32203 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Annual Report 2003 everybody's business CGIAR credits Photo credits Cover: John Isacc, Peter Arnold, Inc.; top left: CIP; top right: Clive Boursnell, IPGRI; center CGIAR table of contents: Stevie Mann page 2 top: Clive Boursnell; bottom: Marcus Rose, Panos Pictures page 3 CGIAR page 4 CGIAR page 5 ILRI page 7 top: CGIAR; bottom, Clive Boursnell page 8 Chris Stowers, Panos Pictures page 9 ICRISAT page 10 Clive Boursnell page 11 Stevie Mann page 12 Amy Vitale, Panos Pictures; center: Stevie Mann page 13 CGIAR page 14 Clive Boursnell page 16 CIMMYT/RWC page 17 background: Clive Boursnell; center: IRRI page 18 CIAT page 19 CIFOR page 20 Erika Meng, CIMMYT page 21 CIP page 22 top: ICARDA; bottom: Anvar Ilyasov,World Bank page 23 ICARDA page 24 top: Phillippe Berry, IFPRI; bottom: Michael Rubinstein, IFPRI page 25 Marlene Mowbray page 26 top: Stevie Mann; bottom: CGIAR page 27 IITA page 28 Clive Boursnell page 29 CGIAR page 30 top: IWMI; bottom Curt Carnemark,World Bank page 31 WARDA page 32 top: ICRAF; bottom: ILRI page 33 top: R. Brummett,WorldFish; bottom: P.K. Sahoo,WorldFish page 35 background:WARDA; left: CGIAR; right: Clive Boursnell page 36 Stevie Mann page 37 CIP page 38 CIP page 40 background: D. Lever,WorldFish; left: Clive Boursnell; center: Stevie Mann; right: CGIAR page 41 CGIAR page 42 ICRISAT page 43 Stevie Mann page 44 background: Clive Boursnell; left: Stevie Mann; center top: ILRI; center bottom: CIP page 57 background: Chris Stowers, Panos Pictures; top: Clive Boursnell; bottom left: IRRI; bottom right: ICRISAT Sr. Editors Fionna Douglas and Sarwat Hussain Editor Mary Fisk Production M. Caryl Jones-Swahn, Rick Ludwick and Monika Lynde Design Patricia Hord.Graphik Design Printing Jarboe Printing table of contents the cgiar at a glance 2 message from the chairman and director: an evolving cgiar 3 enhancing the quality of cgiar science: a science council perspective 5 perspectives on the world bank-cgiar partnership 7 building prosperity through partnership: india and the cgiar 9 engaging members to realize the cgiar vision 10 enhancing efficiency to maximize effectiveness 11 impact of the cgiar: everybody's business 12 impact of the cgiar 13 boosting zero tillage in south asia with private-sector support 16 the future harvest centers of the cgiar 17 celebrating the spirit of innovation 35 implementing challenge programs 36 optimizing impacts through improved information and knowledge management 37 developing a new approach to performance measurement in the cgiar 38 system office is up and running 39 winners in 2003 40 recognizing excellence in science and communications with cgiar awards 41 the spirit of innovation 43 executive summary of the 2003 cgiar financial results 44 who's who in the cgiar in 2003 57 the cgiar members 58 facts about cgiar staff 62 acronyms and abbreviations 63 the cgiar at a glance The Consultative Group on International Strengthening national systems through Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is a strategic alliance joint research, policy support, training and of countries, international and regional organiza- knowledge-sharing tions, and private foundations supporting interna- Protecting the environment by developing tional agricultural research Centers that work with new technologies that make more prudent national agricultural research systems, the private use of land, water and nutrients and help sector and civil society.The alliance mobilizes agri- reduce the adverse impacts of agriculture on cultural science to reduce poverty, foster human ecosystems well-being, promote agricultural growth and pro- Saving biodiversity by collecting, characteriz- tect the environment. In 2003, CGIAR members ing and conserving genetic resources (the contributed $381 million--the single largest CGIAR holds in public trust some of the investment to generate public goods for the ben- world's largest seed collections that are avail- efit of poor agricultural communities worldwide. able to all) Improving policies that affect agriculture, More than 7,600 CGIAR scientists and staff work food, health, the spread of new technologies, within the CGIAR alliance.Their research addresses and the management and conservation of every critical component of the agricultural sector, natural resources including agroforestry, biodiversity, food, forage and tree crops, environment-friendly farming Africa is a priority for CGIAR research. techniques, fisheries, forestry, livestock, food poli- cies and agricultural research services. Specifically, The CGIAR alliance is open to all countries and the research targets the special needs, crops and organizations sharing a commitment to a com- ecologies of poor agricultural communities world- mon research agenda and willing to invest finan- In 2003, CGIAR members con- wide. cial support and human and technical resources. tributed $381 million--the single In 2003, the Gulf Cooperation Council joined the The CGIAR has five areas of focus: alliance, and more members are expected in the largest investment to generate Increasing productivity of crops, livestock, near future. public goods for the benefit of fisheries, forests and the natural resource base poor agricultural communities worldwide. 2 consultative group on international agricultural research message from the chairman and director: an evolving cgiar The year 2003 marked a significant period in the Despite these achievements, much remains to be CGIAR's global effort to rally quality science in the done, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. The CGIAR service of poor farmers. and its partners are complementing their focus on impact by developing new ways of working. CGIAR has long recognized that science-for-devel- opment is about achieving beneficial impacts for To increase effectiveness, we have adopted an people and their livelihoods, as well as for the evolutionary approach to reform. We recognize ecosystems that sustain all life. that, while change may be crucial to effectiveness and survival, so is the need for continuity in Accordingly, impact is the leitmotif for this year's research activities directed at achieving balanced annual report. development. Ian Johnson, Chairman, CGIAR, The stories that follow provide snapshots of In keeping with the evolutionary approach, Boards visits Huancayo, Peru. knowledge partnerships geared to local impacts. of several CGIAR Centers have begun exploring They demonstrate the CGIAR's catalytic role in how to better coordinate their activities, including bringing together partners to generate innova- streamlining research and improving governance. tions that deliver real benefits to poor people. Even as these discussions unfold, it is clear that the The stories also reveal the different ways in which CGIAR must maintain laser-like focus on its core impact is measured and valued. A substantial competency: harness science for fostering growth report commissioned by the Standing Panel on that increases poor people's incomes and pro- Impact Assessment (described at page 13) con- motes sustainable development through new cludes that every dollar invested in the CGIAR has technologies and policies that reduce agriculture's generated $9 worth of additional benefits in the adverse footprints on the environment. developing world. In interviews conducted in the central highlands of Kenya, Nelson Maturi, a low- In 2003, the Group recommended that IFPRI income farmer, said that gaining membership in absorb ISNAR's core programs and relocate them a local dairy goat association helped increase his to Africa. After extensive consultations, many knowledge and income, enabling him to send all conducted in virtual mode, we made substantial of his children to school. progress, and plans are on track for the ISNAR program to begin functioning from Addis Ababa Notable achievements by CGIAR scientists during under IFPRI governance.This rearrangement will 2003 include successes in rehabilitating agricul- facilitate operational efficiencies and effectiveness. ture in conflict-ridden areas; mitigating natural disasters; improving the productivity of food The CGIAR is expanding its interaction with its crops, fisheries, forests and livestock; and fostering partners. At the 2003 Annual General Meeting improved policies that increase food availability hosted by the Government of Kenya, we wel- while enhancing trade opportunities. It is a meas- comed the Gulf Cooperation Council as our sixty- ure of their success that in 2003 alone over 124 third Member, a tally that now includes 25 devel- CGIAR scientists received awards for scientific oping and 22 industrialized countries. The CGIAR excellence, science communications and public is a true South-North partnership. In Nairobi, we service. launched the Innovation Marketplace to promote, message from the chairman and director: an evolving cgiar 3 expand and strengthen relationships with civil other is developing structural and organizational society organizations while catalyzing innovation options for consideration by the Group. A world- across the CGIAR system. Three pilot Challenge class Science Council has been appointed and will Programs are off to a good start. The Gates help steer the scientific effort to maximize devel- Foundation became a major contributor to opment impacts. HarvestPlus--the biofortification Challenge Program. Austria returned to the CGIAR as a At the CGIAR, impact is everybody's business. In contributing member, Canada doubled its its march forward, the CGIAR affirms its commit- contribution, and the United Kingdom has ment to make the world a better place, especially greatly increased its support. We thank our for those who most need the benefits of science. investors for their confidence in the CGIAR's Francisco Reifschneider, Director CGIAR, family of scientists. with Syrian farmer Mr. Ibrahim Saliem, Ian Johnson from Kesabia village, Aleppo, Syria. Globally, all eyes are focusing on the development CGIAR Chairman needs of Sub-Saharan Africa. Two Task Forces have been formed. One is looking at achieving pro- Francisco Reifschneider grammatic alignment of CGIAR efforts, and the CGIAR Director The stories that follow ... demon- strate the CGIAR's catalytic role in bringing together partners to generate innovations that deliver real benefits to poor people. 4 consultative group on international agricultural research enhancing the quality of cgiar science: a science council perspective As part of CGIAR reforms, the Technical Advisory CGIAR priority setting, involving extensive virtual Committee (TAC) of the CGIAR was transformed consultations with global stakeholders and scien- into a Science Council (SC) in January 2004, with tists, building on its work on regional approaches an interim Science Council (iSC) operating from to research planning with regional organizations January 2002 until September 2003. During this and Centers. In terms of strategic reviews of transition period, the iSC was chaired by Emil topics, special attention was paid to biosafety, Javier with TAC members serving as iSC members. food safety, social research, water management, The iSC met twice during 2003 and had a busy NRM and abiotic stress genomics. and productive final year implementing its advisory responsibilities.The iSC was ably supported by During 2003, external reviews of Centers (ISNAR, iSC Secretariat staff and received full cooperation ICRISAT and IPGRI), and Systemwide Programs and from the CGIAR Members, CBC, CDC, Centers, the stripe reviews of themes (Capacity Building) that Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR), cut across Center mandates have been a principal Regional and Sub-Regional Organizations, and means by which iSC fulfilled its responsibility to the CGIAR Secretariat. assure the relevance and quality of CGIAR science. The iSC also reviewed "Improving Livelihoods and This contribution highlights accomplishments and Natural Resources Management in Sub-Saharan progress in the principal areas of the iSC's respon- Africa," a Challenge Program put forward by the sibility and now taken up by the Science Council: Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). The iSC continued its deliberations on the overall Developing policy, priorities and strategies monitoring and evaluation processes in the CGIAR through strategic considerations in the and prepared a document entitled "Changing external environment Monitoring and Evaluation in the CGIAR." The Ensuring the relevance and quality of science TAC/iSC had been working on new approaches to Evaluating challenge programs monitoring and evaluating Center performance Commenting on Center 2004-06 Medium- for two years. The paper, which benefited from Term Plans and 2004 Financing Plans broad consultations among the members, the Assessing the CGIAR System's impact CBC and the CDC, was discussed and approved (see related story on p. 13) at iSC/TAC 84 in June 2003. Following completion of the CGIAR's new Vision The Chair and members of the new Science and Strategy, TAC/iSC resumed its work on science Council were confirmed at AGM 03.They were policy and priorities and strategies through strate- identified through a global search led by Dr. gic considerations in the external environment Mohamed Hassan, Executive Director of the Third likely to influence the System's future priorities World Academy of Sciences. The Science Council and strategies and research portfolio. During comprises six eminent scientists from the North 2003, the iSC continued its efforts to facilitate the and the South, and I am privileged to serve as implementation of the seven strategic planks of Chairman. Three members of the iSC agreed to the CGIAR's Vision and Strategy. It focused on serve for one additional year to provide continuity. designing and implementing a new approach to The primary role of the Science Council is to enhancing the quality of cgiar science: a science council perspective 5 enhance and guard the relevance and quality of help maximize the Science Council's ability to science in the CGIAR System by: fulfill its responsibilities. Advising the CGIAR on strategic scientific In 2004, the Science Council plans to complete issues relevant to the Group's goals and the review of CGIAR priorities and strategies while mission moving forward with strategic studies related to "... the Science Council plans to Providing independent, credible and authori- food safety, ethics and science, conservation of tative advice on scientific issues relevant to animal and fish genetic resources, and international complete the review of CGIAR pri- the international agricultural research system public goods within the concept of intellectual orities and strategies while mov- Developing partnerships with the wider scien- property rights. It plans to follow up on opportu- ing forward with strategic studies tific community for the benefit of international nities to organize genomics research in the CGIAR agricultural research more effectively and efficiently. The Science related to food safety, ethics and Council will formulate a new evaluation model for science, conservation of animal The Science Council will function as a committee the CGIAR and track changes in CGIAR science and fish genetic resources, and of the whole. However, most of its activities will based on the medium-term plans of Centers, international public goods...." be facilitated through four Standing Panels on Systemwide Programs and Challenge Programs. Priorities and Strategies, Monitoring and Finally, the Science Council will develop a strategy Evaluation, Impact Assessment, and Mobilizing for mobilizing science, prepare annual reports on Science. The Standing Panels consist of a Science the state of global agricultural research, and begin Council member who serves as chair and two planning for an international science symposium members appointed from outside the Science in 2006. Council. Three of the four panels each have one additional Science Council member. Given the Per Pinstrup-Andersen complementarity of their functions, the Standing Chairman Panels will interact closely with each other and CGIAR Science Council 6 consultative group on international agricultural research perspectives on the world bank-cgiar partnership The World Bank has played multiple roles in the and agriculture, which is the engine of economic CGIAR, as founder, committed supporter and growth in rural areas of most developing countries. cosponsor. Given the dire forecasts of the 1960s Thus the CGIAR's role today is as important as it and 1970s that many developing countries would was at its launch in 1971. succumb to famine, the Bank was asked to create a consultative group for international agriculture An effective partnership in today's new develop- to ensure that the developing world would capi- ment assistance paradigm, however, requires an talize on the then-scientific advances in rice and evolving CGIAR system, one responsive to the wheat and that a consistent pipeline of science- changing needs of farmers, the drive for results, based technologies would be available to devel- changing operational structures and environ- oping country farmers.The Bank responded to ments in which it finds itself. The World Bank the challenge with the help of the Food and applauds the CGIAR's willingness to respond to Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations the new environment, to take the difficult deci- Development Programme (UNDP), the Ford sions on reforms and to operationalize them. Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and others, These efforts are already bearing fruit: new and founded the CGIAR.Today we can all look challenge programs are mobilizing resources-- back at a decades-long successful partnership financial, human, intellectual, and technical--that that has been described by President James D. bring together a variety of partners who have Wolfensohn as "one of the oldest and most not traditionally worked closely with the CGIAR. significant and effective partnerships we have." The HarvestPlus program on biofortification is a prime example of using science to fight poverty: Much has changed since the CGIAR was founded, breeding crops with higher yields to improve the both within the CGIAR and in the development incomes of farmers and with enhanced mineral community. CGIAR Membership has grown from and micronutrient densities to mitigate the 18 at its founding to 63 today, in and of itself a scourge of malnutrition. Effective implementation testimony to the success of the system. However, of these reforms will ensure that the CGIAR remains the climate for the CGIAR has not always been on the cutting edge of scientific discovery for the easy. Since the early 1980s the specter of famine benefit of farmers in the developing world. has been removed by a downward trend in food prices and an upward trend in overall food pro- The World Bank has recently revised and launched duction. Despite the persistence of poverty in the its own agricultural and rural development strategy. rural areas of the developing world, the trend in The strategy's focus puts the rural poor in the donor assistance to agriculture has been sharply driver's seat and emphasizes working in partner- downward, although there are positive signs of a ship with them and the rest of the development reversal in this trend. community. The CGIAR was an important partner in the formulation of the strategy, with six CGIAR The new millennium brought a new focus on the Centers collaborating on regional workshops to world's poorest citizens with the setting of the articulate the needs and role of agriculture in the Millennium Development Goals. These goals can- rural development process. Our goal is to forge not be achieved without a focus on rural poverty even closer ties as we march forward in the war perspectives on the world bank-cgiar partnership 7 on rural poverty. We need to better capture the Sharing information is vital for quality science synergies resulting from the unique blend of and achieving impact. Staff exchange programs different but complementary specialist skills with- between the World Bank and the CGIAR are a in the Bank and the CGIAR. particularly effective way to build relationships and foster more in-depth understanding of the One recent initiative provides a good illustration operating environments, constraints and opportu- of these synergies. Training programs for World nities each institution faces. Bank agriculture and rural development staff have been undertaken in partnership with CGIAR The CGIAR is, and will continue to be, an impor- Centers, CIMMYT and ICRISAT. This partnership has tant partner with the World Bank as together we enabled World Bank staff to see agricultural science strive for successfully implementing our strategy for development in action and to make use of to achieve the goal we all share--the eradication extensive field visits during training. CGIAR Center of rural poverty in the developing world. staff have gained exposure to broader policy con- siderations, at both the macro and micro levels, Kevin Cleaver that are inherent in the adoption and diffusion Director, Agriculture and Rural Development of innovations in agricultural science. Department, The World Bank "The CGIAR is, and will continue to be, an important partner with the World Bank as together we strive for successfully implementing our strategy to achieve the goal we all share--the eradication of rural poverty in the developing world." 8 consultative group on international agricultural research building prosperity through partnership: india and the cgiar The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Pulses and Oilseeds: India is a major producer administers one of the world's largest National and consumer of pulses and vegetable oil. Agricultural Research Systems (NARS). Its collabo- ICRISAT has made significant contributions, ration with the CGIAR represents one of the including developing improved groundnut longest and most extensive partnerships. Indian varieties (ICGS-37, ICGS-44, ICGS-76, and ICGV- The India­CGIAR partnership is NARS have played a significant role in transform- 86325), and short-duration Pragati pigeonpea, based on a common vision, mutual ing India's food situation, from an era of chronic which has facilitated double-cropping, nearly deficits to surpluses and food grain exports. This doubling yields and increasing farmer incomes. interest and shared expertise. success story, referred to as the "Green Revolution" Two chickpea varieties released in India are in India, was made possible by CGIAR Centers boosting production, while integrated pest such as CIMMYT and IRRI. management techniques for pigeonpea and groundnut have substantially reduced insecti- India became a CGIAR Member in 1981, although cide use by up to 100 percent on some fields. its involvement dates back to the origins of CGIAR. Tuber Crops: Exchange of potato genetic In addition to serving as the headquarters of material between ICAR and CIP led to devel- ICRISAT, established in 1972, India hosts regional opment of two high-yielding, disease-resistant and subregional offices of CIMMYT, CIP, IFPRI, IPGRI, potato varieties (Kufri Chipsona-1 and Kufri ILRI, IRRI, IWMI and the World Agroforestry Centre. Chipsona-2). Scientists from the Central Potato The presence of CGIAR Centers in India reflects Research Institute have received training at the mutual trust that underlies the India-CGIAR CIP on DNA fingerprinting and marker-assisted partnership. Some benefits of the India-CGIAR selection. partnership include the following: Managing Natural Resources Sustainably: India is a member of the International Coconut The Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo- Genetic Resources Network (COGENT), and an Gangetic Plains, established in 1994, has gen- International Coconut Genebank (ICG) has been erated resource-conserving technologies such established. Similarly, through the IPGRI-INIBAP as raised-bed planting, zero-till agriculture and exploration program in northeastern India, new laser leveling. Zero-till agriculture alone saved genetic material of banana has been identified. nearly $23 million during 2002-03.These tech- ICAR and WorldFish Center are focusing on sus- nologies led to savings of irrigation water, tainable exploitation of coastal fish stocks, genetic fertilizer and seeds, as well as to significant improvement of carp species and DNA finger- improvements in soil health. printing. India also participates in the Challenge Crop Improvement: In collaboration with Program on Water and Food. CIMMYT, Indian NARS have released four Quality Protein Maize hybrids (Shaktiman 1, 2, We look forward to strengthening the India-CGIAR 3 and 4).The ICAR-ICRISAT partnership has partnership for the benefit of poor farmers. resulted in the release of over 100 improved varieties of sorghum, pearl millet, chickpea, Mangala Rai pigeonpea and groundnut in India. India par- Secretary, Department of Agricultural Research and ticipates in IRRI's Asian Rice Biotechnology Education and Director-General, Indian Council of Network (ARBN) and CIMMYT's Asian Maize Agricultural Research, Ministry of Agriculture, Biotechnology Network (AMBIONET). Government of India building prosperity through partnership: india and the cgiar 9 engaging members to realize the cgiar vision The Committee of Board Chairs (CBC) endorses These advances will all contribute directly and and reinforces the concept that impact is the indirectly to the impact of the CGIAR System. business of every element of the CGIAR System-- Good governance, management, and corporate "Good governance, management donors and investors, the Science Council, stake- behavior can all enhance our ability to achieve and corporate behavior can all holders, beneficiaries, and the Centers that togeth- beneficial impacts. enhance our ability to achieve er have the capacity to generate knowledge- beneficial impacts. " based products and technologies that create ben- We also express our appreciation of two particular eficial impacts. Consequently, it is the Boards of initiatives that will enhance the impact of the Trustees that carry the ultimate responsibility for System. ensuring that the Centers under their charge, both individually and collectively, generate impact. Finalization of the Science Council, arguably the key driver of the System.The Council has In its work, CBC helps the CGIAR System to our encouragement and support as it per- generate impact by listening to signals from forms important tasks in the reform process, the System's diverse elements and beyond, and including evaluating Challenge Programs, by facilitating collaborative work and synergies developing performance indicators and between the Centers and their partners to assessing impacts. maximize returns on investment. Completion of the World Bank Operations Specifically, working with the System Office we Evaluation Department's assessment,"The have contributed to greater harmony within the CGIAR at 31," which is a particularly powerful System by the following: and useful report for the System.The reforms recommended would ultimately form part of Developing model guidelines for grievance the ongoing efforts to develop performance procedures indicators suitable for all components of the Revising the process for the nomination of System. Board Members to give CGIAR Members greater input into their selection We affirm our desire to fully engage the member- Establishing terms of reference for a compre- ship, and indeed the System as a whole, in vigor- hensive study of remuneration packages ous and productive exchanges so that the Centers across the System can contribute fully to the realization of the vision Developing a new board orientation program for the CGIAR System. in recognition of the changing needs of governance in the System John Vercoe Chair, Committee of Board Chairs (2003) 10 consultative group on international agricultural research enhancing efficiency to maximize effectiveness The Center Directors Committee (CDC) contin- decentralization.The key arguments to decentral- ued to play a leading role in contributing to the izing activities are to accomplish the following: process of substantial change for enhanced efficiency and effectiveness of the CGIAR.We Work closely with national programs and sub- embraced a programmatic approach to research regional organizations to respond to regional, planning as a major pillar of the change process, subregional and national priorities and we contributed to the development of pilot Challenge Programs as a model for expanded Bring Center scientists and programs closer to partnerships and enhanced quality of System the field to pursue applied research and outputs. achieve impact Coherence and harmonization of initiatives During 2003 the CDC continued discussions on played important roles and accounted for much refining the concept of performance indicators as of the CDC's time and attention. The Committee a means to increase the efficiency and effective- developed a code of conduct to optimize col- ness of our activities.We have scheduled imple- laboration and maximize synergies among the mentation to start in 2005, after the contributing Centers. The Committee also focused on ways to Members of the CGIAR have agreed upon unified reduce costs by using common services and performance indicators for the entire System. avoiding duplication of effort across the Centers. This assumed greater importance due to the The CDC remains focused on ensuring maximum increasing restrictions on investor funding and support to all Centers and exploring ways in the decreasing proportion of contributions to which to bring additional new financial support to the core budgets of the Centers. both the Centers and to the Challenge Programs. We look forward to lessons learned from the initial "The CDC remains focused on The CDC took active measures to streamline and funding of the Challenge Programs. ensuring maximum support to coordinate public awareness and resource man- agement efforts.We closed the Public Awareness We will continue serious efforts to work closely all Centers and exploring ways and Resource Mobilization Committee (PARC), with various regional fora in identifying the local, in which to bring additional new with the expectation that this work would now be regional and national priorities for agricultural financial support to both the accomplished by the Marketing Group, and we research for development and in integrating these formulated an Integrated Communications and priorities with the research