategic priorities (SA and SSA) and should be scientifically excellent and generate impact by targeting opportunities to help the poor. The great emphasis is on partnership "with functional linkages between research, extension, farmers and markets". Priority setting and impact assessment are claimed to be part of the strategy.

The six global themes as first defined in the MTP 2003-2005 are:

GT1 - Harnessing biotechnology for the poor
GT2 - Crop improvement management and utilization for food security and health
GT3 - Water, soil and agro-biodiversity management for ecosystem health
GT4 - Sustainable seed supply systems for productivity
GT5 - Enhancing crop-livestock productivity and systems diversification
GT6 - SAT futures and development pathways.

They are described in a brief fashion in the strategy paper with a more extensive retrospective section on impact highlights for each GT. More details are found in the 2003-2005 MTP. A Systemwide initiative on the Desert Margins Programme (DMP) is managed independently. We reflect on the GTs and the DMP in more detail in chapter 5.

The GTs were derived from the SAT Futures exercise and the resulting report and are consistent with the vision, mission and strategy. Some new areas of business are assembled under GT4 and GT5. However, the GTs are essentially a reorganization of the previously existing 10 Global Projects into Global themes in such a way that they more effectively address the 4 Global Impact Target Areas defined by ICRISAT; these are:

Coping with Crises
Generating Enterprise Profitability and Sustainability
Nourishing the Well-being of Families and Businesses
Building Partner Power

The aim is to integrate and consolidate related areas of work for more efficient research implementation, management and reporting. For each GT the Vision and Strategy document provides a set of objectives and deliverables but no time lines. Some differentiation in approach and deliverables between SA and SSA is provided in these descriptions.

4.1.2 Assessment

The Panel notes that ICRISAT's mandated domain of operation is the semi-arid tropical region with a short growing season, recurrent droughts, vulnerable soils, and limited run-off. This is, no doubt, one of the most challenging environments for the pursuit of this mission. The lack of any quantitative goals in its vision may leave the reader with the impression that ICRISAT has outfitted itself with an open-ended agenda. Maybe it is not wise to make promises that are quantitative and can or will not be met, but the absence of any concrete targets or milestones in the Vision and Mission statements that will guide ICRISAT in the coming years make it more difficult to measure accomplishments of the Centre.

The Panel also notes that, although the Strategy may serve as a broad statement of principle, it lacks specificity. Particularly, it lacks the context of the grand challenges that shape ICRISAT's agenda. For the benefit of the EPR a document on "Major issues confronting ICRISAT's research agenda for 2003 and beyond" was prepared. In this document the Centre defines 4 Global Impact Target Areas and elaborates on the issues it wishes to address, but a further consultation process will be needed to bring those down to a set of reachable goals. Though the Vision statement acknowledges the differences between SA and SSA (p.3) it makes little effort to analyse these regions in order to differentiate the major challenges and resulting strategies. The issues paper is also rather mute on this issue.

The debate of where ICRISAT's involvement in the partnership continuum should stop and be largely devolved to NARS and NGO's is alive and well in the Centre, but not addressed in the Vision and Strategy statement. Linking with a broad range of change agents from SROs down to the farmer that are proposed as partners carries in it the danger of addressing issues that will not lead to the generation of IPGs. Particularly in this respect the two regions may have to be approached differently. The new Impact Assessment Unit was established partly for this purpose and some of these issues may be addressed in the ongoing priority setting exercise.

The GTs are presently rather different in size. The document does not give an indication of what the Centre would consider an optimal mix in its portfolio to effectively address its mission in the SA and SSA region. For an outsider, donor or stakeholder, this guiding document for the (near) future of ICRISAT fails to clearly position the institute. It lacks a logical framework and fails to transmit a vision of where ICRISAT wishes to set its priorities and allocate its resources. It leaves the Institute open, within the broad terms of the strategy paper, to be steered by the donor community into areas where it will neither have a comparative advantage nor deliver IPGs. Some of these tendencies were already observed during the site visits by the Panel.

In October 2001 the Vision and Strategy document was adopted by the Board after it was discussed in the PC. However, it is not clear where the Centre is planning to place its core resources, neither between the GTs nor among the regions. Yet, apparently, the implementation of the new Vision and Strategy required a re-alignment of core competencies (Board minutes).

According to a document from a multi-Centre workshop on priority setting, named 'Planning in muddy waters', the process of priority setting by ICRISAT was all encompassing and participatory, involving key stakeholders such as ARO, NARS, policy makers and farmers involved in workshops, thus tapping a large, multi-disciplinary pool of expertise. The process has now been made into a GT (6) as SAT futures. The process claims ...'to have analysed constraints in meeting the ICRISAT vision for the coming decades and .... the implications for R&D strategies and priorities for the SAT, and the roles for ICRISAT, NARS, NGO's and the private sector'... In fact, the process has yet to be concluded and the Panel only viewed a partially completed Logical Framework that eventually should emerge from this process.

