Global Theme 1 (GT1) was formulated to harness biotechnological approaches to complement and further strengthen ICRISAT's crop improvement efforts. Biotechnology research at ICRISAT started in 1996 under the Genetic Enhancement Division. At the time of the last EPMR, ICRISAT had limited in-house capacity to carry out modern biotechnology research. After the streamlining and re-organization of ICRISAT in 1997, the activities in wide crossing and linkage mapping were elevated into two projects (G4 and G5), which were consolidated further into a single project, G2 (New tools: adapt and apply new science methods to SAT crops improvement). In 2000, the Genomics Project was formally created. Significant investments on human and capital resources were made including the hiring of the Head of the Applied Genomics Laboratory (AGL). Centralized genomics and transgenics laboratories were established. More recently, an IP office and the Biosafety Committee were created. In 2001, Biotechnology was elevated into a project (P5) and finally reassigned as GT1 when ICRISAT shifted from a programmatic to a thematic structure in 2002.
Throughout the evolution of the biotechnology programme at ICRISAT, its stated goal, purposes and objectives have remained fundamentally the same. GT1 has remained committed to develop: (a) agronomically elite pre-breeding and transgenic lines of ICRISAT mandate crops with drought, pest and disease resistance and better agronomic traits, including food, feed and fodder quality; (b) well characterized genetic stocks for crop improvement and basic scientific research; and (c) robust and cost effective biotechnological tools for molecular breeding, and detection of pathogens, toxins, transgenic contamination and purity of seed production systems.
The current structure of the GT1 has adopted a product-based framework that enables projects to apply any combination of techniques to achieve their goals. GT1's research strength and focus have remained primarily in applied genomics, specifically markers and MAS. ICRISAT's earlier ambivalent position on transgenic research has been resolved by recent successes in the development of transformation protocols and transgenic products as well as the changing external environment (financial, policy, political). Transgenic research at ICRISAT is focused mainly on development of transgenic legumes with disease or pest resistance traits for both Asia and Africa. Within the applied genomics area, the long-term focus has shifted from simple traits like disease resistance towards more complex traits such as components of drought resistance, pest resistance, and food and fodder yield. Regarding specific problem/crop combinations, the focus has changed quite frequently, with the changes largely driven by the availability of external funds. Hence, in the rolling MTPs from 1998 to 2005, some milestones appear, disappear or re-appear. A similar situation was also observed in the case of wide crosses and diagnostics research.
Markers, maps, cloned genes, mapping populations, and databases as well as pre-breeding lines and transgenics for targeted traits will continue to be generated. An Agri-Business Incubator and an Agri-Biotech Science Park initiative have been launched to demonstrate ICRISAT's serious and long-term commitment to applying modern biotechnology including transgenic technology for targeted interventions in its mandate crops.
All activities under GT1 are being carried out in ICRISAT-Asia. Opportunities to decentralize to sub-Saharan Africa were initiated in 2002, by moving an internationally recruited staff from Asia to East Africa, currently hosted at ILRI, to serve both ICRISAT and IITA on a cost-shared basis. Research and development, starting with capacity building activities have been initiated for the region. A similar joint position has been established with CIRAD in Mali. In India, priority will be given to protocol, technology, and biosafety development activities plus applications for Asia in collaboration with NARS and the private sector.
5.1.1 Critical Mass
In order to implement the various activities under GT1, a total of 29 senior scientists, including IRS, special project scientists, post doctoral fellows, and scientific officers with various expertise contribute a total time equivalent of 13.7 person years (PY). Each scientist contributes between 0.5 to 1.0 PY. The total time allocated to biotechnology in Africa is 0.7 PY divided between a molecular biologist (0.5 PY) and an economist (0.2 PY). The largest proportion (7.2 PY or 66%) of the total scientist's time is allocated in applied genomics, followed by bioinformatics. The Head of AGL/GT1 team leader contributes 50% of his time to leading the legume genomics group. There is a dedicated cereal genomics scientist but only one IRS providing scientific expertise for transgenic activities in all five crops.
5.1.2 Assessment
Biotechnology at ICRISAT. The Panel commends ICRISAT for its determined and unstinting efforts to bring to bear "new science and tools" for conservation and improvement of its mandate crops. The Panel applauds the staff of GT1 for its ground-breaking achievements in the development of transformation systems and transgenic products in its mandate crops, except pearl millet. The Panel notes the significant investments made by ICRISAT to rationalize its germplasm collection (see Section 3.3) and upgrade its in-house capacity to conduct research in genomics, transgenics and bioinformatics during the period under review.
Except for lack of a full-time legume genomics scientist, GT1 has sufficient critical mass in applied genomics and bioinformatics, which could be augmented, if necessary, by its wide array of partners. However, the staffing in transgenic research has remained to this day, way below critical mass and needs to be addressed immediately if ICRISAT hopes to continue its success and create impact in this strategic niche.
The Panel concludes that ICRISAT's decision to pursue the course of biotechnology research has opened up tremendous opportunities and has given ICRISAT a distinct comparative advantage to conduct strategic research and generate international public goods for its mandate SAT crops (see discussions below).
1999 and 2000 Reports. The two reports considered by the EPR Panel in lieu of CCERs are: the1999 Consultant's Report on Applied Genomics Lab and the ICRISAT sub-Panel Report on Systemwide Review of Plant Breeding Methodologies in the CGIAR in 2000. The EPR Panel finds the reports candid, informative and useful. Both reviews came up with similar findings and recommendations in areas where they overlap. The Panel agrees with the findings and recommendations, and notes ICRISAT's positive responses and attempts to address them. However, the Panel notes that the lingering problem of effective and operational integration of biotechnology with the genetic resources and plant breeding programmes at large remains to this day, an "unfinished business". This cannot be set-aside anymore if ICRISAT wants to re-establish its reputation as the world's leading germplasm and improvement research Centre of its five mandate crops for the SAT. The Panel's strong view on this issue is expounded in the recommendation made in section 5.2.
Strategic niches. The latest document relating to GT1 lists applied genomics and transgenic technologies to underpin its strategic niche in an identified problem/commodity area. The Panel concurs with this assessment and recognizes that at the international level, most of the Centre's mandate commodities have no alternative supplier of biotechnologies and transgenic products. The Centre should place more emphasis on strategic niches that it is uniquely qualified to address. The Panel urges ICRISAT to maximize this unique opportunity to build comparative advantage in the IT area to generate more international public goods not for ICRISAT alone but for the benefit of the entire CGIAR System.
Transgenics at ICRISAT. Transgenics, including those being developed by ICRISAT, are coming closer to the markets of Asia and Africa. But there's a huge gap between the "shelf and the market" as well as other concerns that must be addressed. The Panel notes some of the critical concerns.
