1. The TAC Chair, Dr. Donald Winkelmann, opened the meeting of TAC 76 by welcoming the nine TAC Members present and acknowledging the apology received from Dr. Cyrus Ndiritu (Kenya). He then noted with appreciation the presence of Drs. Henri Carsalade and Louise O. Fresco, representing FAO; Dr. Uttam Dabholkar, representing UNEP; Mr. Alexander von der Osten Executive Secretary, CGIAR; several Centre Directors General; Board Chairs; EPMR Panel Chairs; the Chair of the CDC; Drs. Hans Gregersen and Guido Gryseels, representing IAEG; Dr. Fernando Chapparo, representing the NARS Secretariat of GFAR; as well as observers from China, France, Germany, Netherlands, South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States of America; and staff from the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats. Dr. Carsalade welcomed participants on behalf of FAO and its Director-General, Dr. Jacques Diouf. The report of TAC 75 was adopted without amendment. There were no matters arising from the report of TAC 75. The provisional agenda for TAC 76 was adopted without amendment.
2. The Executive Secretary of the CGIAR, Mr. von der Osten, reported on major developments in the System since ICW'98. Highlights included processing of System Review-recommendations by the Consultative Council, Brussels. January 1999; preparations for MTM'99, Beijing, which would review proposals for implementing SRP recommendations, consider the EPMRs of ILRI and ICLARM, review the 2000-2002 CGIAR Research Agenda, and hear reports on knowledge management, global climate change, and the logframe. CGIAR funding for 1999 was reported to be on target at an estimated US$ 345-350 million. Mr. von der Osten noted that by ensuring the quality and credibility of science produced by the CGIAR, TAC and IAEG were helping to mobilize resources for the CGIAR System.
3. The TAC Chair reported on the work of the CGIAR's Consultative Council on the System Review recommendations, particularly those involving proposals and commentaries to be prepared by TAC for MTM'99. He noted TAC's progress in: developing terms of reference for a Systemwide review of plant breeding; preparing TAC commentaries on the CDC's proposals on integrated natural resources management, policy, and gender; drafting terms of reference for an analytic review of partnerships in the CGIAR; formulating advice to the CBC on review of Systemwide programmes; and preparing TAC's proposals on its own terms of reference, streamlining evaluation, and the integration of IAEG into TAC. The Committee took steps to finalize these inputs to MTM'99. The Chair thanked TAC Members for their respective contributions to the Committee's responses to these System Review recommendations.
4. Dr. Hans Gregersen presented the findings of a background study commissioned by TAC on CGIAR Collaborative Relationships with National Agricultural Research Systems addressing the strategic issue of the characteristics of CGIAR Centres' working relationships with NARS. The study treated issues related to CGIAR activities in the areas of institution strengthening, extension and diffusion. Noting the changing institutional environment within which the CGIAR operates, the study recommended that TAC's next priorities and strategies exercise address the implications for the System as a whole of such developments as the evolution of regional and subregional groupings of NARS, including regional fora, and the potential for increased leadership of NARS within Systemwide programmes employing an ecoregional approach. The study recommended that TAC prepare a paper on alternative approaches to CGIAR-NARS collaboration. Elements of such a study might include assessment of selected existing NARS-CGIAR relationships, identification and assessment of alternative promising new modalities for collaboration, evaluation of the CGIAR's relative advantages in IPG research, and identification of promising avenues for developing a strategy to strengthen CGIAR-NARS relationships in the context of changing global agricultural research management and funding environments.
5. The Chair thanked Dr. Gregersen for his presentation and invited comments/questions from participants.
6. In the ensuing discussion, Dr. Fernando Chaparro, speaking on behalf of the NARS Secretariat, endorsed the main recommendation of the study that TAC prepare a paper on alternative strategies and modalities for CGIAR-NARS collaboration and proposed that such a study be jointly led by TAC and the NARS Secretariat. He also drew TAC's attention to possible cooperation between the NARS Secretariat and IAEG on a study to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of collaborative research partnerships, including existing CGIAR-NARS partnerships. Dr. Alain de Janvry noted that the role of the private sector, which figured very prominently in crop improvement research, was not reflected in the study, a point echoed by Dr. Grant Scobie who cited CIAT's growing involvement with private sector contractors. Dr. Michael Cernea observed that it was necessary to analyse partnerships in terms of collaboration between individual actors (e.g. centres, scientists) rather than systems (e.g., NARS) as these were often key to successful institutional cooperation. Dr. Lucia de Vaccaro argued that consideration by TAC of the strategic questions posed by Dr. Gregersen's study under categories "A" (striking an appropriate balance in IARC-NARS collaboration) and "B" (improving respective IARC/NARS comparative advantages) should await the outcome of TAC's Ecoregional Review which may shed light on these issues. However, those under category "C" (the degree of congruence between NARS and CGIAR priorities) were relevant to TAC's next priorities and strategies exercise and might best be considered in that context.
7. In response. Dr. Gregersen agreed that collaborating institutions and individuals, rather than systems, were the most appropriate unit of analysis for the study of partnerships. He also agreed that the private sector had become an important element in CGIAR partnerships. However, as the concept note under discussion only reported the results of a desk study based on existing documentation, it did not examine empirically CGIAR-NARS partnerships or their participants. Given the heterogeneity of institutions comprising NARS, it would be necessary to develop a typology for purposes of classifying and analysing the needs of their individual components.
8. The Chair thanked Dr. Gregersen for his presentation and drew the discussion to a close.
9. After further consideration, TAC decided to pursue this theme in the context of the Committee's review of partnerships in the CGIAR with particular emphasis on future relationships with elements of NARS in the private sector, universities, and other institutions. (See Item 3 c, below.)
10. The Chair introduced this item by recalling TAC's prior consideration of the issue of climate change at its 75th Meeting when it reviewed a paper commissioned by USAID on Centres' activities related to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Dr. Elias Fereres had subsequently been designated by the TAC to participate in the activities of the Inter-Centre Working Group-Climate Change (ICWG-CC) and to prepare a discussion paper on this issue with a view to developing TAC's position on it for consideration by the Group at MTM'99.
11. The Chair then recognized Dr. Fereres who presented a brief overview of the issue of global climate change and its implications for the CGIAR. The presentation dealt with the positive and negative impacts of climate change on agriculture and food production; the current status of research using yield trend analyses and simulation modelling; and the activities of the major research entities in the field, including the International Geosphere Biosphere Programme (IGBP). As for the CGIAR's approach to climate change. Dr. Fereres noted that the adaptation and mitigation measures, many of them related to carbon sequestration, which had already been developed by Centres could serve as starting point for greater System involvement. The activities of the ICWG-CC (presented by Dr. Sanchez; see below) also warranted TAC's consideration and support. Dr. Fereres closed by emphasizing that although climate change might negatively affect agriculture in terms of increasing climate variability and the frequency of catastrophic events, the international community's response to the problem might well benefit agriculture by, inter alia, improving weather forecasting and otherwise enhancing the capacity of farmers to adapt to and/or mitigate these effects.