agenda of the Centers. Centers and to the Challenge Resource Mobilization Strategy. A code of conduct Programs." for approaching investor agencies for funding was We will continue to do so to achieve our goal of also developed. fighting poverty and hunger. In response to requests from partners and Adel El-Beltagy investors, we are actively pursuing a policy of Chair, CDC (2003) enhancing efficiency to maximize effectiveness 11 For Nelson Maturi, a Kenyan farmer, the impact of agricultural research is very real: children in school. impact of the cgiar: everybody's business impact of the cgiar Impact is indeed everybody's business, and impact assessment is the business of the Science Council's Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA).The standing panel was formed to facilitate better assess- ment of impacts, raise awareness and promote accountability. For this special impact-focused Annual Report, the SPIA highlights some recent assessments. A detailed account of all CGIAR impact assessment reports is available through the Science Council website at www.sciencecouncil.cgiar.org. Benefits and Costs of the CGIAR Thus for every dollar invested in the CGIAR, $9 worth of additional benefits have been produced Since its founding in 1971, the CGIAR has invested in the developing world, catalyzing substantial approximately $7.12 billion in research and additional "multiplier effects" for poor producers research-related activities. It is reasonable to ask: and consumers in the process. Do the documented benefits from CGIAR research justify the total investment in the CGIAR so far? None of this could have been achieved without During 2003, the SPIA commissioned David Raitzer the investment in staff and resources by the to analyze compiled estimates of large-scale ben- national agricultural research programs. efits for selected activities for which the benefits are widely known and generally accepted, and to Impact on Poverty Reduction compare those with the total investment in the CGIAR to date. During 2003, Michelle Adato and Ruth Meinzen- Dick of the International Food Policy Research Raitzer constructed five scenarios within which to Institute (IFPRI) assessed the impact of the assess cost-benefit ratios. Against an aggregate research conducted by several CGIAR Centers. investment of $7.12 billion (in 1990 US dollars, with $6.90 billion invested in the CGIAR, in addi- A wide variety of direct impacts on adopting tion to relevant pre-CGIAR costs), all five scenarios households were identified. Positive effects included produced cost-benefit ratios in substantial excess increased production and knowledge, as well as of one, indicating investment efficacy. Including empowerment of women. Negative effects included only "significantly demonstrated" studies that increased vulnerability, decreased soil fertility, and empirically attribute CGIAR-derived contributions debt from fertilizer purchase. The research indi- to collaborative efforts (an extremely conservative cates that where technologies and their delivery scenario) results in a ratio of 1:9; if all "significantly are specifically designed to reach the poor, and demonstrated" studies are considered, with especially women farmers, the poor are more likely assumed attributive coefficients applied, this ratio to benefit. Significantly poor consumers, who typi- rises to 3:8. The "plausible" scenario results in a cally spend more proportionately on basic com- ratio of 4:8, which when extrapolated to the modities, benefit more from falling real food prices present rises to 9:0 and when extrapolated to derived from the application of agricultural tech- 2011 rises to 17:3. nologies than small farmers or other consumers. impact of the cgiar: everybody's business 13 The study concludes that a very significant impact ment. The study covers the production, diffusion of CGIAR agricultural research on poverty is the and impact of improved crop varieties for 11 indirect impact of productivity growth on reducing important CGIAR-mandated food and feed crops in real food prices, which benefits both urban and developing countries from 1960 through the late rural poor. 1990s. Positive Impact on Environment The study found that growth from varietal improvement has been realized in all crops, but The SPIA has recently commissioned assessments at very different rates by region. By the end of the of the impact of application of the Green Revolution 1990s, all crops except beans were achieving high technologies.The conclusion from these studies is growth rates in productivity through varietal that, while some negative environmental impacts improvement.The average annual growth in have been associated with the agricultural inten- productivity from crop germplasm improvement sification process, there have also been some (CGI) research across all crops and regions counterbalancing positive environmental impacts, between 1960 and 1998 was 0.72 percent, with particularly with respect to land savings. More the highest rates in Asia (0.88 percent). In Sub- intensive production and greater output per Saharan Africa the annual productivity growth hectare means that less land has been required to averaged 0.28 percent.The CGIAR contribution as produce a given output of food crops than would a share of this total CGI annual growth was esti- have been the case without CGIAR research. mated to be between 40 percent and 45 percent, depending on the assumptions used about sub- The SPIA-commissioned study estimates that stitution effects and on the crop and the region. "...for every dollar invested in CGIAR research contributed to production increases that, given the 1960 productivity levels, amount to The findings support the proposition that CGIAR the CGIAR, $9 worth of additional about 100-240 million hectares in land equivalent investments in crop germplasm improvement benefits have been produced in terms for developing countries alone; i.e., that much have had positive impacts for all the study crops. the developing world, catalyzing more land would have been needed to produce These impacts have been substantial, partly the output of today at 1960 productivity levels. because of higher leverage through IARC-NARS substantial additional `multiplier CGIAR research has led to higher land productivity, joint production, which underscores the impor- effects` for poor producers and thereby reducing pressure on forests, grasslands tance of CGIAR-NARS partnerships.The placing of consumers in the process." and the associated biodiversity. crop germplasm improvement at the core of CGIAR Center programs appears to have been Impact of CGIAR's Crop Germplasm well justified. Improvement Research NERICAs Research by Robert E. Evenson and Douglas Gollin involving input from eight CGIAR Centers provides Another recent example of the type of research the most comprehensive documentation of the that makes the CGIAR such a good investment beneficial impacts of CGIAR crop genetic improve- is found in the new improved rice varieties. 14 consultative group on international agricultural research References Adato, M., and R. Meinzen-Dick, eds. 2003. Impacts of Agricultural Research on Poverty: Results of an IFPRI led project of the CGIAR Science Council's Standing Panel on Impact Assessment. (CD pro- duced by IFPRI and available on the IFPRI website.) Evenson, R., and D. Gollin. 2003. Crop Variety Improvement and its Developed by the Africa Rice Center (WARDA) for of impact assessment continues.The Science Effect on Productivity: The Impact specific adaptation to harsh growing conditions of Council is initiating impact assessment activities in of International Agricultural upland rice ecologies of Africa, the New Rices for natural resources management, policy and social Research. Oxon, UK: CABI. Africa (NERICAs) are spreading fast. science research, and a major assessment is underway to better understand the impacts of Evenson, R., and D. Gollin. 2003. Assessing the Impact of the Green NERICAs provide multiple benefits, including higher CGIAR training activities. Revolution, 1960-2000. Science, yields (between 25 percent and 250 percent) and Vol. 300, Issue 5620, 758-762, increased tolerance to droughts, pests and weeds. In all of its work, the CGIAR complements NARS 2 May 2003. Developed less than 10 years ago, NERICAs are activities and relies heavily on its NARS partners Nelson, M., and M. Maredia. 2003. now planted on an estimated 23,000 hectares in as well as those from the developed world to Agricultural Research as a Source West Africa alone and their use is spreading across achieve impact.The CGIAR modus operandi is of Environmental Impact.Draft central and eastern Africa. In a region where annual based on partnerships and recognizes the report submitted to the Science rice imports top $1 billion, planting of higher- importance of long-term, close relationships with Council Standing Panel on yielding NERICAs have helped Guinea save an esti- scientists in client countries where downstream Impact Assessment (limited dis- tribution). mated $13 million in rice import bills. Research on research, adaptation and knowledge transfer NERICAs involved national agricultural research activities take place. Indeed, the CGIAR finds that, Maredia, M., and P. Pingali. 2001. programs in 20 African countries and advanced as NARS advance, many of the research areas in Environmental Impacts of research institutions in China, Japan, the United which it has been involved can successfully be Productivity-Enhancing Crop Kingdom and the United States. Dr. Monty Jones's taken over by the NARS partners and their cadres Research: A Critical Review. TAC Secretariat. Rome, Italy: Food pioneering research leading to the develop- of researchers. This opens opportunities for the and Agricultural Organization of ment of NERICAs has been internationally CGIAR to move into new areas where different the United Nations. recognized. partnerships can be forged and significant new impacts generated. Raitzer, D. 2003. Benefit Cost The Way Ahead Meta-Analysis of Investment in the International Agricultural Research Hans Gregersen Centers of the CGIAR. Science Accumulating evidence suggests that investments Chair, Science Council Standing Panel on Impact Council Secretariat, Rome, Italy: in the CGIAR are a sound strategy, but the process Assessment Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. For more information, readers are invited to contact Timothy Kelley, Senior Research Officer, CGIAR Science Council Secretariat, c/o Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. Tel: (+39) 06 57054210. E-mail: timothy.kelley@fao.org. Copies of available papers are on the enclosed CD-ROM. impact of the cgiar: everybody's business 15 boosting zero tillage in south asia with private-sector support Public-private partnerships are necessary to bring designs based on farmer and researcher feedback, the benefits of science to poor farmers. In an to facilitate timely delivery of implements for excellent example of pubic-private synergies, farmer experimentation, to provide servicing and CGIAR researchers and partners joined hands with repair, and to rapidly increase production to meet the business community to promote zero-till agri- demand while maintaining quality and competi- culture in South Asia's bread basket. tive prices. Through the efforts of the Rice-Wheat Consortium As with many good things, fruitful public- (RWC) for the Indo-Gangetic Plains and its many private sector partnerships take time to build. In partners from the public and private sectors, farm- the mid-1980s, CIMMYT introduced and promoted ers in South Asia have begun using practices that testing of inverted-T planters from New Zealand. save water, fuel and other inputs and that allow As part of expanded research and development them to diversify their cropping systems. The efforts in the early 1990s, several manufacturers in most prominent of these practices--zero tillage India and Pakistan supplied prototype seed drills to sow wheat after rice--was used on nearly 1.3 for farmer experimentation. Testing and develop- million ha during the 2003-04 wheat season, a ment continued throughout the decade, support- dramatic increase from only a few years ago, ed among other ways by study tours. In 2000, according to RWC estimates. for example, the RWC organized a visit by 23 scientists, farmers and manufacturers from The rapid expansion of zero tillage was made Bangladesh, China, India, Mexico, Nepal and possible by the adoption of specialized imple- Pakistan to areas where zero tillage had been ments called "seed drills" for sowing directly into widely adopted. A later visit to Australia by South unplowed soil and crop stubble. This is where the Asian manufacturers allowed them to see how "The rapid expansion of zero private sector stepped in. The seed drills were manufacturers there addressed the problem of developed jointly by the RWC, private companies, sowing directly into large amounts of crop tillage was made possible by and public sector research organizations, both residues.The capacity and confidence of South the adoption of specialized national and international. Over 20,000 seed drills Asia's companies have grown to encompass implements called `seed drills`... have been manufactured and sold by more than development of multicrop seed drills, implements developed jointly by the Rice- 80 companies. Originally designed for wheat, the for sowing in raised soil beds, animal-drawn zero implements are increasingly used for a range of tillage implements, and a range of other conserva- Wheat Consortium, private crops, including chickpea, lentil, maize, pigeonpea, tion agriculture equipment. companies, and public sector rice and sorghum. research organizations." The project is an excellent example of a public- This tillage revolution is different from the Green private partnership for the common good. Revolution in several ways. One major difference is that it depends greatly on resources and time Raj K. Gupta invested by the private sector. Regional Facilitator, Rice Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains, CIMMYT Such advances would not have occurred without and the willingness of companies to invest time and Larry Harrington resources in machinery development, to adapt Director, Natural Resources Group, CIMMYT 16 consultative group on international agricultural research the future harvest centers of the cgiar "It will require the commitment Achieving Impacts to Benefit Poor People of scientists and scientific institutions The following stories reflect the numerous ways in which CGIAR-supported Centers are achieving wide-ranging throughout the impacts, using multidisciplinary approaches in strong world...to bring partnership with stakeholders to create farming solutions the benefits of that benefit poor people. science to all." Whether the challenge is to help a country recover from conflict or natural disasters, such as in Afghanistan or Kofi Annan Mozambique; improve farmer incomes through higher- Secretary General yielding crops, particularly barley and rice; improve the United Nations productivity of aquaculture and livestock; or foster improved policies, science is making a difference. The stories reported provide only a snapshot of Center achievements during 2003. For more complete information, please