Products and traits. Some CGIAR Centres, including ICRISAT, are developing transgenic lines as part of their product portfolio. Most CGIAR Centres have focused their conventional breeding efforts on technology transfer, and development and dissemination of intermediate products, such as pre-breeding lines, inbred lines, seed parents, elite germplasm, etc, and leave it to their NARS partners to further develop and distribute them as finished varieties. CGIAR Centres treat transgenic lines, much within the context of distributing breeding lines. However, breeding and release of transgenic cultivars are fundamentally different from those of conventionally bred cultivars. Development of transgenic varieties will dramatically affect the current methods and practices of varietal evaluation and release because of constraints posed by Intellectual Property (IP), biosafety and public acceptance issues (see discussion below). There's a huge gap in knowledge in this area of research. The Panel believes that ICRISAT has the comparative advantage and the opportunity to contribute to this gap in knowledge beyond the boundaries of SAT crops.
Intellectual Property issues. Plant breeders routinely combine useful genes from various sources into as many varieties as possible. The benefits of such method and practice are obvious. However, the IP issues inherent in proprietary technologies from different sources can severely restrict the breeding practices and consequently delay/stop the delivery of products to the target clients of ICRISAT. ICRISAT must ensure that it has full Freedom to Operate (FTO) for all transgenic products that it will develop and not leave it to their NARS partners to negotiate for its use.
Biosafety issues. Health and environmental issues will be the defining factors in the final dissemination and acceptance of transgenic crops. The enormous cost required for biosafety testing, particularly for novel traits, are beyond the capacity of most NARS to afford, even if they are willing to do so. There is real danger that due to lack of resources transgenic varieties derived from the CGIAR Centre products will be disseminated without rigorous biosafety analysis and approval. Very conservative estimates made by the private sector place the cost of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) testing alone at US$4-5 M per product for commercial release. Environmental biosafety testing must be addressed too. Studies on gene-flow, unintended targets, resistance management schemes and multi-location trials are standard requirements for release. Almost all national regulations for commercial release of transgenic crops, issue approval per transformation event and contain liability claims. Who will foot the bill for CGIAR products? Who will have custodianship of the transgenic products? Ex-ante and ex-post analyses of the product will be of enormous value for making decisions. For transgenics, methodologies are still being developed and there is much for ICRISAT to contribute in these areas of research particularly for SAT crops.
Public awareness and information dissemination. Public acceptance of transgenic crops will entail enormous efforts in communication to reach its SAT clients. The Panel urges ICRISAT to maximize this unique opportunity to build further comparative advantage in ICT-based distance learning systems to generate more international public goods.
In light of the above considerations, there is an urgent need for strategic research as well as enormous opportunities to generate international public goods within the continuum of technology development to product deployment in genomics and transgenics.
The Panel recommends that ICRISAT continue to undertake strategic research on genomics and transgenic product development for SAT crops; and together with other CGIAR Centres and relevant partners, address the pressing issues on intellectual property, biosafety and public acceptance of transgenic crops.
The current structure of GT2 resulted from the consolidation of several projects. The expected deliverables are described by ICRISAT as being "Genetically diverse trait-specific populations and breeding lines; regionally adapted parental lines, varieties and hybrids; farmer participatory methods and products; impact-oriented IPM technologies; and opportunities for wider utilization of SAT crops." These deliverables have been objectives of ICRISAT since its establishment in 1972; however, farmer participatory methods and products, and opportunities for wider utilization of SAT crops have received greater emphasis in recent years. The EPR Panel notes that evaluation of IPM technologies are also included in Global Theme 5 and from an organizational standpoint fit better in Global Theme 3 where we will discuss them. The Genetic Resources Unit also reports under GT2 with the objective of providing well-characterized accessions of ICRISAT-mandate crops to NARS and scientists world wide.
Presumably in response to the first recommendation of the last EPMR, GT2 has adopted a two-pronged breeding strategy underpinned by the vast and diverse germplasm collections of its mandate crops. The first is to breed varieties for those regions of the SAT where national programmes and private breeding companies do not have sufficient strength or activity to develop adequate quantities or qualities of cultivars. This strategy is being emphasized in sub-Saharan Africa for all of the mandate crops in those countries and zones where these crops can be grown. The second strategy, involves GT2 and GT1 programmes at Patancheru, India producing intermediate products, such as breeding lines with special traits, and improved breeding methods that assist GT2 breeding programmes in Africa, and NARS and private company breeding programmes in both sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. In South Asia, and especially India, a major objective with sorghum and pearl millet is for GT2 to produce parental lines and breeding methods for use by NARS and private companies in breeding hybrid varieties. GT2 programmes at Patancheru also have produced pure line cultivars of chickpea and groundnut and they are promoting the use of hybrid varieties of pigeonpea.
The ICRISAT Sub-Panel Report of the Systemwide Review of Plant Breeding Methodologies in the CGIAR (2000) provides important information for assessing activities under GT2 during recent years. The EPR concurs with the Sub-Panel assessment that the ICRISAT plant breeding programmes have had an excellent record of accomplishments but that a declining resource base, multiple changes in leadership, shifts in paradigm, and downsizing associated with these changes have seriously weakened the programmes such that "There is a need to re-build the critical mass in staff size of ICRISAT Plant Breeding Programmes." The following analysis indicates the extent of this problem in Africa where GT2 now deploys 6 scientific staff positions and 12 support staff.
In sub-Saharan Africa, as of 2003, ICRISAT did not have a single comprehensive pearl millet breeding programme. ICRISAT has a sorghum breeding programme with one IRS position in Mali and partial programmes in Kenya and Zimbabwe. The programme in Mali gives very strong emphasis to using Guinea-race sorghum germplasm and as such may be missing some breeding opportunities that could be gained by including more Caudatum-race and other sorghum germplasm in the breeding programme. ICRISAT only has part-time breeding programmes in groundnut (in Mali) and pigeonpea (in Kenya), and modest chickpea breeding activities in Africa. None of the ICRISAT breeding programmes in Africa appear to have the levels of scientific staff support in plant pathology, entomology and weed science needed by first-class plant breeding programmes for these crop species. It is not prudent for ICRISAT to mainly rely on breeding programmes at Patancheru, India as the source of germplasm for Africa. These materials are unlikely to be very effective as varieties in Africa due to the large genotype x environment interactions that often occur.
Significant loss in ability to conduct conventional plant breeding also has occurred at Patancheru, India where 7 scientific staff are now deployed and about 12 support staff. In contrast, staffing and resources in biotechnology (GT1) have increased substantially in recent years (refer to section 5.1). The upstream breeding practiced by GT2 at Patancheru does, however, have the opportunity to benefit from the projects of GT1 involved in the development of transgenic lines and methods for DNA marker-assisted selection, but this will require very close collaboration between GT1 and GT2 personnel. To be most effective, ICRISAT should have a single comprehensive strategic genetic resources and germplasm enhancement programme at Patencheru that effectively integrates biotechnological techniques with conventional varietal improvement methods. The current separation of these activities into two themes, GT1 and GT2, might have been desirable while GT1 was being established but a seamless merging of their activities is now needed at Patancheru.