12. The Chair thanked Dr. Fereres for his presentation and recognized Dr. Sanchez, Chair of the ICWG-CC.
13. Dr. Sanchez briefed TAC on the objectives and activities of the ICWG-CC which had been formed after a decision taken by Centre Directors' Committee at MTM'99. The Group's overall objectives were (a) to assess the System's activities thus far in terms of their negative or positive effects vis-à-vis climate change, and (b) to develop an agenda for future research on this issue in the context of the CGIAR's overarching goals. Consultations with IGBP, which had scientists based in developing countries, suggested that the CGIAR's expertise in agricultural ecosystems could complement that organization's expertise in natural ecosystems. The Centres' specific contribution lay in the area of "ground truthing" the effects of climate change on agriculture at hundreds of research sites throughout the developing world. The Centres' access to NARS and to policymakers was also seen as potentially facilitating IGBP's work. The ICWG-CC had already begun collaboration with the parent group of IGBP, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, to produce a series of papers in 2000 on changes in tropical terrestrial ecosystems. Thus, the Centres were involved in both the scientific and policy aspects of the climate change issue. Issues to be addressed included the impact of HYVs in reducing additional land clearing and saving the environment; development of a genetic improvement strategy at the ecoregional level for lands likely to be drier or wetter in the future; reduction of methane emissions from crop and livestock sources; increasing carbon sequestration above ground in the humid tropics and below ground in sub-humid, semi-arid tropics; and more effective management of water-logged areas and coral reef systems. ICWG-CC had submitted a proposal to USAID to develop its research agenda. It would propose a climate change strategy to the Group at ICW'99. TAC's views on this strategy would be sought.
14. The Chair thanked Dr. Sanchez for his presentation and invited comments from the floor, particularly on the question of whether the Committee was prepared to recommend to the Group that climate change be added to the CGIAR's overarching goals, or, alternatively, be addressed by further exploiting spillover effects of research activities that addressed the CGIAR's current, agreed Research Agenda. The implications of an expanded agenda for resource allocation had to be factored into TAC's deliberations on this issue. The Committee would also need to address climate change in its 2010 portfolio study.
15. In the ensuing discussion, various views were expressed on this issue. Dr. Fereres felt it would be premature for the Committee to recommend any drastic changes in the System's goals. Rather, TAC should keep a watching brief and work with the ICWG-CC over the next year as it developed a strategy and research agenda. The Committee would then be in a position to make a formal recommendation to the Group. Dr. Harwood urged that TAC's recommendation on this issue be based on an assessment of the potential benefits of climate change-related research to poor farmers and consumers. Dr. de Janvry argued that interventions to deal with the effects of climate change on agriculture, and vice versa, should be based on technologies and policies that facilitated "win-win" solutions at the local level in which, for example, private and social incentives coincided. He urged caution on the use of global and regional simulation models to assess the impacts of climate change on tropical agriculture; the data generated by current models needed to be disaggregated to capture these effects. Finally, he noted that carbon sequestration, called for by the Kyoto Protocol, was likely to be beyond the financial means of poor farmers in developing countries; attention to the equity effects of such solutions was needed.
16. The USAID representative, Dr. William Sugrue, noted that the United States did not wish the CGIAR to add a fourth goal, on climate change, to the existing ones. Rather, to accomplish current goals, the System needed to be aware of and conversant with the issue of global climate change which now had gained credence in the international scientific community. The System's clients, particularly poor farmers, were likely to be hardest hit by the effects of climate change. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the CGIAR to improve its understanding of these effects and to identify solutions to help small farmers cope with them without added cost. Mitigation measures entailed such costs and thus were a less plausible focus for the CGIAR than adaptation measures (e.g. germplasm improvement for harsh environments). Dr. Sugrue also stressed the vulnerability of forests and coastal areas to climate change and the need for the CGIAR to address the special problems of these sectors. Finally, he generally endorsed the approach being taken by the ICWG-CC to the climate change issue. Dr. Uttam Dabholkar (UNEP) supported USAID's position on this issue. Although current simulation models did not permit definitive conclusions to be drawn about the effects of climate change on agriculture, Dr. Louise O. Fresco (FAO) noted that they had consistently projected increased variability in temperature, water availability, and extreme events. The CGIAR Centres could contribute technologies to assist farmers to cope with such variability. Also, climate change models tended to project effects on agriculture conceptualized in static rather than dynamic terms; such models needed to incorporate an evolutionary view of the sector - e.g., future changes in land use, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, biotic stress - in order to generate useful information. The CGIAR was well placed to interact with national and international partners to improve understanding of these dynamics.
17. The Chair drew the discussion to a close, noting that TAC's consideration of the climate change issue would continue to be managed by Dr. Fereres who would present a report on the Committee's position to the Group at MTM'99.
18. The TAC Chair introduced this item by calling upon Dr. Selcuk Ozgediz to brief TAC on the decision taken at the January 1999 meeting of the Consultative Council (CC) to implement the System Review Panel's (SRP) recommendation on undertaking a strategic study of CGIAR partnerships.
19. Dr. Ozgediz briefly recounted the CC's deliberations on the SRP's recommendations concerning partnerships, particularly Recommendation 11 which dealt with broadening partnerships. The Council addressed this issue by recommending certain changes in the CGIAR's committee structure to link the System more effectively with the global scientific community and with the private sector. In this context, it also recommended that a study be undertaken by TAC to improve understanding of the nature of existing CGIAR partnerships and their impact. TAC was requested to propose terms of reference for this study for consideration by the Group at MTM'99.
20. The Chair then proposed for TAC's consideration a format for the study's terms of reference. The overall objectives of the study would be to evaluate Centres' experience with research and research-related partnerships, characterise the relative significance of various types of Centre partnerships, assess the factors that contributed to the success of partnerships, and suggest which types of partnerships might be most effective in the future in achieving CGIAR goals. A three-phase study was envisaged: (1) clarification of concepts and development of a typology of partnerships based on function and form; (2) preparation of an inventory of current partnerships and measures of success; (3) evaluation of a sample of Centre partnerships for purposes of recommending best practices for the CGIAR in the future. Broad-based Centre participation in the study was envisioned. The study would be conducted over an 18-month period following MTM'99, with deliverables keyed to three successive CGIAR meetings: literature review (ICW'99); Centre case studies and survey (MTM 2000); stripe review (ICW2000). Strong consideration would be given to a session on partnerships at ICW'99 featuring a few speakers from outside the CGIAR with broad experience in managing partnerships.
21. In the ensuing discussion, TAC Members generally concurred with the terms of reference proposed and suggested specific themes which might warrant attention, including the quality of interpersonal skills of Centre scientists engaged in partnering, the utility of partnerships not only for conducting research but developing products and services useful to fulfilment of the CGIAR's mission, the potential of partnerships for policy development to address such issues as intellectual property rights and the regulation of genetically modified organisms.
22. Dr. Pedro Sanchez, Chair of the Centre Directors Committee, drew TAC's attention to the fact that Centres and their NARS partners were participating in the Ford Foundation-sponsored programme on "Managing Change" which was proving to be extremely useful to improving current partnership arrangements. Other Centre representatives shared with the Committee their experiences in R&D partnering with a view to better marketing their products and services.
23. The Committee decided that the TAC Chair should draft a terms of reference along the lines suggested for presentation to the Group at MTM'99.