visit the websites of individual Centers listed with each story. uniting efforts against a global pest Species of whiteflies, dubbed "the pest of the 20th The project has already achieved substantial century" by CNN and Newsweek, have cut yields results. of 10 major food and industrial crops grown in tropical and temperate regions. Losses worth For example, cassava varieties with resistance to many millions of dollars have been registered in whitefly-transmitted viruses have been distributed Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe and the Americas. widely in Africa and Latin America.The results are Since 1996, three CGIAR Centers--the impressive. Improved cassava varieties have International Center for Tropical Agriculture helped avert famine in many areas in Africa, while (CIAT by its Spanish acronym), CIP, and IITA-- improved beans have made it possible to restore and the Taiwan-based Asian Vegetable Research crop production in regions of Latin America Development Centre (AVRDC) and Kenya-based where farmers had abandoned growing beans International Center for Insect Plant Ecology because of the whitefly problem. (ICIPE) have joined forces under the CGIAR's Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program IPM strategies developed through the Tropical to combat the whitefly menace. Whitefly Project have facilitated crop diversifica- tion, strengthening food security and improving Like all CIAT projects, the Tropical Whitefly Project the livelihoods of small farmers. In El Salvador, for has been made possible by the generous example, farmers with less than 2 hectares who investors who provide core support to all CGIAR diversified into mixed cropping systems earned Centers with additional project-specific support up to 10 times more income than farmers prac- from DANIDA, DFID, ACIAR, NZAID, USDA and ticing monoculture. Once crop production USAID.The project has completed its second problems were diagnosed and solved, farmer phase, with scientists successfully identifying, field schools and other participatory research Experience shows that improved validating and implementing sustainable strate- approaches were used to increase adoption of cropping systems developed gies for integrated management of the whitefly in effective IPM strategies. key crops (common bean, cassava, sweet potato, with support from CGIAR Centers tomato and peppers) and other horticultural Results from the Tropical Whitefly Project have can serve as entry points for crops. More than 20 partners from national agri- contributed to national policies to boost food broader economic development. cultural research systems, and an equal number production and nontraditional agricultural prod- of universities, advanced research institutions, ucts for export. In some countries the results have and civil society organizations have played active influenced the adoption of legal and financial roles in this work. measures that favor the adoption of IPM strategies. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) Headquarters: Cali, Colombia www.ciat.cgiar.org 18 consultative group on international agricultural research developing virtual laboratories for the congo basin Poor logging practices, slash-and-burn farming regional collaboration among research centers. and other human activities are leading to the Can scientists working together in virtual labs degradation of the tropical forests in the Congo overcome these problems? The researchers set up Basin. This is a serious matter, not just for nature-- a pilot study to explore a forestry issue of regional a quarter of the world's humid tropical forests are significance. Forestry concessions in the Congo found here--but also for the people who depend Basin are frequently poorly managed and lead to on the forests. Therefore, forest-related research in the degradation of forest resources. The virtual the region needs rapid strengthening. laboratory team assessed the ecological and social sustainability of a sample of forest conces- In 2003, the International Tropical Timber sions and explored ways to improve them. Expert Organization funded and the Center for meetings were held in Kribi and Yaoundé in International Forestry Research (CIFOR) managed, Cameroon, and in Libreville, Gabon. National in partnership with the University of Madrid scientists conducted the study with guidance The pilot project showed that (UAM) and several regional research organizations, from CIFOR and UAM scientists. setting up virtual laboratories a project to explore ways of improving forest was an efficient and relatively research capacity in the Democratic Republic of The pilot project showed that setting up virtual inexpensive way of studying Congo, Cameroon, Congo, Gabon and the Central laboratories was an efficient and relatively inex- African Republic. pensive way of studying regional forestry prob- regional forestry problems in lems in the Congo Basin. the Congo Basin. The virtual laboratory team of scientists from the Congo Basin, CIFOR and UAM analyzed forest The study illustrates CIFOR's learning-by-doing research capacity in the region. They found a approach to capacity-building activities. CIFOR serious lack of adequately funded scientific per- scientists now have working links with more than sonnel; poor collaboration and communication 300 researchers based in some 50 international, between research centers and decision-makers; regional and national organizations spread across limited access to scientific information; and little 30 countries. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Headquarters: Bogor, Indonesia www.cifor.org the future harvest centers of the cgiar 19 fostering research with international impact In the dry, hilly areas of Central West Asia and 1990 to conduct the International Winter Wheat North Africa (CWANA), farmers struggle to pro- Improvement Program (IWWIP). duce enough winter wheat--their mainstay for food and income--under harsh conditions. The Like farmers, winter wheat breeders have only one Government of Turkey has played a critical role in growing season per year to do their work. It takes an international program to help them. 12 to 15 years to breed a new variety and get it into farmers' fields. To date, 28 varieties developed Infrastructure is mostly poor in CWANA's winter by IWWIP have been released, and 35 others are wheat areas. People have little contact with any- being considered for release. Progress has been one who can provide new seed and information. good partly because researchers crossed winter Rainfall is scarce--less than 350 mm per year-- wheats with spring wheats developed by CIMMYT and wheat yields often dip below 1.3 tons per in Mexico. More than 75 percent of the IWWIP hectare. Long, cold winters are followed by a short wheats that have been released or are scheduled growing season that restricts options for produc- for release are crosses between winter and spring ing multiple crops. Because the landscape is often wheats. hilly, farmers find it difficult and costly to mecha- nize or irrigate. Afghan researchers maintained contact with IWWIP through long years of war, thanks to the Yet wheat is the paramount crop in this region, Swedish Committee for Afghanistan and the sometimes accounting for half of all daily calories. Food and Agriculture Organization. All winter The investment in breeding improved winter and facultative wheat cultivars currently regis- wheat varieties for the special conditions of devel- tered in Afghanistan are derived from IWWIP oping countries has been limited. Rapid progress nurseries. Much of Afghanistan's infrastructure In the dry, hilly areas of Central finally became possible when Turkey's Ministry of was destroyed, but new wheat seed still moved West Asia and North Africa Agriculture, the International Maize and Wheat from farmer to farmer. Without it, Afghanistan Improvement Center (CIMMYT by its Spanish would have suffered even more hunger and (CWANA), farmers struggle to acronym) and ICARDA, came to an agreement in malnutrition. produce enough winter wheat-- their mainstay for food and income--under harsh conditions. The Government of Turkey has played a critical role in an interna- tional program to help them. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Headquarters: Mexico City, Mexico www.cimmyt.org 20 consultative group on international agricultural research combating potato diseases in partnership The International Potato Center (CIP by its Spanish agreement and address the concerns of partici- acronym) has a long-standing tradition of basing pating groups. its research on solid partnerships with national programs in developing countries and with A CIP-developed processing technique that turns advanced partners in the developed world. sweet potato into nutritious pig feed is benefiting farmers and consumers in Indonesia's Papua In 2003 CIP continued to give high priority to Province.The process boosts household income potato late blight disease, particularly in Africa, by increasing the efficiency of farm and family where national programs have already released resources and by increasing the number of pigs some 60 potato varieties derived from CIP's late that can be raised in a given year. Key collaborators blight resistant breeding lines. in the project include the Indonesian Legume and Tuber Research Institute, Papua's Jayawijaya Bacterial wilt is second only to late blight in its District Livestock Office, and the South Australian deleterious impacts on potato production in Research Development Institute. developing countries. CIP has partnered with national programs, community groups and local In 2003, the Global Mountain Program was civil society organizations in Bolivia and Peru to relaunched with the creation of a new steering introduce bacterial wilt farmer field schools. committee under CIP leadership.The Committee includes representatives from the World The Kampala City Council in Uganda recently Agroforestry Centre's African Highlands Initiative, passed a new set of ordinances that update the the Canadian International Development Agency rules governing urban agriculture. During the (CIDA), CIP, the Consorcio para el Desarrollo negotiation process, the Kampala municipality Sostenible de la Ecorregión Andina (CONDESAN), In 2003 CIP continued to give and the business community were worried about the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR), health and nuisance issues, while community- ICARDA, INIA-Spain, and the Nepal-based high priority to potato late blight based organizations were concerned about food International Center for Integrated Mountain disease, particularly in Africa, security and livelihoods. Urban Harvest, a CIP Development (ICIMOD). where national programs have initiative, helped the stakeholders to reach already released some 60 potato varieties derived from CIP's late blight-resistant breeding lines. International Potato Center (CIP) Headquarters: Lima, Peru www. cipotato.org the future harvest centers of the cgiar 21 forging partnerships in barley breeding In dry areas, barley is gold. Millions of people in million per year.This is about 13 times the amount tough marginal environments depend on the these countries have invested in barley improve- crop for food and feed. Domesticated some ment research, including ICARDA's contribution, 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent, barley estimated at approximately US$7 million.The today is grown on about 50 million hectares internal rates of return (IRR) to research invest- worldwide, with developing countries account- ment for the nine countries ranged between 22 ing for over half the area. In the highlands of percent and 51 percent. This high rate of return some of the world's poorest countries barley on investments in barley improvement research is plays a key role in the economy of the poor as consistent with other studies on investments in one of few sources of food and the only source agricultural research. of animal feed. In addition to yield advantage, the released In the early 1980s, the International Center for varieties have important traits.The three barley Agricultural Research In Dry Areas (ICARDA) cultivars released in Ecuador are resistant to forged partnerships with national agricultural yellow and/or leaf rusts.The improved varieties research systems (NARS) worldwide through the released in Tunisia and Jordan are disease resistant provision of improved germplasm and capacity and drought tolerant. building in barley improvement research.These partnerships have generated a continuing stream The ICARDA-NARS partnership in barley of benefits. For example, more than 70 percent of improvement has also improved methodological the barley varieties released in 24 developing approaches in barley breeding, including the use countries were developed using germplasm of landraces and the introduction of participatory material provided by ICARDA. plant breeding. The impact of barley improvement in Algeria, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, The impact of barley improvement in Algeria, Sustaining these achievements calls for increased Iraq, Jordan, Morocco,Tunisia and Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, investments by donors and NARS. Tunisia and Syria is estimated at about US$92.5 Syria is estimated at about US$92.5 million per year. International Center for Agricultural Research In Dry Areas (ICARDA) Headquarters, Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic www.icarda.org 22 consultative group on international agricultural research fostering development in the semi-arid tropics The year 2003 was an extremely successful year on Institutional Learning and Change and for researchers from the International Crops identified developments necessary to help Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics research Centers contribute more effectively (ICRISAT). They accomplished the following: to agricultural innovation systems Completed a strategic assessment of rural Two chickpea varieties (ICCV 2 and ICCV 88202) poverty in the semi-arid tropics for the were grown on about 128,000 ha in Myanmar International Fund for Agricultural during 2002/03. The private sector joined the Development (IFAD), which led the Country ICRISAT-led hybrid parents diversification consor- Strategic Opportunities (COSOP) review work tium by providing continuing grants. Several that is helping influence the priorities identi- ICRISAT-derived groundnut varieties have been fied in "IFAD's Strategic Direction in India: adopted in seed-village programs in India. 