During the period under review, ICRISAT appears to have followed a strategy based on the Terms of Reference for the Sub-Panel, which stated "assess the possibility of freeing up resources, implicitly by reducing the resources involved with Conventional Plant Breeding, so that applications on new techniques (Biotechnology) could be expanded as appropriate". However, the action of ICRISAT is contrary to the Sub-Panel recommendation that Conventional Plant Breeding should be strengthened not weakened. The Sub-Panel used the following arguments to support their position on this issue. "The basic premise for this aim appears to be based on the belief that Plant Breeding at CGIAR Centres is generally strong, and Biotechnology, as practiced by Centre scientists have generated good results and [are] beginning to replace efforts in Plant Breeding. We believe this premise, at least in the case of ICRISAT is incorrect. First, Plant Breeding at ICRISAT is not as strong as it used to be. Secondly, the new effort in biotechnology has not produced germplasm or cultivars [such] that it can now replace plant breeding. Furthermore, experience elsewhere, the US seed industry for instance, suggests that even when Biotechnology generates valuable germplasm, an increase (not a decrease) in efforts of a strengthened Plant Breeding programme is actually warranted". The EPR Panel believes that these arguments are even more valid in 2003 than they were in 2000.
Careful prioritization in choice of traits for crop improvement programmes is critical for success in plant breeding. Some traits being pursued by both GT2 and GT1, such as resistance to specific important pests and diseases, are clearly of very high priority. Note that private biotechnology companies have put major emphasis on pest resistance, illustrating their perception of its value. Unfortunately, biotechnology companies are unlikely to do this type of work for the mandate crop species of ICRISAT.
Droughts can be a major limitation to crop production under rainfed conditions in the SAT but work by ICRISAT on adaptation to drought must be carefully targeted if it is to achieve important results in a reasonable time frame. The most reliable method for enhancing adaptation to drought of grain crops is to select for yield in the target production environment where the variety will be grown by farmers. Conventional plant breeding has made progress using this technique and while this has been difficult work, and progress has been slow, it still is used because it has been effective and reliable. While ICRISAT has obtained indications that use of DNA markers may be effective in indirect selection for yield, the results are preliminary. Confirmatory studies are needed because theory predicts it is extremely difficult to reliably detect useful genotypic (G) differences in yield, while using the many lines required to obtain effective markers for very complex traits, due to the difficulty of separating out effects on yield due to environment (E) and G x E. Consequently, ICRISAT also should continue to focus on selecting for lower level traits that have been shown to be effective in specific circumstances, such as optimal phenology, root traits, leaf stay-green and water-use efficiency, which may complement selection for yield and provide more effective strategies for enhancing adaptation to drought. ICRISAT has been pursuing these intermediate level traits using both phenotypic and marker-assisted selection in GT2 and GT1.
The Sub-Panel recommended that ICRISAT plant breeding programmes should develop improved and clearly delineated collaborative relationships with the INTSORMIL and Peanut CRSPs because the complementarily and resource saving that can accrue to both parties from such associations can be significant. The EPR Panel agrees with this recommendation because these CRSPs are active in sub-Saharan Africa, have substantial access to advanced research laboratories in the US, and provide comprehensive opportunities for graduate education. ICRISAT documents provided to the Panel did not provide much discussion of this issue. ICRISAT has collaborated extensively with the Peanut CRSP in the last five years. Current collaboration is in the areas of management of aflatoxin and rosette, and in joint publication of the International Arachis Newsletter, which is less than the collaboration in earlier years. This is unfortunate because it will limit the progress that can be made in helping poor people in Africa by either ICRISAT or the Peanut CRSP.
ICRISAT also has collaborated extensively with INTSORMIL in the last five years. In 1998, INTSORMIL signed a memorandum of understanding with the ICRISAT managed SMIP and an agreement incorporating six INTSORMIL-funded regional projects into the SMINET research portfolio. Presumably this collaboration will be weakened considerably when the projected termination of SMIP occurs in 2003. The loss of SMIP probably would result in reduced crop improvement activities in southern Africa by both ICRISAT and INTSORMIL. Controversy still remains as to whether ICRISAT and INTSORMIL should focus on the collaborative development of hybrid or open-pollinated varieties of sorghum and pearl millet with different African NARS. Strong collaboration with INTSORMIL could assist ICRISAT in developing the most effective strategies concerning the development and deployment of sorghum and pearl millet varieties and seed systems in different parts of sub-Saharan Africa.
Plant breeding and germplasm enhancement programmes need to be stable if they are to be adequately effective because they substantially benefit from a long-term outlook and management. In recent years, high turn-over of senior staff and frequent transfers have occurred and will continue to occur with projected retirements that can be particularly damaging to plant breeding programmes due to the long time-frames of many activities conducted by these programmes. Many of the worlds most successful plant breeders had the opportunity to work for many years on the same plant breeding programmes. The EPR Panel is of the opinion that ICRISAT should try to enhance the stability and effectiveness of the crop improvement teams by developing appropriate staff recruitment and deployment strategies. These strategies should minimize transfers and provide sufficient overlapping of personnel so that newly recruited plant breeders can learn from the previous breeders who they are replacing.
With regard to the genetic resources activities, the Panel agrees with the positive assessment of the Sub-Panel. The EPR Panel strongly believes that while further substantial progress has been made including the establishment of core and mini-core collections for the five ICRISAT-mandate crop species (refer to section 2.2), the vast potential of the ICRISAT germplasm collection still remain beyond the reach of plant breeding programmes. Application of biotechnological tools is needed to realize this potential through the efforts of highly effective and truly integrated crop improvement programmes for all of ICRISATs mandate crops.
In light of the facts and assessments made in the preceding sections as well as in section 5.1:
The Panel recommends that ICRISAT should maximize the synergy possible when GT1 (Harnessing Biotechnology for the Poor) and GT2 (Crop Improvement, Management and Utilization for Food Security and Health) plus their partners work closely together to generate International Public Goods for the SAT. ICRISAT should rapidly re-engineer and rebuild its crop improvement programmes and further enhance the evolution of the two-pronged breeding strategy for Asia and Africa.
5.3.1 Water and Soil
This Global Theme resulted from the amalgamation of previous P1 (Raising soil productivity to help SAT farmers grow their way out of poverty) and P2 (Efficient use of natural resources in watersheds) and part of P3 (Farmer participatory approaches to integrated pest and disease management). According to the Major Issues Paper prepared by ICRISAT this environmental research will be firmly anchored on the integration of genetic and natural resource management strategies, particularly to adaptation to drought and water and nutrient use efficiency. The new focus will be on income-generating options for managing soil, water and agro-biodiversity. This involves the development of low cost, input efficient, integrated natural resource management strategies, low-cost water catchments and conservation systems, managing agro-biodiversity for ecosystem sustainability, and institutional and policy reform for water usage. The Vision and Strategy paper states that, in contrast to recommendations made by the 4th EPMR, ICRISAT will be active in both Asia and Africa. However, in the subsequently prepared Issues Paper for this EPR Panel (p. 7), the Centre seeks advice on whether it has the Africa-Asia balance right. At present the regional projects include:
Diversification of income-generating options for improved livelihood, agro-ecosystem health in the SAT of WCA.