24. The Chair introduced this item by recalling the rationale for TAC's strategic study of the CGIAR's research portfolio in 2010, namely, the need to reassess the System's commodity and natural resources management portfolios in light of projected economic, scientific, technological, institutional, and legal/regulatory trends over the next decade, and their implications for resource allocation. In recent months, TAC had interacted with and synthesized the views of experts on these themes with a view to advancing the Committee's study of issues which may shape the 2010 portfolio.
25. He then recognized Dr. de Janvry, chair of TAC's Standing Committee on Priorities and Strategies (SCOPAS) who reported on progress in planning the study.
26. Dr. de Janvry outlined a range of issues which the study might address including: evolving concepts of intellectual property rights and international public goods; growing private investment in research for tropical and sub-tropical staple crops; changes in the location, causes and dynamics of poverty and criteria for prioritising research on direct and indirect instruments for poverty reduction; privatisation and the challenge of ensuring access by the poor to the potential benefits of biotechnology; public-private-civil sector partnership arrangements in a context of intellectual property rights: emerging international legal and regulatory frameworks for genetic resources and their effects on the needs of poor farmers; the potential role of production ecology science in ensuring complementarity between productivity gains and sustainable management of natural resources; and the technical, legal, financial and informational requisites for effective long-term management (ex-situ) of germplasm in the CGIAR.
27. Dr. Richard Harwood then outlined SCOPAS' view of how external trends over the next decade might shift the CGIAR's portfolio. The Standing Committee hypothesized that increases in global population, pressure on natural resources, and climate change would increase demand for research in the water management, fishery, and forestry sectors, augmenting those components of the portfolio. The livestock sector would experience a shift in content towards the needs of small holders and issues of animal health. A slight reduction in the total crop portfolio could be expected in view of anticipated, reduced demand for pulses and increased consumption of high-value added commodities (e.g., meats). A corresponding dramatic increase in private sector investment in major staples, particularly feedgrains, was anticipated. In terms of the CGIAR's logframe outputs: germplasm improvement might experience a modest decrease; germplasm collection and maintenance modest increases; broadening the germplasm base and promoting sustainable production an increase; policy analysis a decrease owing to enhanced national capacities; strengthening NARS an increase depending on continued shrinkage in the public sector and emergence of the private and civil sectors; finally, electronic information technologies could change the kinds of products and services supplied by the System to facilitate the direct transmission of knowledge from producers to users.
28. In the ensuing discussion, TAC Members made a number of comments and suggestions with a view to refining and prioritizing the list of potential issues to be studied. There was need to consider the portfolio in the context of possible consolidation of centres with a view to achieving economies of scale and specialization. The prospective issues to be addressed were weighted heavily towards germplasm improvement and biotechnology, a sector increasingly subject to privatization; hence, more emphasis should be placed on partnership arrangements appropriate to a context of shifting comparative advantage. Greater attention also had to be given to natural resources management issues, in particular to water management, climate change, and soil conservation where research was still likely to remain an international public good. Accelerating depletion of natural resources also implied heightened priority to the fishery and forestry sectors where the poor needed help in making the transition from foraging to cultivation for livelihood. Approaches to reducing rural poverty were needed that simultaneously attacked urban poverty, e.g., through technology/policy packages that stimulated both rural and urban employment. A research focus on institutional arrangements, e.g., collective action, to make smallholder farmers competitive was imperative, given the accelerating trend toward commercialization, concentration of resources in large farms, and the growth of international agricultural conglomerates. Finally, the issue of enhancing access by the poor to advanced agricultural knowledge systems via computer-based technologies urgently needed to be addressed.
29. TAC decided that it would further refine the list of prospective issues for the 2010 study at its 77th Meeting and then circulate it to centres for comment. With regard to the timetable and modalities for the study's completion, the Committee decided to link it to the Committee's next priorities and strategies paper tentatively scheduled for initial discussion at MTM 2001.
a) ICLARM EPMR
30. The report of the Second External Programme and Management Review of ICLARM was discussed in the presence of the Panel Chair, Dr. Hans Gregersen, the Chair of ICLARM's Board, Dr. Kurt Peters, and the Director General of ICLARM, Dr. Meryl Williams.
31. Dr. Gregersen briefly summarized the main findings and recommendations of the review, The Panel found ICLARM had made significant progress since the Mid-Term Review of 1995, and was a well-managed research institution with enhanced capacity for delivery of output and impact. The performance of the Centre's Board, management, and staff was strongly commended. A competent administration and corporate services were in place; a solid, cohesive research and outreach programme were addressing the priority areas of the CGIAR in living aquatic resources management with noticeable impact on management practice and policy; close linkages existed with key partners in ICLARM's mandate regions, and a solid field programme was developing in Africa. Two immediate challenges for ICLARM were a planned headquarters move to Penang, Malaysia, and consolidation of programme activities at the Abbassa regional headquarters for Africa and West Asia. The Panel believed ICLARM's approach to these issues would produce satisfactory results.
32. The Centre's programmes were performing well, both in terms of impacts and quality of research. ICLARM had moved from a limited number of technical topics to broadly based, socially relevant work involving integration of the biophysical and social sciences. The Panel commended the Centre's progress thus far in developing a comprehensive, realistic and transparent set of mechanisms for priority setting, programme planning and monitoring, and research quality control. However, it recommended that ICLARM establish explicit mechanisms for external review of the quality of its research at the various phases of projects. The Panel strongly supported ICLARM's intent to rationalize and consolidate its nine programmes into a smaller, more coherent set of interacting ones. It noted the progress of ICLARM's programme for Africa, but also saw need for its further refinement and definition, particularly in terms of developing satisfactory operational mechanisms for integrating the work at Abbassa with that in the rest of Africa and in the Centre at large. Steady progress was being made in developing mechanisms for the dissemination and incorporation of the results of ICLARM's research into national and regional programmes and in working with an increasingly larger pool of international and national collaborators.
33. ICLARM's ongoing strategic planning process was being conducted in concert with existing/potential partners and the donor community. It was prioritizing the Centre's research on aquatic resource system issues within its mandate regions and linking them to CGIAR goals. While recommending the Centre continue on its current strategic path, ICLARM should also seek to capitalize on new advances in science that created significant potentials for breakthroughs in living aquatic resources management. Based on current global estimates of the economic contributions of living aquatic resources to poverty alleviation, food security and environmental protection - estimates much higher than those used by TAC in its last priorities and strategies exercise - the Panel concluded there was ample justification for a significant increase in support for research on living aquatic resources management research.
34. The Chair thanked Dr. Gregersen for his presentation and recognized Dr. Kurt Peters who presented the response of the ICLARM Board and management to the review.
35. Dr. Peters noted that ICLARM was pleased with the review's positive outcome and its support of the Centre's strategy and contribution to CGIAR goals. Urgent demands for living aquatic resources management research had prompted ICLARM to undertake recently a new-strategic planning exercise. The EPMR had provided a vital input to that process. ICLARM valued the review report's overall results and its six recommendations and many suggestions, which were already having significant impacts on the Centre's future directions.
