CGIAR System Research Articles

The CGIAR needs a revolution

The CGIAR is a unique scientific organization that seeks to improve food security for low-income people. It should be leading efforts to generate sustainable productivity gains in agriculture, especially in sub-Saharan Africa where productivity lags. However, its current ill-adapted priorities and structure, its obsession with re-organizations, and its unproductive ventures into local development projects have reduced its impact and rendered it unable to respond to the challenge of food security under climate change. The system's efforts have become too diffuse and ineffective while attempts to revive impact through repeated re-organizations have failed. The CGIAR has unique strengths: access to plant germplasm, know-how to improve germplasm and agronomic practices, global networks of experimental sites and research collaborators, and excellent staff. The CGIAR's scientists are highly motivated, but leaders and funders of the system have failed to support them with a simple, focused, and better funded operational environment needed to succeed in their research – and have greater impact from it. This can be corrected. We propose a scientific and problem-driven focus on fewer global and regional research priorities, supported by adequate long-term funding, rigorous methods of project evaluation, and management that stimulates innovation and seeks verifiable results. These supports do not exist today and we do not see that the current One CGIAR system will provide them in the foreseeable future.

Whither the Marriage of Agriculture and Nutrition?

Whither the Marriage of Agriculture and Nutrition?

Multilateral forestry research and tertiary forestry education for development: reflections on progress since the 1970s

The contemporary institutional landscapes for multilateral forestry research and tertiary forestry education for development were shaped largely in the last three decades of the 20 th century. Some limitations of largely post-colonial arrangements in the 1970s for forestry research for development were addressed by the establishment of CIFOR and incorporation of ICRAF into the CGIAR system in the early 1990s, following international processes in which FAO, IUFRO and the World Bank played central roles. Contemporaneously, tertiary forestry education evolved and internationalised in conjunction with that sector more generally. Institutional arrangements for multilateral forestry research are now undergoing another phase of change, as key actors seek more impact without more investment. Traditional models of tertiary forestry education for development are similarly challenged by ongoing changes in higher education systems. Both forestry research and education need now to address the profound challenges and potential opportunities associated with major forces such as ongoing forest loss and degradation, climate change, economic globalisation, and social and demographic change. In parallel, the value of evidence-based policy and practice, and of multilateralism, are being challenged by resurgent political populism and nationalism. Together, these contexts suggest that those engaged in forestry research and education for development will need to be politically and institutionally astute, and proactive and strategic, in catalysing and pursuing opportunities; and that various collaborative models, both nationally and internationally, will remain important vehicles for sharing resources, commanding the attention of decision-makers, and realising development impacts.

Fruits and Vegetables in International Agricultural Research: A Case of Neglect?

Fruits and vegetables (F+Vs) can play an important role in combatting the problem of the double burden of malnutrition. Agricultural research can help to increase the productivity and the resource-use efficiency of fruit and vegetable production and, thus, reduce prices so that these commodities can become more available to poor households. However, the crops research of the international agricultural research system, including its centerpiece the CGIAR, has so far concentrated mainly on staple grains and starchy food crops, while largely neglecting most F+Vs. None of the current CGIAR centers is specifically dedicated to fruits or vegetables if the convention is followed not to consider cassava, potatoes of all types, and bananas and their relatives as vegetables. The underlying reasons why the CGIAR has not focused on F+Vs are explored in this review. The early emphasis on food staple crops was motivated by the perception that the hunger problems of the era were primarily deficiencies in food energy. The success of the Green Revolution, in which international agricultural research played a key role, stimulated further emphasis on increasing the productivity of staple grains as the major strategy to combat hunger. F+Vs, however, received limited attention. The Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center in Taiwan was created outside the CGIAR system. In the 1990s new centers were added to the CGIAR system, but this opportunity was not used to create a dedicated center for F+Vs. Some informal activities to conduct research on F+Vs also took place in several other CGIAR centers as part of the farming systems research activities, based on the recognition that F+Vs are small but important elements of many farming systems of the developing world. Through an analysis of the reasons why the CGIAR system has tended little to F+Vs, this paper presents an assessment of possible future strategies to better integrate these "neglected" commodities into international agricultural research efforts. The assessment shows that genetic improvement might perhaps best be largely left to the private sector, while international agricultural research could better focus on developing strategies for integrated pest management, biological pest control, and improved water use efficiency, as these are areas where private companies have limited incentives to invest. Moreover, publicly funded research could help to find low-cost solutions for infrastructure-related aspects such as postharvest handling and storage (e.g., cooling and drying), aspects where renewable energy sources have a substantial potential.

Regardless of what agricultural research we do, nutrition is KEY

As we move on into 2015, some of us are wondering where the world is truly headed? Is the human race losing grip of world events? The security situation is dire and no one seems to have an answer, planes are falling from the skies with investigations not being able to right away pin point to the cause. Too many people are being killed with no recourse to their families. This is supposed to be a time of advanced technology, and availability of exceptional expertise. Yet, events continue to happen for which we have no answers. From my own corner of the world to far- off lands, human beings are committing heinous crimes, hitherto unheard of. I have always had great respect for certain institutions whose work is focused on ensuring there is adequate food for all of humanity. The CGIAR system, with its 15 centers undertakes great agricultural research work across the globe. Today I will mention just a handful. Let me mention upfront that more institutions in the private sector and the NGO community are doing commendable work and need to be uploaded. The time to address not just food quantity but also quality including nutrition is now. Anyone or any institution dealing with food in whatever capacity must think of quality and safety. Consumer awareness is growing on these issues and it therefore incumbent on these of us concerned to ensure we address their needs.