Enhance agro-biodiversity and catchment management for agro-ecosystem health in East Africa
Improve livelihood strategies of the rural poor through integrated soil, water and nutrient management in Southern Africa
Improve rural livelihoods through sustainable management of watersheds in Asia
ICRISAT continues to be heavily invested in watershed work in Asia, even beyond the mandate region. The work includes small dams with micro-perimeters, alternative soil management systems, provision of germplasm, vermiculture and monitoring and economic evaluation at a community level. In Africa, ICRISAT continues to pursue the targeting of fertilizers (micro-dosing), management options for manure and or residues, and managing agro-biodiversity for ecosystem sustainability. GT3 also continues to promote system simulation as a tool to increase research impact (see 2.3). Farmer participatory methods and promoting farmer field schools are further tools for scaling out and assuring impact.
Assessment
GT3 emerged from part of the NRM programme and was evaluated by a CCER in 2001. The CCER was of limited help to the Panel in passing judgment on the track-record of GT3. Though it argues that the EPMR did not suggest that NRM work in India be sacrificed for the sake of expansion in Africa, this Panel concludes that with the limited resources available, Africa should be given priority. From our observations and discussions with NARS, we also conclude that ICRISAT does not have a comparative advantage in this area of research in India and possibly in Asia as a whole, regardless of whether donors are interested in involving ICRISAT in this work. There is little doubt that ICRISAT adds flavour and some upstream NRM technology to the Watershed project consortium, but it would be hard to argue that this input could not be provided by the Indian NARS. The possible exception might be the supply of novel germplasm but this could be handled by GT2. Surprisingly, few activities have been in place to transfer this knowledge to Africa where the concept of watershed management is in its infancy. A watershed project in Northern Ethiopia was terminated prematurely when funds ran out. Given the drastic loss of the natural resource base on this continent, the need is urgent. ICRISAT is seeking funding to build up a watershed project in Eastern Africa with the help of a joint appointee with ICRAF in Nairobi.
For Africa, the CCER strongly endorsed ICRISAT involvement in NRM research but hesitated to classify the output as IPGs. With the exception of the development of models as tools, the Panel concurs that much of the research done and proposed by GT3 is too far downstream to insure the generation of international public goods. Regarding the models, the Panel is pleased to note that they have advanced to an early stage of applicability. It might be advisable to carefully evaluate the acceptability of this tool to change agents and farmers in a few years before deciding the fate of this endeavour.
Although the activities proposed under GT3 address serious issues confronting farmers and are worthy of attention, these programmes do not take into account that African farmers are often constrained by policies and actions taken by the government. Thus, the best micro-dosing technology is of limited value in a country that does not assure access to input markets. Similarly, targeting income generating technologies at the farm level without assessing the effect on the environment or economy as a whole may not be sufficient. There is a dire need in the African SAT to assist national policy makers in shaping their land use, water rights, management and marketing policies such that the farmers will be enabled to implement the practices that are beneficial to them and the environment and avoid conflicts.
Whereas the scaling-out of farm technologies can be done by agencies with better access to the farmer, scaling-up requires an agency that has access to the required tools such as Remote Sensing, modern GIS-based models and the interdisciplinary teams necessary to tackle these complex issues. Who will do this type of work in the African SAT if not ICRISAT? ICRISAT should reconsider its largely field-scale-based programme on NRM and broaden the spectrum of NRM research to larger watersheds in the African SAT, in which communities with contrasting interest are sharing resources. To reflect this commitment, the GT might consider renaming itself Land, Water and Agro-biodiversity management for Ecosystem Health. The example above was given for illustrative purposes only. Other research challenges that concern the African SAT are the rapid loss of soil organic matter and particularly of the quality of this important soil constituent, the management of small perimeters of the rapidly sprouting small dams by farmers with no expertise in irrigated farming etc.
The GT3 programme as part of the NRM commitment of the Centre is operating far below critical mass with only 18 Ph. D.-level scientist, 11 of whom are in Asia. The remaining are spread over 3 locations in Africa. Support staff is weak in both regions; 4 in Asia and 8 in Africa. The Panel considers the current research agenda for GT3, understaffed and to be too dispersed and lacking in strategic components requiring longer-term funding. The GT3 commitment in Africa has dropped below critical mass. The recent addition of components of the Desert Margin Programme (discussed below) does little to alleviate these problems.
The Panel recommends that ICRISAT phases out GT3 (Water, Soil and Agrobio-diversity Management) research in Asia where it no longer has a comparative advantage, by devolving this research to NARS. These resources should be redeployed in Africa where they should be engaged in addressing some of the major challenges in land, water and agro-biodiversity research facing the SAT of that continent.
5.3.2 Integrated Pest and Disease Management
One of the key purposes of GT3 is pest management (MTP 2003-2005). However, no milestones reflecting this purpose were explicitly identified as staff from Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Integrated Disease Management (IDM) placed their work in GT2 and GT5 in 2002. The previous Centre Project 3, which was operational up to about 2001, described ICRISAT's goal for these activities. It is to reduce poverty among smallholders by increasing the productivity of SAT cereal/legume systems through the development and adoption of eco-friendly pest and disease management options integrated with improved pest- and disease-resistant varieties. IPM/IDM is a holistic multidisciplinary management approach that integrates various prevention and control methods on the basis of ecological and economical principles to combat pests and diseases.
In South Asia, total crop losses due to pests and diseases are common even with substantial use of pesticides. This use of pesticides also has resulted in some environmental degradation, operational health hazards, and diminished profits. In Africa, IPM/IDM are critical needs because smallholder farmers, for the most part, do not yet have sufficient resources to adopt extensive chemical control measures. Use of some pesticides is increasing but it is potentially hazardous to smallholders who may not fully understand the dangers or for various reasons do not adequately follow the precautions needed in using them. The Panel considers that there is a greater need for IPM/IDM research and development activities by ICRISAT in sub-Saharan Africa than in South Asia. In general, NARES in South Asia have greater capacity to develop and extend these technologies than NARES in Africa. In principle, however, many of the IPM and IDM technologies developed by ICRISAT are IPGs and some are relevant in areas of both Africa and South Asia.