36. The Board and management had formally communicated to TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat the Centre's detailed response to the EPMR's recommendations. ICLARM generally concurred with them, including the need for greater balance between activities conducted at Regional Headquarters and those better implemented elsewhere, the desirability of representation from other African and West Asian countries on the research and training staffs of Regional Headquarters, the establishment of explicit mechanisms for external review of the quality of ICLARM's research, the priority to be given to relocating to the new headquarters site, and the need to achieve breakthroughs in living aquatic resources research. The Board would re-examine the Centre's policies on recruitment of international staff in light of Panel Recommendation 4.
37. The Director-General, Dr. Meryl Williams, expressed ICLARM's appreciation for the opportunity to interact with the review team. The review had been a fair one and ICLARM agreed on all but one of the recommendations, and on most of the suggestions.
38. The Chair thanked Drs. Peters and Williams for their remarks and invited comments on the report and the Centre's response from TAC Members.
39. Dr. Fereres, chair of the TAC working group on the ICLARM review, posed a number of questions to the Panel Chair and the Centre. Assuming an additional US$ 4.5 million were available to the Centre, in which programmes should ICLARM invest? How would the Director-General establish a formal review procedure to ensure the quality of the Centre's science? When would a system for impact assessment be established? What were the opportunities and/or constraints to geographic expansion of ICLARM's activities? What was the reason for the discrepancy between current estimates of the economic value of the fisheries sector and that of TAC in its 1997 estimate? What were the options for future research on oceans in the context of ICLARM's mandate?
40. Dr. Gregersen saw four areas for increased investment: policy/socioeconomic research which were key to assessing the policy impact of ICLARM's outputs; genetics; the interaction between aquaculture and agriculture; and the Centre's integrated coastal resource management initiative. Dr. Williams indicated that strong internal review processes were in place to ensure the quality of Centre science; the need for an external system to evaluate the quality of research outputs remained to be addressed. ICLARM was in the early stages of developing a programme for impact assessment with a view to moving from ex-ante to ex-post studies; issues to be addressed included development of performance measures, particularly difficult in the field of natural resources management. On geographic expansion beyond Asia, some activities were being carried out in Africa and acquisition of the Abbassa facility had created an outreach site for the WANA region and for sub-Saharan Africa. The Panel's suggestion that the Centre develop a policy for activities in Latin America and the Caribbean would be approached cautiously, given limited resources. The discrepancy in estimates of the economic value of the fisheries sector stemmed from a revision by FAO of the current value of fisheries production compared to the 1997 TAC estimate.
41. Dr. Magdy Madkour inquired whether ICLARM's research was having impact on the CGIAR's goal of protecting the environment, a question supplemented by Dr. Fereres who asked whether the Centre should be doing more on environmental impact assessment. Dr. Cernea asked if ICLARM was addressing issues of social dislocation, poverty, and migration caused by technological change in the fisheries sector. Dr. Harwood inquired whether the water scarcity issue had implications for the fisheries sector and, if so, whether collaboration with IWMI was envisioned. A related question raised by Dr. Winkelmann was whether the CGIAR ought to be investing more in research on freshwater issues. Dr. de Janvry noted that many of the commodity Centres were working on common property issues. Might this be a cross-cutting issue which should include the fisheries sector?
42. Dr. Williams responded that ICLARM chose to work on types of acquaculture that were environmentally friendly, particularly in coastal zones and on coral reefs. However, environmental impact assessment could only be done with partner institutions as the Centre lacked this capacity. ICLARM was addressing the needs of fisher communities along Lake Nasser, but expansion of such work to other areas would require increased resources for the Centre's social science research. The migration issue as it affected fisher communities was also being addressed. Social issues could be addressed in sub-Saharan Africa and India by involving displaced people in aquaculture, but this would require training as well as research on the impacts of aquaculture in environmentally degraded water bodies. Water scarcity and freshwater issues were high on ICLARM's agenda but required an inter-centre approach. Discussions were underway with IWMI on possible collaboration in the Mekong region. Although the Centre did not work on oceans, it was cooperating with the Regional Seas network on the information side.
43. The Chair brought the discussion to a close, thanking Dr. Gregersen and the members of the Panel for their report, as well as Drs. Peters and Williams for their contributions. After further consideration and discussion in the working group, TAC offered the following commentary with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat.
44. The report of the Second External Programme and Management Review of ICLARM was discussed at TAC 76 in the presence of the Panel Chair, Dr. Hans Gregersen, the Chair of ICLARM's Board, Dr. Kurt Peters, and the Director General of ICLARM, Dr. Meryl Williams. TAC thanks the chair and members of the Panel for its assessment of the Centre, its importance and future role.
45. TAC endorses, in general, the recommendations of the Panel, and notes that both the Board and Management of ICLARM are in broad agreement with the Panel's findings. However, the Committee would have welcomed more evidence of the Panel's analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Centre, in effect, more detail about the Panel's findings. The Committee commends ICLARM for responding positively to the recommendations. TAC offers the following commentary, prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat, to supplement the Panel's report.
Priorities and Strategies
46. The Panel's report notes the remarkable progress that the Centre has made since the Mid-Term Review in 1995 and finds that ICLARM is a well-managed research institution with an enhanced capacity for delivery of output and impact. TAC noted with satisfaction the progress made by ICLARM in its current research efforts in Africa in the areas of fish genetics, conservation, fish health, training, and the Malawi project. The Committee encourages the Centre to actively continue its efforts to focus its Abbassa-based programme and supports the attention being given to risk assessment issues related to the introduction of improved fish germplasm in Africa. TAC also supports ICLARM's endeavours in seeking cooperation with WARDA and IITA in West Africa and agrees with the Panel and the Centre that similar modalities for collaboration be explored with ICRAF in Eastern and Southern Africa.
47. The Committee concurs with the Panel's recommendation that ICLARM ensures appropriate representation on its staff of nationals from West Asian and African countries at its regional site. This should further support development of its programme for the region. Although the Committee understands the caution expressed in the Centre's response, it encourages the Centre to follow the Panel's recommendation.
Quality and Relevance of Science
48. High quality outputs from the Centre have been developed from research on genetic improvement and from the studies on stock assessment and coastal aquaculture. The global overview of coral reefs is of particular importance. ICLARM's policy research is promising, and TAC encourages the Centre's effort to expand such research in view of the knowledge gap that exists in that area in most developing countries. The Committee agrees with the Panel that the integrated aquaculture-agriculture systems programme needs focus by emphasizing research related to the elaboration and testing of approaches to extension and recommends that a more coordinated approach to its various components be promoted.
49. Extensive discussions with the Board Chair and Senior Management of the Centre led the Committee to concur with the Panel that ICLARM conducts a cohesive research programme of good quality science, including economic, social and anthropological research. For the future, TAC hopes that the Centre will give more attention to reviews of all of its research activities.
50. The Committee concurs with the Panel's recommendation that systematic reviews of research should be conducted at the various phases in the research process and notes positively the Centre's response describing a set of quality control principles that the Management plans to put into place. In addition, TAC would like to encourage ICLARM to establish standardized procedures for ensuring the quality of science practised at the Centre. TAC believes these should incorporate Centre Commissioned External Reviews as an integral part.