2005-2009" Analyzed synthesis studies on research To promote integrated pest management, seven spillover impacts from ICRISAT's mandate village-level Helicoverpa nuclear polyhedrosis crops from which a clearer picture has virus (HNPV) production units were established; emerged about constraints to spillovers over 1,000 extension specialists in Bangladesh, from Asia to West and Central Africa India, Kenya and Nepal were trained. Hosted a meeting of social scientists to help researchers use social analysis to look beyond ICRISAT researchers, in partnership with the one-size-fits-all approaches and ensure that International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), impact assessments take into account relevant identified local sources of rock phosphate. In historical, cultural and social factors Niger,Tahoua, a partially acidulated rock phosphate To promote integrated pest Improved the quality of survey data used for was found to be highly effective in pearl millet- policy analysis and advocacy in partnership cowpea rotations.The zai technique developed by management, seven village-level with the National Centre for Agricultural ICRISAT and partners is leading to three- to four- Helicoverpa nuclear polyhedrosis Economics and Policy (NCAP) and provided fold yield increases. Finally, on-site courses on virus (HNPV) production units were the Village Level Studies methodology for information management of new cutting-edge adoption by NCAP and its 10 cooperating technologies were conducted, in partnership with established; over 1,000 extension centers ASK, a private foundation. specialists in Bangladesh, India, Pioneered the use of an innovation systems Kenya and Nepal were trained. framework employed in the CGIAR initiative International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Headquarters: Patancheru, India www.icrisat.org the future harvest centers of the cgiar 23 studying the relationship between northern policies and southern farmers The International Food Policy Research Institute to examine the price decline in the West African (IFPRI) researchers use social science-based knowl- country of Benin. Cotton generates 40 percent of edge to foster food policies that benefit poor peo- Benin's national income and 80 percent of its ple. Broad policy research is important to better export earnings, so its global price has a direct understand the dynamics of agricultural develop- bearing on whether people will eat in a country ment and demonstrate the intricate links between where one of every three people live below the food policies practiced in industrialized and devel- poverty line. oping countries. IFPRI researcher Nicholas Minot with Professor Lisa Industrialized countries devote over $300 billion a Daniels of Washington College found that a 40 year to subsidize their farmers; this is five times the percent world price decline resulted in an 8 percent amount these countries provide for development short-term increase and a 6 to 7 percent long-run aid.These subsidies contribute to poverty by stim- increase in rural poverty.These findings were ulating production in industrialized countries and presented at World Bank and IFPRI seminars. driving down world prices. In May 2003, Brazil asked the World Trade Cotton is often cited as one of the most striking Organization to show how U.S. cotton subsidies examples of this problem.The U.S. government violated WTO rules and harmed Brazilian producers. provides $3.4 billion a year in subsidies to 25,000 A dozen cotton-exporting developing countries large-scale cotton farmers whose sales account for joined in the complaint. Brazilian officials asked 40 percent of the worldwide total. Between 2001 Minot to testify on his research before the WTO and 2002, world cotton prices dropped by almost dispute panel in October 2003. Subsequently, 40 percent. Studies by IFPRI researcher Xinshen the panel ruled against the U.S. subsidies. ... the 40 percent decline in the Diao and others suggest that U.S. cotton subsidies world price resulted in an 8 percent exacerbate price volatility and reduce the world By providing evidence for the link between world price of cotton 10 to 15 percent below what it cotton prices and poverty, IFPRI research clearly short-term increase and a 6 to 7 otherwise would be. demonstrated how farm subsidies in industrialized percent long-term increase in countries hurt farmers in developing countries. rural poverty. To examine the impact of world prices on poverty in producing countries, the World Bank asked IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Headquarters:Washington, D.C., United States of America www.ifpri.org 24 consultative group on international agricultural research attaining the mozambique miracle For agrarian countries affected by natural disasters, "Disaster mitigation should entail more than just restoring agricultural capacity is vital to efforts to responding to current critical situations," said mitigate disaster and re-establish the conditions Maria Andrade, an IITA agronomist. "The goal for economic growth. should be also to prevent impending disasters. Many hands and efforts are needed to join in this Three years ago, the worst floods in half a century worthy cause." devastated Mozambique, wiping out food supplies and leaving thousands homeless. The loss of IITA is working with more than 120 institutions, farms, livestock and granaries resulted in wide- agencies and community-based organizations in spread suffering. While the south and central Mozambique to train men and women in cassava regions of the country were inundated, drought and sweet potato production, processing, market- halted food production in the north. Every year ing, and enhancing nutrition. IITA is working to drought and flooding damage crops and stored increase food supplies through improving farmer food, causing hunger and malnutrition in parts production and commercialization of cassava and of Mozambique. To keep disaster at bay, the sweet potato. IITA and INIA are also promoting International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) orange-fleshed sweet potato rich in beta-carotene scientists are working together closely with the to farmers, supermarkets and restaurants. Demand people and national agriculture programs of is growing throughout the country for these Mozambique to rebuild agricultural production. sweet potato varieties, which help reduce vitamin A deficiency. After the floods in 2000, seed kits were distributed to families so they could grow food once they Flooding and drought caused great setbacks to resettled. To ensure farmers could plant in growing the people of Mozambique. As different regions seasons to come, the IITA and its partners set up a of the country are better prepared to supply each "Disaster mitigation should entail network of nurseries and a system to quickly mul- other with food and planting materials in times of more than just responding to tiply and distribute healthy, high-yielding pest and crisis, IITA and the people of Mozambique hope current critical situations.The goal disease-resistant cassava and sweet potato vari- the situation will never approach disaster status should be also to prevent eties to farmers across the country. The work is again. They will continue their partnership to funded by the United States Agency for ensure that people throughout the country will impending disasters. Many hands International Development (USAID). have access to nutritious food. and efforts are needed to join in this worthy cause." Maria Andrade, IITA agronomist International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Headquarters: Ibadan, Nigeria www.iita.org the future harvest centers of the cgiar 25 achieving impacts for kenya with research-based poverty maps The first high-resolution maps and measures of mental and other information, such as information poverty for Kenya were published in October 2003 on access to and quality of public services and and made widely available to policymakers across education, the maps provide transparent and Kenya. The publication, Geographic Dimensions evidence-based means for targeting public of Well-Being in Kenya, Volume One:Where Are resources and service delivery. the Poor? From Districts to Locations, which describes and summarizes this new information, This research project has already had significant is the culmination of an innovative two-year impacts within Kenya. The Central Bureau of research project conducted by the Central Bureau Statistics has installed a new Poverty Analysis of Statistics, a department of Kenya's Ministry of Unit staffed with researchers and GIS technicians Planning and National Development, in collabora- who received training at ILRI through the poverty tion with the International Livestock Research mapping initiative. These staff are linking with Institute (ILRI). The World Bank, the Rockefeller staff of many other government ministries to Foundation and World Resources Institute provided combine the new poverty data with sector-specific technical and financial assistance. information to better target pro-poor initiatives. State-of-the-art mapping and statistical modeling The book is in high demand by government min- employed in this project advanced the under- isters, development organizations, institutions and standing of where the poorest of Kenyans are individuals across Kenya, who have reported they located. Detailed information on household are pleased to see this type of valuable informa- expenditures from a 1997 Kenya Welfare tion, formerly considered too sensitive to publi- Monitoring Survey were combined with complete cize, being made widely available.The text, tables geographic coverage provided by a 1999 Kenya and maps are all available on a CD-ROM that The major development agencies Population and Housing Census. This enabled comes with the book and are on ILRI's website. represented in Kenya see the new researchers to reliably estimate measures of poverty maps as key to monitor- well-being for very small geographic areas The major development agencies represented in using statistical simulation techniques. Kenya see the new poverty maps as key to moni- ing the effectiveness of future toring the effectiveness of future pro-poor invest- pro-poor investments. The high-resolution maps are helping govern- ments.The new poverty data are also laying the ment and development partners target their ground for further analyses that will increase our projects for greatest benefits to the poor.The understanding of the factors influencing livelihood maps are also helping decentralize national strategies and enhancing well-being among the resources and support local decision making. poor, as well as strategies for helping to alleviate When combined with socioeconomic, environ- poverty in Kenya and other developing nations. ILRI International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Headquarters: Nairobi, Kenya; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia www.ilri.org 26 consultative group on international agricultural research studying past projects for future successes Bananas and plantains are a vital source of food a subsistence crop.The effects of improved vari- and income for millions of smallholder farmers eties on a household's well-being are hard to trace throughout the tropics, especially in East Africa. because bananas are perennial crops, grown with In an effort to improve the lives of those farmers, other annual and perennial crops as only one the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute contribution to food and income. (IPGRI) has been working with national agricultural research systems and regional civil society organi- Researchers have interviewed 800 households zations (CSOs) to disseminate improved banana that grow 95 distinct varieties, almost all of them varieties.The Kagera Community Development endemic to the East African Highlands. Most Project has distributed more than 2.5 million households grow approximately nine varieties, but banana suckers to nearly 100,000 households in some grow as many as 27. Researchers will use Kagera District,Tanzania. the data to predict the likely adoption of improved banana varieties and to determine what factors A project initiated in 2003 is studying the impact influence farmers' choices. Ten students--nine of of these efforts and how they may provide a them African--are working in the project. They guide for future activities.The project unites the are using a Sustainable Livelihoods approach that National Agricultural Research Organization examines the different dimensions that contribute (NARO) and Makerere University in Uganda, the to poverty alleviation. Importantly, this approach Agricultural Research and Development Institute disaggregates different social groups by gender and Sokoine University in Tanzania, IPGRI, IITA, with a view to studying how each is impacted. and IFPRI. It is supported by USAID, the If a new banana variety is better for brewing Rockefeller Foundation and IFAD. beers, will rich or poor households benefit more and will it help women more than men in those Designing and conducting effective research can households? Crucial answers from such research Crucial answers from such be problematic. Researchers cannot simply look will help influence banana improvement and research will help influence at volumes and prices in the market to assess improve the lives of poor people. banana improvement and changes, because farmers grow bananas mainly as improve the lives of poor people. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) Headquarters: Maccareese, Rome, Italy www.ipgri.org the future harvest centers of the cgiar 27 harnessing technology to improve outcomes The Philippines, which hosts the International Rice In 2003, Filipino farmers cultivated these hybrids Research Institute (IRRI) and is one of its most on nearly 80,000 hectares, with most of the area important partners, faces major challenges, such planted with Mestizo. Just as important as helping as a fast-growing population, high incidence of farmers improve their incomes, the higher yields poverty, and dependency on rice imports for food also help the Philippine nation in achieving rice security. self-sufficiency, a crucial step on the road to national food security. In 2003, one of the most significant areas of IRRI research focused on improving incomes of poor Collaborating closely with the Philippine Rice farmers on the troubled southern island of Research Institute (PhilRice), the National Irrigation Mindanao through the reintroduction of traditional Authority (NIA) and the Department of Agriculture rice varieties that command premium prices in (DA), IRRI has also achieved success in working the marketplace. with farmers to develop new strategies to reduce water use by growing aerobic rice. In an on-farm, participatory testing program, about 50 farmers tried 20 improved and traditional During 2003, initial field experiments with aerobic upland varieties. Many farmers rated the two IRRI- rice varieties for the tropics that had produced supplied traditional upland rice varieties, Azucena yields of 4-6 t/ha and water savings of around and Dinorado, very highly and wished to plant the 50 percent compared with lowland rice were same varieties in their next cropping cycle. The expanded to farmers' fields with the same good farmers had lost most of their own seed for these results. IRRI uses both high-technology and varieties as a result of shifting cultivation patterns, indigenous technologies in its aerobic rice initia- out of upland rice into maize.The remaining seed tive. Indigenous technologies include the lithao IRRI research focused on was badly mixed with other varieties and rendered (a wooden implement for sowing seeds) and the improving incomes of poor unusable. sagad (a wooden spike-toothed harrow) for crop farmers on the troubled south- establishment and improved weed control; high- Hybrid rice is another income-enhancing technol- technology options include direct machine seed- ern island of Mindanao through ogy developed by IRRI. Local rice farmers are now ing and laser land leveling. the reintroduction of traditional using varieties such as Mestizo 1 and 3, Bigante, rice varieties that command Magilas and Rizalina, which were all derived from IRRI-bred parental lines. premium prices in the market- place. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Headquarters: Los Banos, Philippines www.irri.org 28 consultative group on international agricultural research bringing programs closer to the field The year 2003 marked a major milestone in the main target region.The new Program will work in evolution of the International Service for National partnership with national and regional organiza- Agricultural Research (ISNAR).The CGIAR formally tions and the CGIAR Centers.The primary theme approved the recommendations of the ISNAR of the Program will be to produce new knowl- Restructuring Team (IRT) and requested the edge on institutional change that enhances the Boards of ISNAR and IFPRI to transfer governance impact of agricultural research.The secondary and relocate ISNAR programs under IFPRI gover- theme will be to enhance the performance of nance. agricultural research institutions by strengthening their organization and management. The clear and urgent rationale for change, identi- fied by the IRT and endorsed by the Group, is The new ISNAR program will focus on Africa while directed toward bringing ISNAR programs closer maintaining its global mandate and remaining to the field for achieving greater development active in Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, impacts. and the Central West Asia and North Africa regions. Under the new arrangements, ISNAR activities are being restructured as a new ISNAR program An advisory committee was established to assist under IFPRI governance.The new program, which in the smooth transition and guide the new pro- will remain an identifiable entity within IFPRI, will gram. A program of extensive consultations with be located on the ILRI campus in Addis Ababa, partners representing national programs, acade- Ethiopia. mia, civil society organizations and the investor community is being conducted. Relocating the new ISNAR Program in Sub- Saharan Africa brings it into closer contact with its The clear and urgent rationale for change is directed toward bringing ISNAR programs closer to the field for achieving greater development impacts. International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Headquarters:The Hague, Netherlands www.isnar.cgiar.org the future harvest centers of the cgiar 29 achieving impacts through partnerships In 2003, the International Water Management IWMI researchers benefit from the knowledge of Institute (IWMI) achieved a number of impacts rural communities across South Asia, many of through collaborative research with a wide range whom have developed practical ways to manage of national program partners, research networks scarce water resources. Through an active program and consortia. It also facilitated the formation of of knowledge-sharing, IWMI researchers are work- several communities of practice for better knowl- ing with local nongovernmental organizations in edge-sharing through web-based and face-to- India and Nepal (e.g., PRADAN, DHAN Foundation, face interactions. Seva Mandir, RITI and IDE) and academic institu- tions such as Hyderabad-based Osmania IWMI adopted a partnership approach to delin- University. These efforts identified and evaluated eation of problems and working toward solutions. six community-based solutions that have signifi- IWMI researchers worked extensively with the cantly improved water availability and people's South African Department of Water Affairs and lives. A knowledge-sharing initiative supported by Forestry, bringing global knowledge to bear on DFID, UK, is helping IWMI and partners to promote water issues. These efforts were rewarded when the uptake of best practices to other areas. the South Africa Yearbook 2003 acknowledged IWMI's efforts, noting that "A fruitful collaboration In Central Asia sustainable management of water has been initiated with the International Water resources is vital. IWMI researchers, working with Management Institute's regional office, for cross- water specialists at the Scientific Information referencing with international practices and Center of the Interstate Commission for Water capacity building of the Department's personnel." Coordination, have found approaches based on local experience, social mobilization and the cre- The Hyderabad Declaration on Wastewater Use in ation of Water User Associations to be particularly Agriculture was the outcome of a workshop held effective in solving problems and promoting in 2002 in Hyderabad, India, sponsored by IWMI cooperation among users. and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Several NARS from Africa, Asia and IWMI and researchers from Khon Kaen University, the Middle East participated in the drafting of the together with farmer networks in Southeast Asia, Declaration, which has been translated into three have focused on the use of low-cost traditional languages and disseminated widely. The under- practices and sustainable technologies to increase lying principles grew out of IWMI research, which soil and water productivity. Farmer field trials on is helping inform public health guidelines issued the use of betonite clays to reverse soil degrada- by the World Health Organization and the United tion in North East Thailand have demonstrated States Environmental Protection Agency/United yield increases of 50 percent or more for high- States Agency for International Development value fruits and grains with less need for chemical (USEPA/USAID) for the water sector. fertilizers and pesticides. Such practices benefit both farmers and their environments. International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Headquarters: Battaramulla, Sri Lanka www.iwmi.cgiar.org 30 consultative group on international agricultural research putting rice on the african political agenda The year 2003 was marked by widespread recog- The ASI thresher is saving women and children nition by African governments of the achieve- hours of backbreaking operations of rice threshing ments of The Africa Rice Center. and cleaning in the irrigated rice systems of West Africa. It has become the most widely used rice Calls for accelerating the dissemination of New thresher in Senegal. ASI, which is based on a Rices for Africa (NERICAs) were high on the devel- prototype from IRRI, has undergone several opment agenda at the Third Tokyo International adaptations to match local conditions. It was Conference on African Development (TICAD III) jointly developed by the Institut Sénégalais de held in September 2003 and attended by about Recherches Agricoles (ISRA), the Société d'amé- 25 African Heads of State. nagement et d'exploitation des terres du delta du fleuve Sénégal (SAED), The Africa Rice Center, local Voicing the opinion of many leaders at the TICAD manufacturers and farmers. summit, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa urged that dissemination of NERICAs be extended ASI's popularity is growing rapidly, and it is spread- "to other parts of the continent in urgent need." ing to other countries in the region. The Africa The New Partnership for Africa's Development Rice Center is collaborating with partners in Mali, (NEPAD) identified NERICAs as "one of Africa's best Mauritania, Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire to develop practices worth upscaling." appropriate prototypes. NERICA dissemination efforts also received a A comprehensive strategy for the revitalization of tremendous boost from the African Development the rice sector in Nigeria was presented to the Bank, which approved $31 million in loans and Nigerian Minister of Agriculture in August 2003. grants in September 2003 to support the dissemi- The strategy recommends that the Nigerian rice nation of NERICA varieties in seven West African sector become competitive by adopting a com- NEPAD identified NERICAs countries. prehensive approach to focus on quality and as"one of Africa's best improve production, processing and marketing practices worth upscaling." Recognition of The Africa Rice Center's technologies activities. The strategy was based on the findings was not limited to the NERICAs. On June 30, 2003, of a USAID-funded project conducted by The President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal conferred Africa Rice Center, the Nigerian Institute for Social the Grand Prix du Président de la République pour and Economic Research (NISER) and the National les Sciences--Senegal's highest award for science Cereals Research Institute (NCRI). and technology--on the team led by The Africa Rice Center for the development and promotion of the ASI rice thresher. West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) The Africa Rice Center Headquarters: Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire www.warda.org the future harvest centers of the cgiar 31 reducing poverty in rural rwanda with an innovative dairy project It is a challenge to start a large-scale dairy project "Rwanda is the land of thousand hills,"said David with cows in a mountainous country with virtually Kagoro. "It is necessary to change to sustainable no grazing opportunities. Yet Christophe Zaongo, a farming practices to deal effectively with severe scientist with World Agroforestry Centre, and David soil erosion. There is not enough land for agricul- Kagoro from the Rwanda Agroforestry Network ture. Agroforestry practices provide a solution (RAFNET) have succeeded in doing just that. because they require less land and can be applied on steep hills." Their innovative proposal, Zero Grazing Dairy for Small Farmers in Rural Rwanda, uses agroforestry In addition to protecting farmland and generating to feed pure-bred cows that produce up to seven income for poor farmers, the zero grazing dairy times more milk than indigenous livestock.The project has another significant benefit. In a country World Bank selected the proposal from among recovering from genocide that killed more than the 2,700 submitted to receive the 2003 800,000 people, many farmers cannot afford to Development Marketplace Award. buy cows. Accordingly, the project supplies the cows on loan; farmers do not have to pay for the The zero grazing dairy project is a labor-intensive cows if they give up the first offspring of the approach. Farmers only receive pure-bred cows cows to the project. These heifers are given to after they have proven that they can care for the neighboring farmers, helping to contribute to precious animals, including building cowsheds peace and reconciliation within rural Rwandan and providing sufficient fodder. In addition to communities. elephant grass, farmers need to plant fodder trees like Calliandra to provide improved nutrition for In addition to RAFNET, the zero grazing project the cows. Hedges of fodder trees can be grown receives support from the Rwandan Ministries of Zero grazing dairy for small on steep hills, which create progressive terraces-- Agriculture and Environment. farmers in rural Rwanda uses the vegetation reduces erosion and helps create the distinctive terraces common in Rwanda. agroforestry to feed pure-bred cows that produce up to seven times more milk than indigenous livestock. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Headquarters: Nairobi, Kenya www.worldagroforestrycentre.org 32 consultative group on international agricultural research mobilizing communities to sustain fisheries In Bangladesh, WorldFish Center is using a com- a collaborative effort involving more than 30 NARS munity-based approach for reducing poverty from nine major fish-producing countries in Asia. and sustaining natural resources in partnership The project has analyzed fish supply and demand with the Department of Fisheries and civil society by species group, developed technological and organizations. Impacts include enhanced policy options including a profile of major stake- incomes; access to credit, training and social holders, and formulated national fisheries action services; long-term rights over fisheries; and plans for improving the benefits to poor fishers, expertise in managing these fisheries on a more fish farmers and fish consumers.The action plans sustainable basis. Beneficiaries are 109,940 house- are being incorporated into development plans of holds from poor inland fishing communities. the participating countries. The project promotes policies and institutional changes for equitable and sustainable manage- Stagnating catch from the local rivers and a ment of inland fisheries. declining catch from lakes have resulted in a high demand for fresh fish in Malawi. In the western In Cambodia, inland fisheries are indispensable to part of Zomba district, integrated agriculture- the food security, income and employment of its aquaculture (IAA) technology developed by fast-growing population. However, decision- WorldFish Center in collaboration with Malawi's making and institutional actions for ensuring the National Aquaculture Center and farmers is being sustainability of this vital resource are hampered used to develop 400 new fish ponds with facilita- by weak policy frameworks and inadequate basic tion from World Vision and fish farmers' clubs. data. With the establishment of the Inland Technical support is provided by the Department Fisheries Research and Development Institute of Fisheries, Malawi. In a six-month growing period, (IFReDI), WorldFish Center has pioneered a new a standard family-sized 200-square-meter pond approach to capacity-building through on-the-job produces marketable fish with a value of $25. WorldFish Center has pioneered training and "learning by doing." This collaboration a new approach to capacity- has already resulted in policy dialogue, research In the Pacific, WorldFish and partners are using building through on-the-job prioritization, initiation of vital bio-ecological and environmentally friendly aquaculture to create socio-economic studies,and mapping of technology opportunities for new livelihoods. With coral reef training and "learning by transfer and knowledge dissemination strategies. fish and shrimp in high demand by the aquarium doing." trade, new methods for catching and rearing the The Fish Demand and Supply project, with support post larvae has removed the need to collect larger from the Asian Development Bank and partners, is specimens from the reef itself. WorldFish Center Headquarters: Penang, Malaysia www.worldfishcenter.org the future harvest centers of the cgiar 33 the global cgiar members ­ 63 cgiar supported centers ­ 16 cgiar regional offices ­ 155 Placement markers are approximate and indicate city locations, not worldwide offices. 