Though host plant resistance can be the most stable and least-cost approach to managing pests and diseases in smallholder systems in the SAT, adequate levels of resistance often are not available for all of the biotic constraints. Therefore, the strategy ICRISAT used is to combine all available effective tools in a holistic system: resistant varieties, improved agronomy, judicious use of synthetic pesticides and botanical pesticides, and use of biological control agents. In developing and extending IPM/IDM technologies ICRISAT has taken a participatory approach, which is highly appropriate for these types of activities. Full integration of farmers into the processes of technology development, testing and assessment is critical because IPM/IDM, in essence, replace use of pesticides by information technology. Without a participatory process, IPM and IDM technologies could be difficult for extension agents to understand and for farmers to practice and thus adopt, especially for the many farmers with limited formal education and resources. Hands-on training of NGOs, NARS scientist and farmers has been an important activity. Various networks have been established that focus on IPM, IDM and other research areas including: ICRISAT-CLAN (Cereals-Legumes-Asia network), ROCAFREMI (for pearl millet in 14 African countries) and ROCARS (for sorghum in 18 African countries).
ICRISAT has conducted a broad range of IPM/IDM research and development in both South Asia and Africa since the last EPMR. Some research in South Asia has resulted in technologies that have been adopted by farmers. Pod borer in pigeonpea and chickpea has been managed with biological control agents (a virus and a fungus), and traditional techniques, such as manual shaking and providing perches for birds. Bud necrosis and rosette disease have been controlled in groundnut by using resistant varieties and agronomic practices, such as increased plant density. Methods were developed for managing botrytis gray mold in chickpea. Sunflower was identified as an effective trap crop for the insect pest Spodoptera. Foliar diseases of groundnut have been controlled by combining resistant cultivars and carefully timed sprays with fungicides. Head bug in sorghum was controlled by avoiding multiple sowing dates, spraying with insecticide and using an alternate host plant. Some of these activities resulted in substantial achievements and impacts and were highlighted in section 2.3. Other research underway in Africa includes the development of IPM/IDM technologies for stem borer, head miner and downy mildew in pearl millet, and for early leaf spot and late leaf spot in groundnut
The Panel considers this to be an area of very high priority for ICRISAT. The range of activities is so broad, however, that it may result in resources being spread too thinly to be fully effective.
The Panel recommends that ICRISAT prioritize and consolidate its activities in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Integrated Disease Management (IDM). Potential projects should be chosen with priority being given to projects that address constraints that are important in Africa and are potentially solvable through IPM or IDM approaches.
GT4 evolved primarily as a result of adoption studies, which indicated that access to seed was a major obstacle in using improved seeds, especially in Africa. It was also in response to the expressed requests from the NARS networks for active involvement of ICRISAT in their breeding programmes, particularly in backstopping, training, fund-raising and information sharing activities. Like all other Global Thematic Areas, GT4 evolved from the merger of several projects: SEPP-S4 (More efficient seed systems, and the impact of new varieties on farm biodiversity) of the Socioeconomics and Policy Programme (SEPP) and a seed system-related GREP project (G4: Partnerships to share breeding materials in farmer-friendly forms) into GREP project P8: Improving seed supply for research impact (MTP 2001-2003). After the project portfolio in MTP 2002-2004 was reduced from 12 to 10, Project P8 was re-numbered to P7. In 2002, P7 was elevated into global theme GT4, with a Global Theme Leader (GTL) located in ICRISAT-East Africa.
Throughout its evolution, GT4's goal has remained essentially the same i.e., to increase the productivity of farming systems in the SAT through increased use of modern varieties. This was slightly expanded recently to include the use of diverse germplasm (MTP 2003-2005). Its stated purpose is to develop and evaluate more efficient and cost-effective seed supply options and institutional arrangements.
In order to attain its goal and purpose, GT4 (and its forerunners, S4, G4 and P8/P7), implemented a wide range of activities, largely in Africa, to analyze various seed systems, including farmer- and community- based systems, emergency relief systems and formal seed systems in collaboration with a wide range of partners. GT4 has concentrated its efforts in the following areas:
Breeder and foundation seed supply. This project aims to provide financial and technical management options for multiplication of breeder and foundation seed of publicly developed varieties available for testing by interested stakeholders. In the period under review, it established revolving funds for breeder seed production of SAT crops in India and a number of countries in Africa (Malawi, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Mozambique). It also developed seed catalogs and established links to community seed production. Based on these activities, ICRISAT has provided recommendations on seed certification e.g., truthfully labeled seed policy, in Tanzania. Work is in progress on comparative case studies on the development of financial and technical management option and draft policy recommendations for NARES on seed sources.
Seed supply for food crops. This area includes a number of activities aimed at providing seed supply options to broaden the range and diversity of food security crops grown by farmers in the semi-arid tropics. The work resulted in the documentation of seed management practices, pilot testing of seed production with primary schools and marketing of small seed packs through rural markets. Current activities aim at identifying uptake pathways for modern groundnut varieties and providing draft policy recommendations to strengthen farmer seed systems. More recent work is extending the focus to adoption studies to quantify impact and to scaling-up - in other crops and regions.
Emergency/relief seed supply options. The main focus of this area is to develop recommendations for seed interventions by humanitarian agencies in situations of chronic political instability and/or following natural disasters. Notable accomplishments includes the small seed pack programme implemented in Somalia, impact assessment of a relief programme in West Africa and demand driven research in Mozambique. The latter implemented a number of successful activities e.g., seed fairs in 2001 and 2002 that led to the development and institutionalization of seed supply assessment tools and the Research Committee recommendation for the Doreen Mashler Award. In addition to seed needs assessment output, this work published a seed fair manual, special issue of Disasters 'Beyond Seeds and Tools' and a manual for seed-based agricultural recovery.
Seed supply for commercially traded crops. This area includes a range of activities related to commercialization of SAT commodities and institutional issues in public-private partnerships. The focus of this area is to identify sustainable seed supply options available for commercially traded crops of importance to farmers in the semi-arid tropics. In the period under review, ICRISAT has helped to pilot interventions to stimulate demand and to link community seed production to a commercial seed company, and has completed a number of case studies. More recently, the project initiated a number of activities to increase groundnut, chickpea and pigeonpea seed production in several countries in Africa.
Seed policy research. This area aims to provide policy options for national governments, regional organizations, and international bodies that will broaden the range of crop and varietal options for farmers in the semi-arid tropics. Research outputs include analysis of returns to regional seed markets and a policy draft on regionalized breeding/release.
Critical Mass
GT4 has a total staff complement of scientist and support staff contributing the equivalent of 14.35 PY. There are 8 IRS and 7 RRS, including the Global Theme Leader, contributing the equivalent of 6.45 person year in 7 locations across South and East Africa (4.8 PY) and West Africa (1.3 PY) and in Asia (0.35 PY). All scientists are trained in various disciplines (farming systems, seed science, breeding and economics) and have been with ICRISAT for at least six years. There is tendency for most of the IRS to allocate efforts across several projects, resulting in fragmentation of relatively small time allocations for some projects and activities.