Management and Governance
51. TAC notes in the EPMR Panel's overall assessment that ICLARM has a strong and competent management team in place and that management systems have been instituted, which are functioning effectively. The Panel asserts that the Board has performed its oversight and guidance role with due diligence and in the context of excellent policies and procedures that have been put in place. Ten suggestions made by the Panel in addition to the recommendations on management to further improve the Centre's institutional performance were accepted by the Centre. TAC believes that ICLARM is, therefore, well positioned to meet the challenges arising from developing a substantial and responsive programme on living aquatic resources management.
52. With regard to the limits on staff tenure, the Committee had the opportunity to fully explore with the Centre its views pertaining to this recommendation and was satisfied that ICLARM intends to respond to if constructively. TAC realizes that this poses a problem for career development, as noted by the Panel, but TAC also understands the Centre's viewpoint, which considers its capabilities for offering long-term career paths to scientists. The Committee sensed that whichever policy is adopted by the Centre, Board and management will retain sufficient flexibility to be able to make exceptions in situations where the Centre's interest is paramount.
53. On the Centre's headquarters, TAC notes that a decision has been made by ICLARM's Board at its 75th meeting to relocate the headquarters to Penang, Malaysia, with effect from early 2000. The Committee supports this decision and commends the thorough analysis and the consultative process followed by the Centre in arriving at the final outcome. While ICLARM carefully shaped its preparatory plan for the move, in TAC's view, any change of such magnitude is likely to affect the research performance of the Centre. Accordingly, TAC calls the attention of the Group to the constraints on output that might arise and recommends that the CGIAR should be prepared to assist the Centre in handling unforeseen perturbations that might occur.
Conclusions
54. TAC is encouraged to see that ICLARM is undertaking a major effort on strategic planning and is taking the recommendations and suggestions in the Panel's report into account. The Committee is convinced that ICLARM with its current management and programme, is positioned to take up new challenges in aquatic resources research. This positive development within the Centre and the increased importance of global fish production, apparent in recent FAO estimates, justify the continued investments in fisheries research by ICLARM and the CGIAR.
b) ILRI EPMR
55. The report of the First External Programme and Management Review of ILRI was discussed in the presence of the Panel Chair, Dr. Samuel Jutzi, the Chair of ILRI's Board, Dr. Neville P. Clark, and the Director General of ILRI, Dr. Hank Fitzhugh.
56. Dr. Jutzi briefly summarized the main findings and recommendations of the review. The Panel found that ILRI's mission was even more pertinent than when the Institute was established, given current economic, technological, and structural trends in the livestock sector. It laid out a future "tropical animal agriculture research agenda" and recommended the Centre undertake a substantial strategic shift in its research with emphasis on biotechnology and genomics applied to livestock and their diseases, and on strategic animal nutrition research to underpin biophysically enhanced livestock production. Strategically linked with relevant research institutions throughout the world, ILRI would thus be best positioned to address tropical animal health and production improvement in an integrated way. This could be achieved by focusing (on the biological side) on genetic, diagnostic, epidemiological and nutritional technologies and resources, and (on the production side) on carefully selected, dynamic, market-oriented animal production systems. Such a research agenda needed to be complemented by livestock policy, systems analysis and impact analysis research. In the context of this overall recommendation, the Panel recommended, inter alia, that ILRI prepare a long-term strategic plan based on a compelling vision of the purpose of the Institute both to guide its medium-term planning and to protect it from the short-term influences; address more formally and systematically its priority setting and programme planning procedures; and further develop its concept of "platforms of essential capacities" to include core competencies in essential disciplinary areas of science.
57. Most of ILRI's research met acceptable criteria of "good science" and, generally, the Centre's projects were producing significant output and had potential for impact; a number were beginning to produce impact directly. The Centre was becoming a world leader in research on animal genetic resources and disease resistance/tolerance; significant advances had been made in the development of diagnostics; advances had been made in generating linkages with NARS through training, networks and information technology; activities in policy and impact analysis had increased and were generally commended. However, the Panel saw the need for ILRI to develop specific mechanisms to ensure scientific quality.
58. On matters of governance and management, ILRI's Board operation and procedures were found effective especially with respect to fiduciary matters. Although the Board considered programmatic questions in depth, it had not promoted the planning that would sharpen the focus of the Centre's research agenda. The Panel also noted that the line between Board and management responsibilities was unusually blurred and recommended a sharper distinction be established with the Board focusing on its policy formulation and oversight functions, leaving matters of implementation to management. Other key organizational changes recommended by the Panel included: rationalization of decision-making to provide greater autonomy at different levels and scientific overview of programmes and projects; creation of multidisciplinary programmes to address sets of related research issues with a cohesive, focused approach; creation of the position of Deputy Director General (Research) to oversee ILRI's research agenda and further integration and consolidation of the research programme. ILRI's was commended for successfully managing the merger of two quite disparate institutions (ILRAD and ILCA) and putting in place effective financial, human resources, and other administrative systems. To ensure cost-effective use of the Institute's infrastructure, as well as to facilitate interaction among Centre scientists, the Panel suggested consolidating research and research-related activities and some project staff from sites in Ethiopia to the Nairobi campus.
59. The Panel was convinced that ILRI, strategically repositioned and allied with relevant partner institutions, would be a key driver of the next food revolution. It thereby deserved full support by its investors and stakeholders.
60. The Chair thanked Dr. Jutzi for his presentation and recognized Dr. Clarke who presented the response of the ILRI Board and management to the review.
61. Dr. Clarke expressed the appreciation of Board, management and staff of ILRI to Dr. Jutzi and the members of the Panel for a positive report and constructive recommendations. The report had emphasized the need for continuing livestock research and ILRI's pivotal role. It was constructively critical and would thus be of utility to ILRI, TAC, and the CGIAR. Board and management either agreed or partly agreed with the review's fourteen recommendations. ILRI was grateful for the Panel's endorsement of the Centre's more strategic, upstream research as some 25 percent of the Centre's resources were invested in biotechnology. The main issue raised by the EPMR was the need for a strategic vision. IRLI believed that it was not far away from having one. Indeed, the Centre's 2000-2002 MTP contained elements of a new vision emerging from the work of a joint Board/management committee created in September 1998. It had developed a set of strategic principles and initiated a process for creating a new ILRI strategy using a bottom-up approach. On the issue of research focus, Dr. Clarke observed that less than half of ILRI's resources were now unrestricted; it was inherently, substantially more difficult to maintain focus in such a funding environment. Finally, he emphasized that much of ILRI's upstream research remained unfunded; it was hoped that the Panel's endorsement of this research would encourage CGIAR Members to subscribe to it.
62. The Chair thanked Dr. Clarke for his remarks and recognized Dr. Fitzhugh who commented on some of the review's specific recommendations.
63. Dr. Fitzhugh saw the review as constructively critical and useful in terms of reassuring investors that the Centre was producing good science and was well managed financially despite the growth in recent years of restricted funding. He, too, felt that its recommendations would be of help to the Centre in revising its MTP but cautioned that the long-term decline in unrestricted funding was a major constraint to maintaining research focus. He then singled out four of the fourteen review recommendations for comment.