It appears that the staff of the Centre is now fully participating in the strategizing process. Some delay was unavoidable due to the fact that the DDG research has changed during this process.

4.2 International Public Goods and Comparative Advantage

The main objective of the CGIAR is to help generate International Public Goods (IPGs) through research and related activities. IPGs have been defined as benefit providing utilities that are in principle available to everybody throughout the globe. Three types of benefits that are non-excludable (i.e., cannot be expropriated) and non-rival (i.e. consumption by some do not reduce amounts available to others) give rise to public goods - risk reduction, enhancing capacity, and direct provision of utility.^[3] From the standpoint of an IARC like ICRISAT risk reduction benefits would cover elimination of the risk or reduction in the incidence of a plant disease. Enhancing capacity covers generation of knowledge and training, i.e. enhancing the capacity to use knowledge. Conservation of biodiversity and protection of the environment achieve direct provision of utility.

IPGs have a spatial range across borders and even continents, while National Public Goods (NPGs) are inherently national such that they are delivered at the national level, and a substantial proportion of the benefits accrues only at the national level. By their nature all ICRISAT GTs produce capacity enhancing benefits. GT2 and GT3 can produce risk reduction benefits, while GT1, GT2, GT5 and the DMP can directly provide utility. The actual activities that should be undertaken by ICRISAT in providing the benefits depend very much on its comparative advantage, an issue discussed below.

The stated vision of ICRISAT from now to 2010 is that "Although ICRISAT's focus is global, we have a particular emphasis on sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 300 million poor people live." (Introduction by the Director General to the document 'ICRISAT's Vision and Strategy to 2010'). The remainder of the vision document indicates that substantial research still will be conducted at Patancheru, India but that some of this research will be targeted to backstop research conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. The vision document does not discuss research by ICRISAT in the Americas and presumably little research activity is planned for this Continent as was the case in earlier years. The vision document points out that research will emphasize reducing poverty, hunger and malnutrition in the SAT regions of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

The need for international intervention in agricultural research is different, however, for the African SAT than the Asian SAT for which India is the largest part and also has many poor people. Whereas development in Africa will be based on agriculture, India is rapidly industrializing and, providing the current trends persist, will be at a par with western countries in terms of GDP in a decade or so. Recently, India has started to assert itself as an equal partner with the West. Having the world's second largest agricultural research community, India should be increasingly seen as an equal partner and contributor to solving the agricultural production and natural resource problems of the SAT. In Africa, where infra-structure and development trends are lagging far behind, there are tremendous opportunities for International Agricultural Research Centres, such as ICRISAT, to assist the weak NARS by providing IPGs and building human capital, in order to reduce poverty, hunger and malnutrition. The Panel feels that ICRISAT has a strong comparative advantage and a wider scope for producing IPG's in sub-Saharan Africa than in South Asia.

ICRISAT proposes to continue to place major emphasis in research in the SAT on its mandate crops: sorghum, pearl millet, groundnut, chickpea and pigeonpea. These crops are staple food energy, protein and oil crops for many poor people in the SAT. Presumably, ICRISAT also plans to continue to exploit opportunities for improving crop production by its mandate crops in the more humid climatic zones where significant production of some of these crops does occur. ICRISAT has a comparative advantage for conducting plant breeding and agronomy for its mandate crops irrespective of where they are grown.

However, for ICRISAT to comprehensively pursue the improvement of cropping systems in major SAT regions of sub-Saharan Africa, it also needs to place some emphasis on other crop species, such as cowpea, as it has done in the past at the Sahelian Centre in Niger. The major crop species grown in the Sahel are pearl millet, groundnut and cowpea. When grown in rotation, cowpea can reduce infestations of various pests on the other crop species providing the cowpea cultivar that is used suppresses the reproduction of the pest. Clearly there is a need for close collaboration between ICRISAT and major cowpea breeding programmes, such as those of IITA, which has the CGIAR mandate for crop improvement research with cowpea.

An advantage of International Centres compared with developing-country national programmes with respect to applied and strategic agricultural research is that International Centres have a higher probability of developing IPGs. This is because they have the potential ability to recruit and retain excellent scientists, and provide them with the facilities and conditions needed for them to conduct effective high quality applied and strategic research. Another advantage of International Centres compared with national programmes and institutions in both technologically developed and developing countries is that International Centres have a clearer mandate for collecting and distributing germplasm on a world-wide scale. Following this mandate ICRISAT has developed the major international germplasm collections for its mandate crop species: pearl millet, sorghum, groundnut, pigeon pea, chickpea, and six small millets. A third advantage of International Centres is their access to experimental sites in many contrasting ecological zones and sociocultural domains through either their off-campus centres or their partnerships with many national programmes.