Assessment
The EPR Panel commends the efforts of GT4 staff in providing technical assistance in seed multiplication and in promoting alternative seed delivery systems in Africa. The Panel notes further the innovative research collaborations they have established with a wide range of partners that included NARS, NGOs, farmer groups, private seed companies, the business sector and ARIs. The Panel believes that it is essential for ICRISAT to define explicitly its role and exit strategies in the research projects, particularly with regard to NGOs and the private sector.
Overall, GT4 has maintained a focus that is relevant to the marketing aspects of this theme. However, the Panel notes the following:
GT4 is considered by ICRISAT as a new area of research designed to bring together the seed production and marketing aspects of the seed sector. However, GT4's goal and purpose has remained essentially that of the former SEPP-S4. There is insufficient and/or lack of attention to the genetic resources, crop improvement and utilization components that are supposed to be addressed by this theme. It limits itself to a practical agenda involving seed production, training and a future plan for screening germplasm.
Hybrids and transgenics, including those being developed by ICRISAT's GT1 and GT2, are reaching closer to the markets in Asia and Africa. There is an urgent need for strategic research in seed systems, seed movement and market chains as well as ex-ante analysis, especially in evaluating transgenic products, which could be best carried out with GT1 and GT6.
The great majority of current activities and outputs of GT4 are more attuned to addressing immediate problems, and relegate much of their staff time to practical and applied research agenda that will likely produce limited strategic research results and IPG's relevant to SAT needs.
GT4 is also supposed to address the seed system aspects of GT3 and GT5. However, there is no mention of any activity related to these GTs.
GT4 addresses cross-cutting issues and requires a strong link with GT6, which has the socioeconomics and institutional expertise.
In light of the above considerations:
The Panel recommends that ICRISAT rationalize the role, scope and objectives in terms of its comparative advantage in conducting research generating IPGs in GT4 (Seed systems). This includes addressing the anticipated problems related to marketing transgenic materials it will produce. The purposes and goals of GT4 will be best served if its activities are strongly anchored into appropriate global themes where interdisciplinarity can be enhanced and resources more efficiently and effectively utilized.
GT5 was created in order to assemble previous activities in crop diversification and explicitly address a new area identified as a result of the SAT Futures study, i.e. livestock integration. The stated goal is to improve livelihoods and sustainability through strengthened crop-livestock integration and system diversification options. Priority areas of research are 1) Enhancing crop-livestock productivity through improved feed quantity and quality; 2) Alleviating rural poverty through system diversification and income generation; 3) Evaluation of sustainable IPM techniques in diversified systems; and 4) Enhanced partnerships, capacity building, and information sharing
The theme expects to produce the following outputs:
Dual-purpose cultivars of legumes and cereals with enhanced feed value evaluated and promoted in mixed production systems (link with GT2)
Eco-friendly IPM options to ensure good quality fodder and feed evaluated and disseminated (link with GT2-GT3)
Nutrient use optimization through a better integration at the household level of manure and inorganic fertilizers in crop-livestock systems (link with GT3))
Agronomical and economical performance of non-conventional annual/perennial crops in SAT systems evaluated
Assessment of the market prospects for non-traditional crops (in coordination with GT6)
Income diversification, risk management strategies, and sustainability enhancing options identified and packaged in decision support systems (in coordination with GT3 and GT6)
Current Activities
Five IRS/RRS staff have GT5 as their primary GT, with a total of 4.6 person years allocated to the theme, out of which 0.9 is contributed by scientists primarily attached to other themes. One person year is contributed by staff located in India and 3.6 by staff located in West and Central Africa (WCA). There is currently no staff input in East or Southern Africa.
In WCA current activities include testing of novel short guinea-race sorghum populations and progenies which appear to combine adaptation and improved stover quality; study of integrated nutrient management in crop-livestock systems (organic matter management, nutrient cycling), socioeconomics analysis of systems diversification; and testing of new integrated farming systems - the African Market Garden (AMG) and the Sahelian Eco-Farm (SEF).
The AMG is a drip-irrigated garden introducing new crops (dates, figs, grapes, and pomegranates). The SEF model is intended to provide simultaneous solutions to the constraints of present systems by integrating principles, technologies and management packages developed and tested at ICRISAT Sahelian Centre over the past 20 years (soil mulching for arresting wind and water erosion and for soil enrichment with carbon and nutrients, crop rotation to improve soil fertility, fertilizer placement for efficient use, earth bunds and micro-catchments for arresting soil erosion and for water harvesting, nitrogen fixing trees, Pomme de Sahel - the domesticated fruit tree Ziziphus mauritiana), accompanied by research on a number of cash crops to both diversify and increase the profitability of the Sahelian rain-fed agricultural system (sesame, cluster beans, roselle, and watermelon).
GT5 is contributing to the Desert Margins Programme (DMP) by developing sustainable alternative livelihoods, enhancing crop-livestock integration, promoting crop diversification, developing a range of water and nutrient management options for rainfed and irrigated systems, and supporting NARS for the development of NRM technologies.
In collaboration with GT2, GT5 is working on IPM in systems including head bug, millet stem borer and striga management, termite-aflatoxin interactions, management of viruses (PCV/GRV) and downy mildew, as well as pest and disease monitoring and dynamics in new crops and systems (AMG, SEF). The thrust is also developing decision support systems, and is implement a training programme which targets various stakeholders (vegetable seed production, fruit tree propagation, care of tissue culture propagated date palms and training of farmers adopting the AMGs).
In Asia current activities include quantification of effects of plant diseases on crop-residues of sorghum and groundnut (on station evaluation of the effects of foliar diseases on crop residues), commercialization of stylosanthes production (under a research project funded by ACIAR poultry feed trials are being carried out in India) silvipasture for women's empowerment (stylosanthes seed production by women self help groups under urban forestry project in Hyderabad) alleviating rural poverty through system diversification in Asia (evaluation of the role of legumes for the diversification of the rice-wheat cropping systems, rehabilitation of chickpea through IPM in the rice fallows in Nepal, introduction of pigeonpea in the RWCS scaled up to improve the cropping intensity and resource conservation in NW India, and IPM in West and Central India).
In Asia and WCA GT5 is building and enhancing partnership for impact through regional meetings and work-plans, scientific quality control and regional theme integration, targeted biotech R&D for specific demand driven traits, and varietal evaluation and seed systems.
Assessment
As indicated in section 2.3 past research activities on crop diversification at ICRISAT have not yet led to any discernible contributions to knowledge in the SAT.
The current activities in GT5 in WCA cover a very wide range from addressing individual components (agronomic evaluation of new crops in WCA, assessment of feed quality of new germplasm, etc.) to work with whole systems (the AMG and SEF). The Panel concurs with ICRISAT's attempts to test new crops and integrated systems for the African SAT's. However, while the Panel commends the staff for the energy and enthusiasm displayed, it is clear that the scope of the work programme is far in excess of what can be expected given the current human resources available.