A Normative Framework for Social Science Activities in the CGIAR

The CGIAR is going through a change process. The proposed new vision is “to reduce poverty and hunger, improve human health and nutrition, and enhance ecosystem resilience through high‐quality international agricultural research, partnership and leadership.” The CGIAR’s key objectives are to create and accelerate sustainable increases in the productivity and production of healthy food by and for the poor; conserve, enhance and sustainably use natural resources and biodiversity to improve the livelihoods of the poor in response to climate change and other factors; and promote policy and institutional change that will stimulate agricultural growth and equity to benefit the poor, especially rural women and other disadvantaged groups.The CGIAR has a distinguished history of success in these endeavors, successes in which the social sciences have historically played a prominent role. But there is a widespread sense of discontent with the present state of the social sciences within the CGIAR, some of which may reflect broader concerns about the CGIAR in general, and some of which may be specific to the social sciences within the System. As a direct result, the Science Council of the CGIAR has commissioned a stripe review of the social sciences in the CGIAR. The current global food and fuel price crisis accentuates the need for a reinvigorated CGIAR to help reverse the structural problems in global agriculture that have emerged over the past several years.Per the terms of reference for phase 1 of the stripe review, the panel Chair was tasked to develop, in consultation with the SC Task Force, a normative framework for a high quality and effective social science research agenda, which, if operationalized, would advance research on the CGIAR System Priorities and effectively contribute to achieving the CGIAR goals. The framework represents an “ideal” of what the CGIAR should expect from its social scientists against which the Panel can assess the actual situation.” This paper is the product of that effort. It builds on a descriptive assessment desk study undertaken by a consultant, and feeds into the draft terms of references for phase 2 of the stripe review. Together, these three documents comprise the outputs of phase 1 of the review.

INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC GOODS THROUGH INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT RESEARCH IN CGIAR PARTNERSHIPS

The CGIAR System conducts research to produce international public goods (IPG) that are of wide applicability, creating a scientific base which speeds and broadens local adaptive development. Integrated natural resources management (INRM) research is sometimes seen to be very location specific and consequently does not lend itself readily to the production of IPGs. In this paper we analyse ways in which strategic approaches to INRM research can have broad international applicability and serve as useful foundations for the development of locally adapted technologies. The paper describes the evolution of the IPG concept within the CGIAR and elaborates on five major types of IPGs that have been generated from a varied set of recent INRM research efforts. CGIAR networks have both strengths and weaknesses in INRM research and application, with enormous differences in relative research and development capacities, responsibilities and data access of its partners, making programme process evolution critical to acceptance and participation. Many of the lessons learnt regarding challenges and corresponding IPG research approaches are relevant to designing and managing future multi-scale, multi-locational, co-ordinated INRM programmes involving broad-based partnerships to address complex environmental and livelihood problems for development.

RECEPTIVITY TO SOCIAL RESEARCH BY THE CGIAR

This paper analyses the way the CGIAR system has incorporated social research in its agenda. Since 1995, the social science staff capacity in the CGIAR has decreased by 24 %, and the overall balance of social science research is still significantly tilted away from the core germplasm enhancement, production systems/natural resources management, and technology adoption work – the ‘bread and butter’ of technology generation and development effort – toward ex-ante and ex-post activities. Further, the bulk of the social science research has low social research content despite the significant expansion of the CGIAR initial goal of increasing the proverbial ‘pile of rice’ to poverty alleviation and sustainable food security. The paper concludes that a concerted effort is now required to mainstream social research in the CGIAR system, and this cannot occur without the full support of the CGIAR donors, the CGIAR senior managers, and the centre boards and executive staff.

ECOREGIONAL RESEARCH IN AFRICA: LEARNING LESSONS FROM IITA'S BENCHMARK AREA APPROACH

Ecoregional research has the potential to help address some of the huge challenges facing agriculture in developing countries by developing technologies that work under different agro-ecological conditions, and the processes by which these technologies can be adapted to work in other areas with similar conditions. The CGIAR system has been developing ecoregional research as a new paradigm for over a decade. In this paper we evaluate one of the most ambitious of these initiatives called the Benchmark Area Approach (BAA) pioneered by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. We evaluate the BAA against nine good practice criteria for ecoregional research and finding that the approach is delivering, or has the potential to deliver, on all nine. Many of the lessons learnt from this evaluation will be relevant to current and future attempts to undertake co-ordinated multi-locational research for development.

Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems

Agricultural development is fundamentally a social process in which people construct solutions to their problems, often by modifying both new technologies and their own production systems to take advantage of new opportunities offered by the technologies. Hence, agricultural change is an immensely complex process, with a high degree of non-linearity. However, current ‘best practice’ economic evaluation methods commonly used in the CGIAR system ignore complexity. In this paper we develop a two-stage monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment approach called impact pathway evaluation. This approach is based on program-theory evaluation from the field of evaluation, and the experience of the German development organization GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH). In the first stage of this approach, a research project develops an impact pathway for itself, which is an explicit theory or model of how the project sees itself achieving impact. The project then uses the impact pathway to guide project management in complex environments. The impact pathway may evolve, based on learning over time. The second stage is an ex post impact assessment sometime after the project has finished, in which the project's wider benefits are independently assessed. The evaluator seeks to establish plausible links between the project outputs and developmental changes, such as poverty alleviation. We illustrate the usefulness of impact pathway evaluation through examples from Nigeria and Indonesia.

Food Safety Considerations for CGIAR Research

ABSTRACT In view of the CGIAR's identification of food safety as an area requiring priority attention to safeguard the economic interests of smallholder farmers and the poor, this paper aims to provide a general overview of the level of research and development attention accorded by the scientific and development community to this theme. This baseline survey of work undertaken exposes the nature of the problem; the food safety situation of the poor; food safety concerns in technology and policy research in the CGIAR; the role of capacity-building; and, subsequently, attempts to provide pointers to the CGIAR research community along which it could proceed. It is clear that within the CGIAR System, there has been no set strategy to provide guidance on the topic, and that work done to date has been largely of an ad hoc nature. The formulation of a strategic framework to guide the incorporation of food safety considerations in CGIAR research is now essential and would prevent duplication, capture synergies from the currently isolated activities and promote greater efficiency.

A Regional Approach to Setting Research Priorities and Implementation: Towards Satisfying National, Regional and Global Concerns

ABSTRACT Regionalization of agricultural research across countries has received considerable attention in recent years, with the establishment of regional and sub-regional organizations in most regions. Recently, the CGIAR System has called for a regional approach to research, involving bottom-up priority-setting and implementation, and integrating this with global priority-setting. This paper explores the possibility of developing an approach for research priority-setting that would satisfy national, regional, and global expectations of regionalization and allow the regional and sub-regional organizations to assume a bigger role. The paper also considers how the CGIAR Centres may support this priority-setting process and how they may use it to define their regional activities. A review of existing regional research initiatives shows the many models in use, with different extents of collaboration and with different challenges and promises. Regional priorities can strengthen the relevance of agricultural research in a region or sub-region. A description of a relatively generic approach to establishing regional priorities is presented. Different research organizations that are present in a region can use the research priorities to enable their work, and it is possible for CGIAR Centres to participate in the regional agenda while respecting the global nature of the CGIAR System. The integration of regional priorities into the CGIAR global research agenda is an area in which there is little experience in the CGIAR System. The challenge for the CGIAR is to determine how to maintain a global focus in its agenda, while promoting a coordinated regional approach to research planning and implementation. Priority-setting in the CGIAR will become even more of an ongoing process while the bottom-up regional approach to research planning, priority-setting, and implementation is established in all regions.

IS AFRICAN AGRICULTURE CONVERGING? EVIDENCE FROM A PANEL OF CROP YIELDS

It is forty years since Willard Cochrane (1958) introduced the “technology treadmill”, which suggested that farmers have to adopt new technologies to maintain profitability. Cochrane’s concern was the agricultural sector of the United States, but the treadmill argument has global applicability, and has arguably influenced the international agricultural research effort. For world agriculture, the CGIAR system has the task of promoting technical change and, if it is succeeding in diffusing better technologies to the poorest countries, there should be some evidence of convergence. Thus, the less agriculturally successful countries within Africa should be closing the gap between them and the leaders, and the gaps between Africa and Asia, and the developed and developing countries should be decreasing.

Organisation and management of the CGIAR system: A review

Organisation and management of the CGIAR system: A review

Agricultural Research Institutions and Priorities in an Era of Resource Scarcity: Discussion

The three papers by Norton, Pardey, and Alston (NPA), McCalla and Ryan (MR), and Just and Huffman (JH) address very different topics; therefore, any discussion of them should probably be mainly on an individual basis. There is, nonetheless, some common underlying perspective. NPA and MR acknowledge the difficulty in research priority setting when there are multiple objectives at stake. This gives rise to multiple trade-offs between economic efficiency, value of total output, equity, and sustainability. MR, addressing the research priority issue for the CGIAR system in a global context, add as another trade-off the consideration of the strengths of the national partners who collaborate with the CGIAR system. NPA add the complexity of setting research priorities across commodities, disciplines, geographical entities, and individual projects. JH point out the complex layering of modem science and technology which ranges from basic work in the so-called mother sciences, to pretechnology science, to applied sciences and, finally, to technology development and commercialization. Thus, there is a real danger in oversimplifying the R&D process and in overgeneralizing recommendations about research organization and priority setting. All three papers acknowledge the problem of shrinking real research funds. In the latter regard, some recent personal work has reminded me that in the U.S., for example, a 1975 agricultural research dollar was worth only about 37 cents in 1990. And over the last several years federal, and in some cases state, appropriations for agricultural research have been virtually constant in nominal dollars.