64. The Centre was pleased with the Panel's endorsement of ILRI's "platforms of essential capacities." The latter reflected the Centre's priorities for allocating unrestricted resources and had been identified on the basis of ILRI's comparative advantage vis-à-vis alternative suppliers; they included molecular biology/genetics; economics, ecology and epidemiology; crop/livestock systems; and strengthening partnerships with NARS. With regard to the Panel's recommendation to integrate systems analysis, impact assessment, and policy research, ILRI felt that, given the spread of its economists working on these themes in other disciplinary programmes, its implementation would tend to disrupt work in those programmes. The Centre interpreted the Panel's recommendation on the Systemwide Livestock Programme to mean that SLP would be an entity separate from the livestock work of other centres, ecoregional programmes, and partners. ILRI disagreed as it believed the greatest opportunity for synergies and linkages would come from integrating the livestock research of participating institutions, thereby increasing overall output while sharing resources. Finally, ILRI agreed that it should make most effective use of its Ethiopian facility but noting that effectiveness in the use of resources and infrastructure Centre-wide was reflected in a low indirect rate cost.
65. The Chair thanked Dr. Fitzhugh for his remarks and recognized Dr. Lucia Vaccaro who led the discussion of the ILRI EPMR.
66. Dr. Vaccaro commended the review team for producing a critical yet balanced report and, in particular, for offering its vision of the future requirements of a tropical animal agriculture research agenda. Of the review's 14 recommendations, numbers 4 and 12 - concerning vision, strategies, priorities, and quality of science - particularly warranted TAC's attention.
67. Dr. Vaccaro then opened TAC's discussion of the review by requesting clarification on ILRI's priority setting processes. Dr. Usha Barwale questioned why only half of ILRI's research programmes were found productive and how the Board and management intended to deal with this disturbing issue. She also observed that while some of the EPMR recommendations would dramatically alter the way the Centre should work in the future, the Centre's response did not convey a sense of urgency. Was this the case? How many of the recommendations could be implemented and within what timeframe? If priority setting mechanisms were put in place, would productivity improve and, if so, how quickly? Finally, the report contained a number of contradictory statements on the quality of science, characterizing it as "good" but requiring improvement. Clarification was sought on this issue.
68. Dr. Jutzi responded that actually half of ILRI's projects were found to have good focus not productivity; whereas 30 percent were rated as underperforming. Dr. Clarke expressed the Board's disagreement with the definition used by the review team to characterize "good" versus "excellent" science. On priority setting, he reiterated his earlier point on the Board's involvement in developing strategic principles for ILRI's new strategy. The Board expected the Centre to produce a revised strategy and medium-term plan by the end of 1999. On the quality of science issue, Dr. Fitzhugh acknowledged that new scientific leadership was needed across ILRI's major activities but the context was one of resource constraint.
69. Dr. Cernea questioned whether ILRI was factoring social variables into its research, given a staffing ratio of one sociologist to fifteen economists. Dr. Harwood asked how the Centre would prioritize industrial- versus subsistence-oriented livestock production research over the next two decades. Dr. Fereres sought clarification on what part of the Panel recommendation on the Ethiopian facility the Centre accepted, how the distinction between Board and management responsibilities would be rectified, and what steps were being taken to remedy the situation of underperforming projects. Dr. Madkour asked whether ILRI's activities were congruent with intellectual property rights regimes on biosafety, if any, in Kenya and Ethiopia.
70. Dr. Fitzhugh responded that social issues were also being addressed by part-time staff deployed for specific projects, not one sociologist. ILRI recognized the need for greater capacity in this area but the context was one of reduction in the number of core scientists. On priority setting for industrial- versus subsistence-oriented research, ILRI did not have capacity for biological research on pigs, monogastrics, and poultry and hence was not working on the genetics, health, or nutrition aspects of these forms of livestock. It was working on the policy and economics aspects, particularly trade issues; industrial production systems figured in work on supply/demand projections. With regard to the recommendation on the Ethiopian site, the basic issue was one of allocating resources for research versus maintaining infrastructure. ILRI's funding situation for 1998-99 was improving and this had import for more effective use of the Ethiopian facility particularly for the African Capacity Building Initiative. On underperforming projects, the Panel's view was based on an assessment of "projects" in TAC's sense of reporting entities; it did not reflect an evaluation of operational projects subsumed under those entities. On IPR for biosafety, Kenya had a well-established regime and its representatives participated on ILRI's committees dealing with this issue. Ethiopia's IPR regime was not as well articulated, nor had the Centre's work there involved biosafety issues yet. On the governance/management issue, Dr. Clarke reiterated that the Board was concerning itself with strategic issues and refraining from intervention in management; it also had endorsed the Panel's recommendation on establishing the position of Deputy Director General (Research) and recruitment efforts were underway.
71. The Chair brought the discussion to a close, thanking Dr. Jutzi and the members of the Panel for their report, as well as Drs. Clarke and Fitzhugh for their contributions. After further consideration and discussion in the working group, TAC offered the following commentary with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat.
72. TAC expresses its appreciation to Dr. Samuel Jutzi and his Panel for an outstanding report on the First External Programme and Management Review of ILRI. The report is highly analytical, constructively critical, and strategic in nature. It points out the strengths and weaknesses of the Centre in a balanced way, using a directness of style which is not found commonly in reports of this kind but which greatly enhances its value to the Centre and to TAC. The report covers ILRI's activities fully, except in the area of social science research which in TAC's view was not considered thoroughly. It contains fourteen recommendations with additional important suggestions throughout the text. ILRI agrees with most of the recommendations and has started to implement a number of them. TAC believes that the Institute's written response does not adequately address the issues raised by the Panel. While the response was supplemented by discussion at TAC 76, the Committee's commentary rests largely on ILRI's formal response. TAC endorses most of the recommendations of the Pane! and offers the following commentary, which was prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat, to supplement the Panel's report.
Future Perspective on Tropical Animal Agricultural Research
73. The report is prefaced by a statement on the issues to be considered in setting a tropical animal science research agenda which TAC considers to be excellent. The role of animal agriculture in human food supplies for developing countries is likely to grow substantially over the next two decades. The demand for meat and milk in developing countries is projected to more than double. The food functions of livestock are becoming ever more important while the nonfood functions, such as draught, manure, and asset creation, are diminishing in importance. The structure of animal production is also changing with industrial and mixed farming systems expanding, along with the occurrence of rapid technological shifts to intensive and more specialised systems. These shifts lead to increasing environmental concerns. TAC strongly endorses the Panel's view that a global animal science research agenda has a vital contribution to make towards the CGIAR's goals of poverty alleviation and natural resource protection.
74. TAC also endorses the Panel's view that in the planning of future livestock research greater emphasis needs to be put on market-driven elements and to linking them effectively to the relevant collaborative framework on the basis of comparative advantage. TAC agrees with the Panel that ILRI is best placed to carry out strategic research dimensions in the supply of products, methodologies, and technologies in the areas of biotechnology and genomics applied to livestock and livestock diseases, and to prepare for the post genomic era in livestock research. Strategic research on feed resources and animal nutrition is an equally important element of this international agenda. As argued by the Panel, ILRI is best positioned to address the improvement of tropical animal health and production in an integrated manner.