Furthermore, the Panel saw very little evidence of strategic research that would lead to the understanding of the functioning of the systems being tested, a necessary activity for the production of IPGs. For example there is no indication of the necessary instrumentation to measure the effect of erosion, nutrient cycling, or to record crucial labor use data on the new systems being tested on-station in Sadore? let alone those to be tested on farm. The need to pay careful attention to ex-ante analysis to ensure that new systems increase labor productivity is clearly illustrated by the fact that one of the SEF models with sorrel, and the 80m2 AMG have been shown to be uneconomical. In addition there is no indication of the necessary landscape analysis in order to stratify the production potential of target areas into which the benchmark production systems being developed would be fitted and development pathways analysed based on projected scenarios.
Because of limitations of staff there is no work underway in East or Southern Africa. The Panel feels that this is a major limitation in the work programme of GT5 given the increasing importance of livestock systems in those regions and the need to develop innovative crop-livestock systems. This need is recognized by the leadership of the theme which has given first priority to the recruitment of staff for these regions under a scenario of a 10% global increase in funding to ICRISAT.
In conclusion, the Panel feels that current work in sub-Saharan Africa is not up to the standard expected of strategic research in the CGIAR. Furthermore, it sees little evidence of anything innovative in the GT5 work in Asia, and is not convinced that ICRISAT has any comparative advantage in Asia, or is likely to make any meaningful contribution to knowledge in its work in this area.
Furthermore, with the current staff strength and the synergies with GT3, the Panel believes there is currently little justification for having this area of work as a stand alone theme.
The Panel recommends that GT5 (Enhancing crop-livestock productivity and systems diversification) should transfer assessment of feed quality to GT2 (Crop Improvement, management and utilization) and cease its other activities in Asia. The level of staffing should be increased, and strategic research in sub-Saharan Africa expanded, particularly in landscape level research on new systems. To ensure coherence in ICRISAT's programmes this theme should be merged with GT3 (Water, soil and agro-biodiversity management).
The objective of GT6 is to provide essential social science direction for ICRISAT's research through strategic assessment of future scenarios for agriculture and livelihood strategies in the rural SAT. This would include functional strategies to facilitate technology utilization; evaluation of prospects for diversification (higher value crops) and commercialization of SAT crops; micro-level assessment of the dynamics and determinants of poverty; identification of new institutional arrangements for research and development; and effective targeting of spillovers based on institutional experience.
The activities of the Impact Assessment Office (IAO) have been incorporated into GT6. Here, the goal is to improve the efficiency of agricultural research systems and the policy environment to ensure that research investments generate sustainable improvements in livelihoods and poverty reduction in the SAT.
Activities
Eight of the eleven IRS social scientists are now located in GT6. Most also work on research topics in other themes, and ICRISAT management estimates that about 45% of the time of social scientists is currently allocated to tasks in the other GTs, mainly GT3 (16%) and GT4 (17%).
The current research agenda is carried out by focusing on three key areas 1) Strategic assessments for agriculture and economic growth in the semi-arid tropics of Asia and Africa and implications for agricultural research priorities; 2) Development pathways and policies for rural livelihoods; 3) Synthesis studies of lessons learned from impact studies, institutional arrangements and implications for research spillages across regions.
Linkages with the other GTs target analytical contributions relating to the evaluation of technology investment trade-offs and resource pricing issues. These focus on:
Priority setting, adoption and impact assessment (with all GTs)
Key areas of social science research in the past five years were adoption and impact studies documenting technology development and rates of return to ICRISAT's crop improvement and resource management research, seed systems and commercialization opportunities for SAT farmers, reviews of the current and projected outlook for ICRISAT's mandate crops, studies of input/output markets, and resource economics (soil fertility, water, and crop management).
Social science research also assessed changes, trends, and continuing constraints in SAT agriculture, and implications for ICRISAT's future research agenda and priorities. This is structured around the "SAT Futures and Development Pathways" global theme, which was launched with a series of consultations with partners in Asia and Africa. Results from these brainstorming meetings were analyzed, and complemented by a broad-ranging study by two internationally reputed consultants with expertise in SAT agricultural economics. The results guided the development of a new vision and strategy for ICRISAT. As a follow-up to this initiative, two stakeholder workshops, one in Africa and the other in Asia, were held in 2002 to discuss alternative scenarios for targeting research for development. The meetings concluded with a series of recommendations for better targeting of agricultural research to achieve agricultural transformation in the semi-arid tropics of Africa and Asia.
Village Level Studies (VLS) conducted between 1975 and 1985, have been resumed, in Zimbabwe (Southern Africa), Burkina Faso (WCA) and India (Asia). The new data, through comparative analysis using the earlier dataset, will provide insights into various aspects of the dynamics of the rural economy in the SAT, including household nutrition, social institutions, technology utilization, crop-livestock interactions, income and expenditure patterns, household decision-making and the processes and determinants of welfare change
Impact studies have gone beyond focusing on income and poverty. Other dimensions of poverty especially the social capital aspect are incorporated in some studies. Social capital - in terms of increased ability and willingness to co-operate and work together for achieving common goals, and, sustaining and developing norms and networks for collective action - is crucial for successful uptake, diffusion, and impact of agricultural innovations. Current work includes strategic assessment of alternatives to biotechnology research and development of improved methods for assessing natural resource management research.
The extent and likelihood of technology spillover from finished products is negatively related to the research capability of NARS. Potential spill over benefits from ICRISAT research in India to Africa is being assessed in order to determine the need for a separate breeding strategy by ICRISAT for strong and weak NARS.
Previous research has identified the binding biophysical constraints to agriculture in both the Asia and African SAT as water resources and soil fertility management. Current studies address these areas. Diversification of agriculture is being addressed through a series of collaborative studies of factors influencing shifts to high value commodities.
Concerns about the limited adoption of improved sorghum and pearl millet varieties in southern Africa led ICRISAT's economists to initiate a series of studies on national and regional seed systems during the past five years. These studies have provided the foundation for ICRISAT's global theme on seed system development, adding an analytical component to efforts to multiply and distribute improved seed.
Commercialization opportunities are being identified for under researched food crops, providing marketing outlets for smallholder farmers to market surplus grain and increasing their incentive to invest in productivity-enhancing technology. Partnerships with the private sector have helped identify specific opportunities for industrial use of sorghum (e.g. in brewing and starch manufacture), and encouraged private sector investment in processing (e.g. by pigeon pea processors in Malawi and Kenya). Pilot contract grower schemes are bringing smallholder farmers together with grain traders, seed companies and others.
Assessment
In the view of the Panel, ICRISAT's social science research over the review period has contributed to the knowledge base on semi-arid agriculture, helped inform decision making on strategic policy issues, documented impacts generated by ICRISAT technologies and the resulting rates of return to donor investment and has built up a network of partnerships as the base for further collaborative studies.