The advantages above provide International Centres with a specific, major comparative advantage for conducting plant breeding to produce enhanced germplasm that is then used by national programmes to develop new varieties. The execution of plant breeding programmes benefits substantially from the ability to evaluate diverse germplasm in a broad range of environments that have contrasting biotic, physical and chemical conditions and stresses. The IPGs that can result from these efforts include germplasm with resistance to specific biotic, physical and chemical stresses and different product qualities, and more efficient breeding methods. However, for International Centres to make full use of these advantages they must be able to develop comprehensive plant breeding teams that access all of the necessary disciplinary expertise including: genetics, molecular biology, plant sciences, plant pathology and pest sciences, and in some cases soil sciences, food science, socioeconomics etc.

It is useful to consider where International Centres do not have a comparative advantage. They do not have a strong comparative advantage in location-specific varietal development, since, in the long term, national programmes and commercial companies have the potential to be much more effective in addressing local constraints and have more sustained efforts in varietal development and seed production and distribution. Consequently, in principle and in the long term, International Centres should promote the use of the enhanced germplasm they develop through partnerships with national programmes and commercial companies that breed varieties. However, in the short term, for places such as many countries in sub-Saharan Africa where national and commercial plant breeding programmes are not yet strong, International Centres do continue to have an important role in breeding crop varieties in collaboration with national programmes.

International Centres also do not have a comparative advantage with basic research that is pursued solely for the purpose of enhancing understanding, compared with research programmes in advanced institutions. Consequently, where specific up-stream research is viewed as potentially important for complementing major applied research thrusts, International Centres should pursue this research through partnerships with advanced laboratories that have a greater comparative advantage for conducting more basic research. In the main, ICRISAT has pursued appropriate strategies of this type since the last EPMR.

ICRISAT has a mandate for conducting strategic and applied research to benefit poor people in the semi-arid tropics, but it should not be considered as having a comparative advantage in all of this complex subject area. ICRISAT has developed considerable expertise over the years in research to develop improved rainfed cropping systems for the SAT that include ICRISAT-mandate crop species, and this strongly complements the work on germplasm enhancement and varietal development. This research exploits the synergies that can occur when combining new varieties with complementary cropping systems. ICRISAT research on seed systems can facilitate the extension of varieties and improved cropping systems to farmers. ICRISAT also has developed considerable expertise on soil and plant water and nutrient relations that complements its work on germplasm enhancement and varietal development, and addresses key constraints to the development of improved cropping systems for the SAT. ICRISAT's work on integrated pest and disease management complements its efforts to develop germplasm with multiple resistance to pests and diseases, and makes possible a more comprehensive approach to the development of improved cropping systems that also enhance the environment and public health. Another advantage of more comprehensive approaches is that transfer of technologies to national programmes and farmers can become more effective once near-complete improved systems have been developed.

Through earlier research, ICRISAT has gained a comparative advantage in working on larger-scale systems, such as watersheds, and in analyzing the agro-ecological variability and characteristics of the various SAT environments. This research has led to improved understanding of SAT agro-ecological zones and niches where current and potential new varieties of its mandate crops could be successful, and the development of improved methods for managing agro-ecosystems in the SAT. ICRISAT has also gained comparative advantage in the generation and use of socioeconomic data for tracking the development of rural communities in the SAT, the VLS database, as well as in the evaluation and design of new seed systems for the SAT.

A recent initiative by ICRISAT to move more strongly in research for developing improved, integrated cropping and livestock systems for the SAT has been justified by two sets of factors: 1) Forage and feed links occur between livestock, cereal and grain legume products, and there are soil-fertility links with livestock manure. 2) These integrated systems could make major contributions to NRM and improvement of livelihoods in the SAT. Conceivably, ICRISAT could develop a substantial comparative advantage in the improvement of integrated cropping and livestock systems for the SAT that rely on rainfall, providing it maintains strong linkages with the International Livestock Research Institute and other research Centres.

Some other research areas for the SAT have recently been introduced into the ICRISAT research agenda e.g., irrigated market gardens, system diversification using tree and vegetable crops, and monitoring and preservation of native species, where there is a potential for producing IPGs, but in which other institutes have strong programmes, although these might not be in the SAT. ICRISAT needs to carefully assess its comparative advantage in these areas, and must build strong partnerships and focus on strategic research. ICRISAT will have difficulty in conducting and sustaining research of high quality in areas where it does not have a clear comparative advantage.

The Panel's overall conclusions are that the comparative advantages of ICRISAT in research are in the following areas. 1) Developing, maintaining, and enhancing the use of germplasm collections of its mandate crop species. 2) Breeding enhanced germplasm and, in the short term improved varieties in some cases, and developing improved breeding methods for its mandate crop species. 3) Developing improved rainfed, cropping and integrated cropping and livestock systems for the SAT in sub-Saharan Africa that include its mandate crop species and consideration of larger-scale aspects of NRM, such as enhanced watershed and agro-ecosystem management. 4) Analysis of institutions, policy, commercialization of seed systems, and the marketing of ICRISAT mandate crops. 5) Generating data and analysis of the evolution of rural communities in the SAT.