ILRI's Strategy and Priorities
75. ILRI was established in 1995 following a recommendation from the Group to expand the focus of CGIAR livestock research from sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) to a global agenda. It was also recognised that progress towards CGIAR goals depended heavily on exploiting the synergies between animal health and animal production. TAC recognises the considerable difficulties which were overcome in unifying ILCA and ILRAD, two Centres with widely different cultures, and commends the Board and management specifically for the progress which has been made since ILRI's foundation.
76. ILRI has not updated the strategic plan that was prepared prior to its establishment by the CGIAR Working Group under the auspices of the Rockefeller Foundation. The Institute has held many valuable consultations with its stakeholders and much additional information is now available on which the planning of international livestock research can be based. The dynamics of changes in tropical animal production and science, to which reference has been made, also make it important to renew the Centre's strategy at this time.
77. TAC therefore strongly endorses the Panel's recommendation that ILRI should give immediate attention to revising its strategic plan, showing how it expects to develop its programmes. An explicit priority setting process is needed, with clear links to resource allocation. This will be an essential aid to the Board and management in their response to the Panel's recommendations of improving and maintaining the focus of the scientific agenda, especially in the face of resource fluctuations. TAC expects ILRI to benefit considerably in this process from the results of the ex ante impact assessment studies which the Centre has already carried out.
78. The Panel raises again the question of whether non-ruminants should be considered for inclusion in the Centre's work. TAC recommends that ILRI explore this question, especially given the potential of pigs and poultry to draw poor farmers in Asia into a market economy. Careful consideration should be given, however, to possible alternative sources of the relevant research. In any case, ILRI should consider whether there may be applications of their work in ruminants which are relevant to smallholder pigs and poultry. TAC will welcome further interaction on this matter as the Centre prepares its strategic plan. TAC also urges ILRI to specify clearly in the strategic plan the proposed role of social science research, in view of the importance of socio-cultural research variables in animal husbandry.
Scientific Quality
79. The Panel applied a systematic scoring procedure in their evaluation of ILRI's science. Although nearly all of the projects were rated as good or better, TAC is concerned, however, that nearly one third of the projects were found unsatisfactory because of quality or because of output and that nearly a quarter were not considered well focused. Moreover, TAC agrees with the Panel that excellent, rather than 'good' or 'very good' standards must be expected from an international centre.
80. TAC is concerned that there is still weakness in the critical areas of animal nutrition and part of the systems work, and that there is a virtual absence of sociological research. TAC discussions emphasised that at the core of crop-livestock systems are the farmers-producers and welcomed ILRI's commitment to incorporate sociological capacity soon among its research staff.
81. Turning to related topics, the Panel noted that ILRI has an excellent scientific reputation in several areas (as for example in genetics and disease resistance), and comments favourably on its publication record. On the other hand, TAC is concerned about the fragility of output observed by the Panel in some projects, due to lack of critical mass. The Committee urges the Centre to develop stronger mechanisms to ensure scientific quality and to make much greater use of well focused centre-commissioned external reviews (CCERs) for the purpose of assessing science quality. TAC recognises the short supply of world class scientists in many areas critical to ILRI's agenda and urges the Centre to explore creative solutions to attracting and retaining outstanding staff.
82. TAC is grateful to the Panel for its clear analysis of the progress made by ILRI in its vaccine research. It is impressed by the progress made in developing a vaccine for east coast fever even though the task has proven to be far more difficult and time-consuming than anticipated until recently. With respect to a vaccine for trypanosomiasis, TAC notes the low chances of success of the research and would encourage the Centre to seriously consider whether further investments in this area are warranted.
Organisational Structure
83. The Panel makes several recommendations about programme integration and institutional organisation. TAC sees that the extent to which these are implemented by ILRI will depend on the outcome of the strategic plan. However, TAC would have reservation about the suggestions to merge Projects 11 and 12, doubts that Project 19 could maintain its momentum were several others project attached to it, and wonders about the viability of Projects 13 through 18 in the absence of a strong market orientation in their work.
Board and Management
84. The Committee commends ILRI's leadership for a successful integration of two very disparate institutions and for putting in place effective financial, human resources, and other administrative systems. The Board has performed well in fulfilling its fiduciary responsibility, in providing overall financial oversight, and in developing well thought out Board procedures. The Committee is concerned, however, about the blurred lines of responsibility between the Board and management, the lack of progress on the development of a strategy and priority setting methods, as well as the problem of delegation of authority within the Centre. TAC considers that ILRI's research leadership team needs to be strengthened and appreciates the reasons for the Panel's suggestion about the appointment of a Deputy Director General in this regard. The present Board has outstanding expertise in programmatic areas and TAC looks forward to seeing this fully reflected as the Board carries out its policy setting and oversight responsibilities in the context of the ongoing strategic planning.
85. The Committee commends ILRI staff for its commitment and competence and believes that there would be considerable pay off from the development of a shared vision of the Institute's future direction. The Committee also considers that there would be greater pay off from effectively managing resources at hand, rather than trying to obtain additional resources. TAC also urges the ILRI Board and management to carefully consider the future of its Ethiopian facilities in line with the Panel's recommendations.
Accomplishments and Impact
86. TAC commends ILRI for the contributions it has made to science and for producing significant output with potential impact. TAC also commends ILRI for its strong capacity in ex ante impact assessment. The Committee was particularly pleased to note that there are some areas in which ILRI is seen potentially as world leader and about the very favourable views held by NARS of its work, particularly its activities in training, networks and information technology. TAC encourages ILRI, however, to place much greater emphasis on the research impacts of its collaboration rather than on institution building per se. The Committee is satisfied that ILRI has the capacity for effective impact assessment. While TAC is also satisfied that many of its current programmes have good potential for impact, the Committee is concerned about the limited amount of information available on ex post impact assessment. TAC would encourage ILRI to strengthen its efforts in providing evidence of impact obtained from past activities.
87. With respect to the Systemwide Livestock Programme, TAC would encourage ILRI to develop terms of reference for its convening role, to discuss these with its partners, and to report back to TAC 77. TAC will also revisit the matter in the context of its own ongoing review of Systemwide programmes. The Centre has always followed CGIAR norms with respect to reporting on Systemwide programmes, so TAC does not understand the Panel's recommendation (11 iii) in this regard.
Overall Conclusion
88. TAC commends the Panel for an outstanding report that identifies areas of significant strength and weakness at ILRI. TAC is in no doubt that ILRI has considerable potential to develop itself as an international centre and as a world leader in livestock research. In order to achieve this potential, ILRI will need to give immediate attention to strengthening its leadership and to the development of a strategic plan. TAC also urges the Centre to give serious attention and follow up to the remainder of the Panel's recommendations. The Committee will carefully monitor the situation and developments and expects ILRI to present a progress report on its follow up to each of the recommendations at TAC 77 in September 1999. As a part of this, TAC expects to interact with ILRI on the substance of its emerging strategic plan at TAC 77, looks forward to seeing the entire plan by the end of 1999, and to seeing its full implementation in the Medium-Term Plan submitted for consideration by TAC in March 2000. The Committee will then decide whether to recommend any additional actions.
89. The Committee considered proposals from the 16 CGIAR Centres for the 2000 Research Agenda and initial proposals for 2002 in the context of CGIAR priorities and Centre Medium-Term Plans for the period 2000-2002. The Committee then prepared a report to the Group providing an overview of the criteria used in its analysis, highlights and evaluations of Centre proposals, and an analysis of the implications of the proposals for CGIAR priorities.