An insightful CCER of the Socioeconomics and Policy Programme was conducted early in 2002. It found that a highly committed, competent and motivated team of social scientists had carried out a productive programme in the 1996-2001 period, in terms of applied country-specific publications, that had contributed considerably to capacity development in NARS. The CCER Panel was also able to identify a number of significant impacts of the programme during the period, including contributions to changes in ICRISAT's overall strategy, contributions to national capacity, and contributions to policy. The Programme was commended for developing diverse partnerships that have greatly enhanced its multiplier effects, especially in partner countries.
On the negative side, the CCER Panel found that staff are spread very thinly across a wide range of activities and this has often compromised the quality and timeliness of work. Most of the work is very applied in nature and little strategic research is being conducted. Despite the broad coverage of the work programme, there has also been little effort to synthesize results across countries and regions to draw overall lessons and implications for SAT. Finally, the Programme has not maintained its tradition of making significant contributions to the social sciences profession and body of knowledge on SAT, through international journal and book publication.
Almost two years on, this EPR Panel has seen some evidence of increased output from the social scientists in the form of publications on research strategies, and some work plans indicate increased attention to more strategic issues. However, many of the conclusions of the CCER remain valid, particularly those relating to the fact that most social science work is still very applied in nature with little strategic research content. The Programme is not moving vigorously enough to regain its tradition of making significant contributions to social science body of knowledge. The Panel is disappointed that the recommendation of the CCER to allocate the majority of social science resources to GT3, GT4 and GT5 has not been fully adopted. GT5 for example is allocated only 1% of time of social scientists.
The Panel recommends more vigorous implementation of the recommendations of the CCER of Socioeconomics and Policy Research Programme at ICRISAT, 1996-2001. More social science resources should be re-allocated from GT6 (SAT Futures and Development Pathways) to the other themes under the leadership of non social scientists and the work programme should be more sharply focused on strategic assessments and activities that best inform macro and longer-run priority setting in ICRISAT.
Dryland degradation and desertification, defined as land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry subhumid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities, is a major world-wide problem, affecting an estimated 100 billion ha in more than 100 countries, and the livelihoods of 900 million people. As indicated by UNEP, it is most severe in the arid and semi-arid farmlands of sub-Saharan Africa, where one third of the entire world area of dryland soil degradation is found.
The DMP is an ecoregional, integrated initiative which brings together national agriculture research systems (NARS) and key stakeholders from nine countries of sub-Saharan Africa, four subregional organizations, eight international agriculture research centres (IARCs), and four advanced research institutions (ARIs). ICRISAT was appointed as the convening centre of the initiative and hosts the DMP co-ordination unit. In 1997, the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) awarded the DMP 483,000 CAD to support DMP activities in three member countries - Botswana, Burkina Faso and Kenya - for a period of three years. In 2002 the Global Environment Fund (GEF) awarded the DMP US$16.0 M to cover for a period of six years. Of this total ICRISAT is to receive US$1.9 M for research and equipment of its GTs, US$1.0 M for capacity building of NARS, and US$4.9 M for co-ordination of the overall activity. Other IARCs are to receive US$1.4 M, and ARIs US$0.9 M. The rest of the funding (55%) is for NARS in-country activities a sizeable proportion of which is research.
The goal of the DMP is to increase the food security of poor, rural populations and contribute to poverty alleviation by halting or reversing desertification. The mission is to unravel the complex causative factors of land degradation, to formulate holistic solutions and to develop integrated approaches to halt the process and reverse land degradation. The specific objectives of the GEF project are to understand the physical mechanisms of land degradation, improve dryland natural-resource management (NRM), formulate drought management strategies, promote conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and exchange technologies and information among countries. SROs are to be deeply involved in setting regional priorities, NARS and NGOs are expected to develop, assess, and extend suitable technologies and policy options in-country, IARCs are expected to develop and validate technologies in partnership with NARS, and ARIs are to provide strategic research inputs.
Within ICRISAT, all the GTs are expected to participate in the project. For example, GT1 is to use biotechnology tools to assess intra and inter genetic diversity and erosion, GT2 is to conduct inventories of endemic and endangered species and monitor changes in agro-biodiversity in desert margins, GT3 is expected to develop a common framework for site stratification and characterization, GT4 is to develop sustainable seed systems for conservation of endangered species, GT5 is expected to develop sustainable alternative livelihoods, enhance crop-livestock integration, and promote crop diversification, while GT6 is to be involved in diversification of income sources to conserve threatened ecosystems, etc.
Within the six years of the GEF project, outputs expected from the activities include: 1) Improved understanding of ecosystem status and dynamics with regard to loss of biodiversity; 2) Strategies for conservation, restoration and sustainable use of degraded agro ecosystems developed and implemented; 3) Capacity of stakeholders and target populations enhanced; 4) Alternative livelihood systems tested and promoted; 5) Sound policy intervention/guidelines for sustainable resource use formulated, adopted and implemented; 6) Participatory natural resources management methods implemented.
Achievements
Within the IDRC funded project, national scientists in Burkina Faso, Kenya and Botswana identified and characterized six benchmark sites. They identified and evaluated ten traditional natural resource management practices through participatory research with farmers, NGOs and local partners; and promoted improved integrated management technologies and policies through the implementation of several workshops and the publication of 5 articles and conference proceedings and 30 reports. ICRISAT claims that significant progress was made in improving the understanding of the processes that cause desertification, and the biophysical and socio-ecological conditions, which characterize the desert margins. In addition, many partnerships and networks were formed to improve the understanding of traditional natural resource management practices in the desert margins, and to facilitate the sharing of information, resources and lessons learned at the community, national, regional and international level. Activities in the GEF funded project only commenced in 2003.
Assessment
In the view of the Panel ICRISAT has adequately performed its role as the convening centre of the system-wide DMP, providing the necessary oversight and coordination, fostering partnerships among stakeholders, and facilitating fund raising.
The GEF funded DMP project warrants special attention as a partnership activity of ICRISAT. Only 12 % of the funds will go towards funding ICRISAT acquisition of equipment and research by the GTs with an additional 6% to ICRISAT's NARS capacity building activities. These, as well as the funding for other IARCs and ARIs (14%) are expected to produce IPGs. The rest of the funding is for administration and for the activities by NARS that will mainly produce NPGs. The question of the comparative advantage of ICRISAT in undertaking this activity arises, as well as the question of the efficiency of the partnership arrangements in the DMP. The Panel is satisfied that based on past experience, project management arrangements are adequate and that ICRISAT has the capacity to deliver the NARS output it is committed to delivering.
With regards to the comparative advantage of the Centre engaging in the DMP, the Panel notes that a significant proportion of the expected output of activities conducted in-country by NARS, are likely to produce regional public goods - a legitimate area of support for an IARC. However, the Panel is concerned that the project has substantial emphasis on natural biodiversity, an area for which ICRISAT has little expertise either currently or in the past and that the scope is extremely broad. ICRISAT will have to pay close attention to building and maintaining strong linkages with institutions that have a comparative advantage in this area of work.