34 consultative group on international agricultural research celebrating the spirit of innovation implementing challenge programs Challenge Programs elevate The evolutionary approach to reform across the through a competitive grants mechanism. the significance of CGIAR CGIAR continues to produce new ideas and new Of these, 20 projects have received funding. ways of working. Highlighted here are several The CPs project portfolio covers five themes research by aligning it more examples of these new approaches: the Challenge across nine priority basins. In 2003, approxi- clearly with the Millennium Programs (CP), with an emphasis on the big mately $6 million was received as funding Development Goals. picture global issues and broad partnerships; our from Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, investment in information and communication Sweden, Switzerland and the World Bank. technologies for improved knowledge manage- HarvestPlus (formerly called "biofortification," ment; and a renewed commitment to perform- www.harvestplus.org) also completed its ance measurement to ensure we achieve maxi- inception phase. Organizational activities in mum impact. They are all examples of the CGIAR's 2003 included phase one crop and discipli- ongoing commitment to continuous improve- nary meetings and fundraising. A small num- ment. ber of research contracts were signed and covered by modest funding. Initial funding CPs are time-bound, independently governed support for 2003 activities ($3 million) was programs of high-impact research that target the contributed by the World Bank. A major high- CGIAR goals in relation to complex issues of over- light was a $25 million grant from the Bill and whelming global or regional significance. CPs Melinda Gates Foundation spread over a period require partnerships among a wide range of insti- of four years--the first tranche of $7 million tutions to deliver their products for development was received in September 2003. impact. In addition to opening the CGIAR system Generation CP (formerly known as "Unlocking to broader research partnerships and attracting Genetic Diversity in Crops for the Resource additional funds, CPs elevate the significance of Poor," www.generationcp.org) will finish the CGIAR research by aligning it more clearly with inception phase by mid-2004. Initial activities the Millennium Development Goals. focused on defining priorities under each of five subprograms, formulating a first-year work Three CPs are being implemented on a pilot basis: plan and organizing the governance and management bodies. Initial funding of $8.4 Water and Food (www.waterforfood.org) has million was provided by Austria, the European completed its inception phase. A thematic Commission, Sweden, and the World Bank. research agenda has been developed, basin priorities have been identified, and a project More detailed information is available on each portfolio of 50 projects has been selected CP's website. 36 consultative group on international agricultural research optimizing impacts through improved information and knowledge management Another example of the CGIAR's commitment to Implementation of a new software platform implementing new ways of working is seen in the that will be the foundation of the CGIAR Information and Communications Technology and seamless network Knowledge Management program (ICT-KM). This Establishment of ICT-KM Advisory Group to new program is using a multifaceted approach to assist in the identification of priorities and to improve access to information, scientific data, and support the preparation and implementation collaboration tools across the CGIAR System. The of action plans program goals are twofold: Completion of the design of the ICT-KM To transform the way CGIAR works, incorporat- Investment Plan 2004 and the presentation ing new practices to preserve, produce, and of the plan to an external review panel improve access to the agricultural global public goods needed by poor people in Knowledge Management developing countries To serve as a leading knowledge broker, bring- Among the significant accomplishments in knowl- ing together all actors in an open, inclusive edge management in 2003 were the following: community for research and development in Launch of Infofinder, a one-stop shop for global public goods electronic information available within the Centers, the Secretariat and Food and Information and Communications Agricultural Organization (FAO) Technology Substantial savings realized by joint subscriptions from five major publishers and Important milestones were attained in 2003: joint licenses for accessing electronic journals, the consortium-style subscription to CAB Finalization of the new Microsoft purchasing abstracts, and the installation of a system to agreement that resulted in a System-wide facilitate the delivery of electronic versions savings of approximately $1 million of documents among libraries Launch of project management software that Finalization of the CGIAR library gateway to can satisfy the requirements of a number of open the wealth of information available in centers the System to partners and constituents and Streamlining of the CGNET contract that main- pave the way for a CGIAR Virtual Library. tains services while eliminating unnecessary items "Collaborate, create, and communicate"--these Conclusion of a study and the subsequent are the elements of the ICT-KM Program motto. recommendations for preferred collaboration By expanding the CGIAR's opportunities to work software together, to communicate and to share knowl- Implementation of a new standard e-mail edge, we will substantially enhance our ability to naming convention that allows easier identifi- serve poor people in developing countries. cation of Members celebrating the spirit of innovation 37 developing a new approach to performance measurement in the cgiar In the interests of both achieving and demon- mix of staff, quality and relevance of programs, strating continuous improvement, a Working governance and institutional health, and financial Group was tasked to develop a new performance health. measurement system. Led by Colombia and the World Bank, the Working Group has begun The performance management system will rely exploring performance management models and on self-reporting by the Centers and generate approaches used at similar science-based organi- performance data on an annual or biannual basis. zations in developing and industrialized countries. It is intended to serve as a tool for performance The CGIAR agreed with the Working Group's management by the Centers, demonstrating recommendation that a performance manage- accountability and helping with benchmarking. ment model should be developed using indicators Investors are not expected to use performance that reflect results achieved by the Center, as well management indicators as the sole decision tool as the Center's potential to perform well in the for resource allocation decisions. future. Benchmarks have been established during the The Working Group is developing the sets of test year of 2003, and the development of the indicators to be tested.These cover eight broad performance management system is expected areas, four on results and four on the potential to to be completed by the end of 2004.The system perform. Indicators that reflect a Center's outputs, is a work in progress and approaches will continue outcomes, and impacts and the perceptions of to be refined. Full implementation is expected to stakeholders constitute the set on results. The begin in 2005. potential to perform set includes quality and skills The Working Group has begun exploring performance manage- ment models and approaches used at similar science-based organizations in developing and industrialized countries. 38 consultative group on international agricultural research system office is up and running In 2003, the System Office comprising nine units (box 1) began operations as a virtual entity accord- Box 1. ing to its first Integrated Business Plan. System Office Units in 2003 As a virtual organization, the System Office brings greater coherence to the nine central support 1. Central Advisory Service ­ units, to enhance overall performance.The existing units that constitute the System Office provide Intellectual Property (CAS-IP) a variety of services to Members and Centers--as well as to stakeholders and interested partners. These services fall into four broad functional categories: (1) Strategic Planning and Development, (2) 2. CGIAR Secretariat Monitoring and Evaluation, (3) Public Awareness and Resource Mobilization, and (4) Management Services. 3. Chief Information Officer (CIO) Some of the key services provided by the System Office in 2003 included the following: 4. Executive Secretariat of the Center Director Committee Support to CGIAR governance organs 5. Future Harvest Foundation Support to CGIAR reform program (FHF) Support to monitoring and evaluation of Center program and management Strategic communication and resource mobilization 6. Gender and Diversity Program (G&D) Development of a systemwide ICT-KM strategy aimed to foster global virtual team effort across the Centers and partners, to improve effectiveness and efficiencies, to reduce duplication, to 7. Internal Audit Unit (IAU) improve decision making and to nurture communities of practice and teamwork 8. Science Council Secretariat Diagnosis and strengthening of systemwide gender and diversity issues Provision of Center-specific and systemwide audit and advisory services 9. Strategic Advisory Service on Support to Center intellectual property management capacity Human Resources (SAS-HR) celebrating the spirit of innovation 39 winners in 2003 recognizing excellence in science and communications with cgiar awards Scientific excellence is a hallmark of high-perform- Outstanding Partnership: Vitamin A for ing research organizations.The CGIAR's founders Africa (VITAA) coordinated by CIP was chosen clearly had this in mind when they tasked the because it brings together nutritionists, health CGIAR to mobilize the best of science and tech- experts and agricultural scientists to help nology for the benefit of poor farmers in develop- address the Vitamin A deficiency problem ing countries. Quality and relevant science contin- in Sub-Saharan Africa.This partnership of 44 ues to be the driving force that enables the CGIAR local and international development institu- System to thrive and fulfill its mission. tions/agencies works for the development and promotion of orange-fleshed, high-beta- The 2003 Awards were conferred at the Annual carotene sweet potato varieties to help reduce General Meeting held at the United Nations Office Vitamin A deficiency in Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, in Nairobi, Kenya.The award ceremony was Mozambique, South Africa,Tanzania and honored by the participation of Hon. Moody Uganda. Awori, Vice President of the Republic of Kenya, who joined Ian Johnson, CGIAR Chairman and Outstanding Scientific Support Team: The presented the following awards: support staff from the IRRI Genetic Resources Center received the award in recognition Outstanding Scientist: Abdul Mujeeb Kazi of of the team's contribution to effective and CIMMYT received this award for generating efficient operation of IRRI's rice genebank, and making available new genetic diversity for one of the largest in the network of genebanks wheat improvement. He has created numerous supported by the CGIAR.The national support complex combinations in the wheat family, team is primarily responsible for storing, including interspecific hybrids across the testing, multiplying, characterizing, distributing Recipients of CGIAR Science Awards 2003 wheat genomes, fertile amphiploids, and self- and documenting seed samples. In addition Top fertile backcross-1 germplasm.This wealth of to providing support, some staff members Standing (L to R): Rejab Ssetyabula, farmer, genetic variation has been widely distributed play key roles in the conduct of research on Outstanding Partnership Award; Y.Y. Gong, and remains available to the global scientific conservation and utilization of Outstanding Scientific Article; Olivier community. rice genetic resources. Hanotte, Outstanding Scientific Article; Jowelia Ssekiyanja, farmer, Outstanding Partnership Award. Promising Young Scientist: Jonathan H. Outstanding Scientific Article: Two scientific Seated (L to R): Regina Kapina,VITAA Crouch of ICRISAT was presented this award papers were cowinners of this award. Partnership Coordinator, Outstanding for his leadership in developing the upstream Partnership Award; Abdul Mujeeb Kazi, biotechnology and genetic enhancement Dietary aflatoxin exposure and impaired Outstanding Scientist. program in ICRISAT. He championed holistic growth in young children from Benin and Bottom multidisciplinary approaches to resolving Togo: Cross-sectional study by Y.Y. Gong, Standing (L to R): Jonathan H. Crouch, previously intractable problems through K. Cardwell, A. Hounsa, S. Egal, P.C.Turner, Promising Young Scientist; Salome multisector biotechnology-based partnership A. J. Hall and C.P.Wild, was published in Gamelenga, farmer, Outstanding building. He was instrumental in establishing the British Medical Journal. Three of the Partnership Award; Manuel Lantin, CGIAR the Applied Genomics Laboratory at the authors (Cardwell, Hounsa and Egal) are Secretariat. Seated (L to R): Flora de Guzman, Center. staff of IITA.The study revealed a striking Outstanding Scientific Support Award; Fina Opio, Chair,VITAA Steering Committee, Outstanding Partnership Award. celebrating the spirit of innovation 41 association between exposure to aflatoxin in research, the paper represents a landmark children (from villages of Benin and Togo) in work to characterize, conserve and better Quality and relevant science and standard indicators of malnutrition use indigenous animal genetic resources for continues to be the driving (stunted growth and underweight condi- the benefit of the poor in the continent. tion).The research implication is to address force that enables the CGIAR the aflatoxin contamination problem in Communication Awards System to thrive and fulfill its stored food grains (particularly maize and mission. ground nuts) in warm and humid areas like Outstanding Journalism Award: Pallava Bagla, an those in West Africa. Indian journalist, received this award for his article "Drought Exposes Cracks in India's Monsoon African pastoralism: Genetic imprints of Model,"which was published in Science in 2002. origins and migrations by Olivier Hanotte, Outstanding Communications Award: The Daniel G. Bradley, Joel W. Ochieng,Yasmin WorldFish Center won the award for the Fish for Verjee, Emmeline W. Hill and J. Edward O. All Campaign.The campaign was instrumental Rege, was published in Science. Four of the in bringing national and global attention to fish authors (Hanotte, Ochieng, Verjee and Rege) as a major contributor to the food needs of one are staff of ILRI.This is the first continent- billion of the world's poor and to the livelihood wide study of the genetic diversity of cattle of millions of people in developing countries. in Africa. A product of seven years of 42 consultative group on international agricultural research the spirit of innovation The First Innovation Marketplace '03 was launched Wonwossen Diresse Bezabih of Tikurso at the Annual General Meeting 2003 in Nairobi to Innovative Farmers Group received the promote, expand and strengthen relationships People's Choice Award. The prize carried a with civil society while catalyzing innovation cash award of $5,000 and a scroll. across the CGIAR system. These two winners were chosen from 10 finalists, The winners of the Inaugural Innovation who were selected