90. Overall, TAC saw few programmatic departures from the already endorsed 2000 plans, which had not been justified in terms of the criteria applied. The Committee found that projections to 2002 were, in most cases, largely consistent with established guidelines. The remaining departures, as in the past, were divergences of individual Centre shares of the CGIAR Research Agenda from Group-endorsed levels, allocations to CGIAR Undertakings that were off target in two cases, and proposals for commodities and sectors that were not on trend toward endorsed goals.
91. The TAC Chair would present TAC's report to the Group at MTM '99. It was to be read in conjunction with the document prepared by the CGIAR Secretariat on The Financial Requirements of the 2000 CGIAR Research Agenda.
92. The Chair introduced this item by noting that the Committee had given initial consideration at TAC 75 to two strategic studies dealing, respectively, with CGIAR Research Commitments in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the CGIAR Study of Marginal Lands. TAC would now take decisions to finalize these studies and present them to the Group together with its commentaries on them at ICW'99.
93. Discussion of this Item was led by Dr. Maria Antonia Fernandez Martinez who indicated that the study had provided a comprehensive characterization of the portfolio of CGIAR activities in LAC, the organization of agricultural research in the region, CGIAR and regional priorities for agricultural research and NRM, new institutional developments, and an identification of emerging and unresolved issues. While the report did not contain formal recommendations, TAC inferred several implicit or semi-explicit recommendations and suggestions. These included the need for (a) heterogeneous yet complementary strategies for reducing rural and urban poverty; (b) priority setting processes involving more transparent participation of NARS in the definition of IARC regional priorities; (c) improved partnership and cooperation with NARS through development of jointly implemented projects; (d) ensuring the international public goods nature of agricultural research in a context of privatization of technology; (e) increasing priority to NRM research through appropriate institutional arrangements and incentives; and (f) institutional initiatives in support of the protection of biodiversity.
94. In its discussion of the study, TAC generally agreed with the above and other recommendations, in some cases expressing differences in emphasis with respect to their relative priority; it also made recommendations on modalities for their implementation. These views would be detailed in TAC's commentary on the report of the study.
95. The Committee considered a draft synthesis, prepared by Dr. de Janvry, of the CGIAR Study on Marginal Lands. The latter had received initial consideration at TAC 75. The synthesis highlighted the study's findings that relationships between poverty and degradation were not consistent, nor were those between the degree of marginality and the number of poor. Thus, future research on the relationship between poverty and the biophysical environment should take into account other variables that influence the relationship and create an association between poverty and agroecological context. With a view to finalizing the synthesis as a basis for a TAC commentary on the study, TAC Members stressed, inter alia, the need to draw lessons from CGIAR success stories in marginal areas, specifically, to identify those technical, institutional, and policy factors which complement Centres' research and facilitate adoption by poor farmers of new technologies in marginal areas. There was also consensus within TAC that three key criteria should guide future research and resource allocation decisions for reducing poverty directly and indirectly in marginal areas: (a) the potential of biotechnology for marginal lands; (b) the determinants of poverty broadly construed to include access to productive assets, public goods investments, institutional arrangements, and cultural and social factors; and (c) reliable data on the number and location of the poor derived from poverty mapping.
96. TAC heard the report of its Standing Committee on External Reviews (SCOER) on future reviews and took the following actions:
a) ICARDA EPMR
97. The Fourth EPMR of ICARDA was being implemented. The review was being chaired by Dr. Don Plucknett (United States). Panel members had been appointed in consultation with the Centre. The initial phase would be conducted 16-26 April 1999 and the main phase 26 July-12 August 1999. The report of the ICARDA EPMR would be discussed at TAC 77 and ICW'99.
b) IWMI and WARDA
98. The Second EPMR of IWMI and Fourth EPMR of WARDA were being organized. The IWMI review would be chaired by Dr. Michel Petit (France) and the WARDA review by Dr. Mandi Rukuni (Zimbabwe). The initial phase of the IWMI review would be conducted 6-16 December 1999; the main phase 14-29 February 2000. The initial phase of the WARDA review would be conducted 22 November-6 December 1999; the main phase 24 January-12 February 2000. The reports of both EPMRs would be considered at TAC 78 and MTM 2000. Panel profiles and lists of members were given initial consideration by TAC for both reviews.
c) CIAT
99. Planning for the Fifth EPMR of CIAT was proceeding in consultation with the Centre. The initial phase was scheduled for 17-28 January 2000; the main phase 3-20 April 2000. The report of the CIAT EPMR would be discussed at TAC 79 and ICW 2000. A panel profile and list of potential chairs was given initial consideration by TAC.
d) CIP
100. Planning for the Fifth EPMR of CIP was proceeding in consultation with the Centre. The initial phase was tentatively scheduled for February 2001; dates of the main phase had not yet been proposed by the Centre. A list of potential panel chairs would be considered at TAC 77. The report of the CIP EPMR would be discussed at TAC 81 and ICW 2001.
e) IITA
101. Planning for the Fifth EPMR of IITA was proceeding in consultation with the Centre. Dates for the initial phase had not yet been proposed; the proposed dates of the main phase were 18 April-8 May 2001. The report of the IITA EPMR would be considered at TAC 81 and ICW 2001. A list of potential panel chairs was given initial consideration by TAC.
f) Review of Systemwide Programmes with an Ecoregional Approach
102. This review was being implemented under the chairmanship of Dr. Ted Henzell (Australia). The preparatory phase, a desk study by the TAC Secretariat, had been completed. The main phase would be conducted from 19 April-15 June 1999, by small teams of experts at selected programme sites in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The review report would be considered at TAC 77 and ICW'99.
g) Systemwide Review of Plant Breeding
103. The Consultative Council had charged TAC with conducting a Systemwide review of plant breeding as a follow-up to Recommendation 4 of the System Review. Draft terms of reference for the review were given initial consideration by TAC. The TAC Chair would present terms of reference for the review at MTM '99.
h) Review Procedures
104. TAC discussed options for streamlining reviews and their management, including EPMRs and special reviews. It favourably considered a plan for revising the process through which review teams were selected and guided, in the expectation that the revision would make that process more efficient.
105. TAC reconfirmed dates and venues for the following meetings:
|
TAC 77 |
ISNAR, The Hague |
20-25 September 1999 |
|
TAC 78 |
IITA, Ibadan |
27-31 March 2000 |
|
TAC 79 |
ICARDA, Aleppo |
25-29 September 2000 |
|
TAC 80 |
CIFOR, Bogor |
26-30 March 2001 |
106. TAC considered some 20 pre-proposals from Centres for projects of potentially high priority within the CGIAR's Research Agenda. Seven were selected as possibly qualifying for support from funds set aside by the Finance Committee, and Centres were encouraged to develop these into full proposals for TAC's further consideration and recommendation. The Committee also identified two themes it considered of strategic importance to the CGIAR - production ecology and intellectual property rights - and invited specific multi-Centre proposals for possible set aside funding.
107. The Committee considered the report of the TAC-initiated study on rates of return to agricultural research and development prepared by IFPRI, deciding it would interact further with the Centre before disseminating the paper.