from 45 entries. The first round Marketplace '03 are as follows: of evaluation was conducted by Milagre Nuvunga of the Ford Foundation, Davinder Lamba of Nyine Bithawa and Anke Weisheit of Mazingira Institute (a local nongovernmental Rukararwe Partnership Workshop for Rural organization) and Erica Kanja, Innovation Development, in partnership with World Marketplace Event Manager. Agroforestry Centre, received the Best Innovative Partnership Program for a The final round of evaluation was conducted program that is strengthening the capacity of by Luis Arango of CORPOICA (Colombian herbalists in conservation and use of medici- Corporation for Agricultural Research), Denis nal species. The prize carried a cash award of Despereaux (France), Mangala Rai (India) and $15,000 and a scroll. The judges found that Franklin Moore (United States). the program adopts an innovative approach that enhances prosperity, encourages diversifi- cation, fosters systems sustainability, addresses the critical issue of genetic resources conser- vation, and contributes to improvements in The Innovation Marketplace health and livelihood. catalyzes innovation across the CGIAR System. celebrating the spirit of innovation 43 executive summary of the 2003 cgiar financial results a collaboration of ciat and cgiar secretariat table of contents compliance with financial guidelines 46 executive summary of the 2003 cgiar financial results 47 cgiar's 2003 financial goals 47 overall financial outcome at the centers 47 Table 1: CGIAR Program & Resource Highlights, 1999 ­ 2003 48 the cgiar funding 49 Figure 1: CGIAR Funding 49 Table 2: CGIAR Funding to the Research Agenda by Member Group, 1972 ­ 2003 50 resource allocation 51 Figure 2: Expenditures by Center 51 Figure 3: Expenditures by Object, 2003 51 Figure 4: Expenditures by Output, 2003 51 center perspectives 52 Table 3: Results of Operations by Center, 2002 ­ 2003 52 Figure 5: Allocations by Developing Regions, 2003 53 summary of challenge programs 53 conclusion 53 Table 4: Center Finances, 2003 54 Table 5: CGIAR System Financial Position, 1999 ­ 2003 55 Table 6: Summary of Challenge Programs, 2003 56 executive summary of the 2003 cgiar financial results 45 compliance with financial guidelines The Centers are autonomous institutions governed by their respective boards of trustees. To ensure transparency and consistency in financial practices and the presentation of financial information, the Centers are required to follow financial guidelines issued by the CGIAR Secretariat. Developed with the input of Center financial personnel and external financial experts, these guidelines aim to bring the CGIAR's financial practices into con- formity with those generally accepted worldwide. As part of the annual review of the substantive financial performance, a peer group of finance directors has reviewed the 2003 externally audited financial statements of the Centers to assess their compliance with CGIAR accounting policy and reporting guidelines and validate the analysis underpinning the CGIAR financial report. The peer review also made a number of recommendations to promote best practice in fiduciary management and financial reporting. In view of developments in accounting and corporate governance worldwide during the last few years, the CGIAR finance professionals and the CGIAR Secretariat launched a major effort to update the CGIAR Accounting Guidelines to align them more closely with International Accounting Standards (IAS). This exercise was completed at year-end, and the new guidelines will be mandatory for the 2004 financial statements. Another mecha- nism to strengthen accountability within the CGIAR is an initiative to improve the internal audit within the System by providing strategic internal audit advice and services to the Centers.The Internal Audit initiative is now part of the System Office. In 2003, 10 Centers were participating in the initiative. 46 consultative group on international agricultural research executive summary of the 2003 its work program for the year and to maintain its strong cgiar financial results financial position.The financial targets for 2003 approved at the CGIAR Annual General Meeting 2002 Members of the Consultative Group on International were as follows: Agricultural Research (CGIAR) support Centers and pro- To implement an approved work program costing grams of their choice, and each Center receives and $376 million, of which $358 million was forecast from spends funds.The 2003 financial outcome1 discussed Members, $12 million as Center income and a here is an aggregation of the audited financial state- planned deficit of $6 million financed by Center ments of the 16 Centers supported by the CGIAR and reserves includes financial information on Challenge Programs To maintain at least the same levels of financial posi- reported in the Center accounts. A more detailed finan- tion and operating ratios as in the previous year. cial report including time series tables and charts is con- tained on the enclosed compact disc and posted on the overall financial outcome at the CGIAR website (www.cgiar.org). centers The review and aggregation of the financial statements The overall 2003 result shows that the CGIAR surpassed have been done in the context of fiduciary manage- its financial targets.Total expenditures were $395 million, ment and reporting standards approved by the CGIAR 5 percent above the approved target. Member funding to guide the Centers in these areas. Additional informa- (grant and contract income) amounted to $381 million, tion on financial compliance is contained in the box on and Center income was $17 million, resulting in savings page 46. of approximately $3 million. Overall, the CGIAR's financial position grew stronger at the end of the year as con- cgiar's 2003 financial goals firmed by both short-term and long-term financial indi- cators. Highlights of the System's 2003 financial perform- As in past years, the CGIAR's financial goals in 2003 were ance are shown in table 1, with comparative information to mobilize sufficient resources to enable it to implement for the previous four years. executive summary of the 2003 cgiar financial results 47 Table 1 CGIAR Program and Resource Highlights, 1999 - 20031 A C T UA L 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 Center income (millions of U.S. dollars) Agenda funding 330 331 337 357 381 (of which percent unrestricted) 54% 50% 43% 44% 44% Center earned income 13 14 16 14 17 Total revenue 342 345 353 371 398 Member funding (millions of U.S. dollars) Europe 126 128 131 147 161 Pacific Rim 48 43 37 25 24 North America 52 54 57 66 76 Developing countries 15 14 14 13 11 International and regional organizations 68 66 67 72 72 Foundations 6 7 9 9 10 Non-members 15 19 23 26 27 Total 330 331 337 357 381 Top three contributors World Bank World Bank United States United States United States Japan United States World Bank World Bank World Bank United States Japan Japan United Kingdom European Commision Staffing (number) Internationally recruited staff 982 1,017 1,012 1,060 1,065 Support staff 7,712 7,649 7,489 6,699 6,837 Agenda program expenditures (percent) 2 Germplasm Improvement 18% 18% 18% 18% 17% Germplasm Collection 10% 10% 10% 10% 11% Sustainable Production 36% 35% 36% 35% 34% Policy 15% 15% 14% 15% 16% Enhancing NARS 21% 22% 22% 22% 22% Total (millions of U.S. dollars) 349 339 355 3813 3953 Object expenditures (percent) Personnel 50% 49% 49% 49% 46% Supplies/services 38% 39% 40% 40% 43% Travel 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Depreciation 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% Regional expenditures (percent) Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) 42% 42% 43% 43% 45% Asia 32% 32% 31% 33% 32% Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) 17% 17% 16% 15% 14% Central and West Asia and North Africa (CWANA) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Result of Operations (System Level) (6.4) 6.6 (1.7) (9.6) 3.2 Center financial information Net Assets excluding fixed assets (millions of U.S. dollars) 90 105 100 98 130 Net Assets (days expenditures) 99 119 107 100 127 Liquidity indicator Working capital (days expenditure) 122 112 129 125 151 Current ratio 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.8 Sustainability indicator Net assets excluding fixed assets / revenue (percent) 26% 30% 28% 26% 33% Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of U.S. dollars) 17.9 14.9 15.9 9.3 9.7 Capital expenditure / depreciation (percent) 100% 93% 104% 65% 63% 1 Some information has been restated for clarification purposes. 2 Starting in 2003, the research agenda is presented in terms of outputs. 3 Includes System Office, CGIAR Committees, and disbursements for FARA and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 48 consultative group on international agricultural research the cgiar funding The increase in funding from Europe came from Sweden The year 2003 showed a further increase in aggregate ($2.9 million or 27 percent), European Commission financing for the System. CGIAR funding totaled $381 ($2.7 million or 11 percent), Netherlands ($2.2 million million in 2003 compared with $357 million in 2002, or 13 percent), the United Kingdom ($1.6 million or 6 an increase of $24 million (7 percent). percent), Belgium ($1.5 million or 31 percent), Germany ($1.1 million or 10 percent) and Spain ($1 million or 77 Fifty-five of the 62 CGIAR Members2 provided $354 percent). In North America virtually all of the increase million (up from $332 million in 2002). The remaining came from Canada ($10.2 million or 95 percent). The $27 million came from a broad range of sources, includ- decrease in funding from the Pacific Rim was due largely ing multidonor projects, nonmember foundations and to a decrease in the Japanese funding (totaling approxi- developing countries.Table 2 lists funding for 1972-2003 mately $2.1 million or 12 percent). Funding by Australia by Member. and New Zealand were stable at their 2002 levels. As shown in figure 1, the increase in funding in 2003 Funding from developing country Members decreased came primarily from two Member groups: North from $12.7 million in 2002 to $12.2 million in 2003. America increased by $10.8 million (16 percent) and Colombia maintained its position as the largest supporter contributions received from Europe in US dollar terms among developing countries with $2.3 million in support. were higher by $13.7 million (9 percent). Many of the European Members provide their funding in Euros and The top 13 supporters of the CGIAR in 2003 provided other national currencies, which then are converted into about three-quarters of the funding for the research U.S. dollars by Centers. In 2003 these currencies appreci- agenda, the same proportion as in 2001 and 2002.The ated significantly against the dollar. In addition, multi- United States, providing $55.5 million, was the single donors and non-CGIAR members increased their fund- largest supporter, followed by the World Bank ($50 mil- ing by $2.2 million (9 percent). The Pacific Rim decreased lion) and the European Commission ($27.2 million). To by $2 million (8 percent) and the developing countries compare the top three supporters in 2003 with 2002, the by $0.6 million (5 percent). Funding from foundations United States and World Bank held the same rankings in and international and regional organizations were stable. that year, but the European Commission ranked fourth. Figure 1 CGIAR Funding (millions of U.S. dollars) 200 150 2003 2002 100 50 0 Europe Pacific Rim North Developing International Foundations Non-members America Countries and regional organizations executive summary of the 2003 cgiar financial results 49 Table 2 CGIAR Funding to the Research Agenda by Member Group, 1972 ­ 2003 (millions of U.S. dollars) M E M B E R S 1 9 7 2 ­ 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 TOTA L Europe Austria 17.2 2.3 1.8 2.1 0.2 0.8 24.4 Belgium 72.0 6.8 4.7 4.5 4.9 6.4 99.3 Denmark 108.5 14.0 11.0 10.6 10.2 9.1 163.4 European Commission 229.3 6.0 22.3 21.7 24.5 27.2 331.0 Finland 31.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 39.3 France 60.8 5.9 6.0 6.0 7.8 7.6 94.1 Germany 252.7 15.5 10.2 12.3 10.5 11.6 312.8 Ireland 8.9 0.9 0.8 1.5 2.1 2.6 16.7 Israel 0.0 Italy 95.5 3.2 3.2 3.7 4.1 4.4 114.2 Luxembourg 2.7 0.7 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.7 6.9 Netherlands 152.0 11.6 13.7 12.2 17.0 19.2 225.8 Norway 88.5 8.9 7.7 8.3 10.4 11.2 135.0 Portugal 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 2.1 Spain 12.3 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.3 2.3 19.2 Sweden 121.9 10.3 9.4 9.2 10.7 13.6 175.1 Switzerland 191.5 22.8 18.3 15.7 16.0 15.6 279.9 United Kingdom 197.4 13.9 14.9 19.2 24.8 26.4 296.6 Subtotal 1,643.3 125.8 128.4 130.8 146.9 160.5 2,335.7 North America Canada 273.4 12.3 11.4 11.6 10.7 20.9 340.3 United States 871.3 39.4 42.1 45.4 54.9 55.5 1,108.6 Subtotal 1,144.7 51.7 53.5 57.0 65.6 76.4 1,448.9 Pacific Rim Australia 94.4 8.1 8.5 7.2 7.3 7.3 132.8 Japan 423.1 39.9 34.6 29.2 17.1 15.0 558.9 Korea, Republic of 4.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 9.8 New Zealand 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 3.8 Subtotal 522.8 49.2 44.5 38.2 26.2 24.4 705.2 Developing and transition economies Bangladesh 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 - - 1.0 Brazil 3.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.3 5.4 China 6.5 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 11.1 Colombia 9.6 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.3 21.9 Côte d'Ivoire 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 - 0.9 Egypt, Arab Republic of 3.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.8 0.5 8.9 India 11.1 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.3 15.7 Indonesia 1.8 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 3.1 Iran, Islamic Republic of 10.4 1.8 1.7 1.7 0.9 1.2 17.7 Kenya 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 1.8 Malaysia - 0.0 Mexico 5.3 1.7 1.8 1.3 0.9 0.7 11.7 Morocco 0.5 0.5 Nigeria 12.5 1.6 1.0 - 15.1 Pakistan 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.1 1.6 Peru 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.4 2.9 Philippines 6.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 7.5 Romania 0.0 Russian Federation 0.2 - 0.2 Saudi Arabia 5.0 - - - 5.0 South Africa 1.1 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.8 4.3 Syria 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 2.0 Thailand 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 Uganda 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 1.8 Subtotal 79.4 13.9 12.9 12.6 11.6 10.9 141.3 Foundations Ford Foundation 51.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 1.3 0.8 61.7 Kellogg Foundation 3.9 0.1 - 0.2 0.3 0.3 4.8 Rockefeller Foundation 46.8 3.5 4.0 6.3 7.5 7.8 75.9 Syngenta Foundation 1.4 1.1 2.5 Subtotal 102.4 6.2 6.6 9.2 10.5 10.0 144.9 International and regional organizations ADB 12.1 4.4 6.0 6.9 6.5 6.0 41.9 AFDB 13.4 2.3 1.2 0.3 0.6 0.2 17.9 Arab Fund 12.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.0 0.8 19.0 FAO 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.8 2.0 5.5 IDB 167.2 1.5 1.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 171.4 IDRC 28.7 3.0 2.3 2.5 2.4 1.9 40.8 IFAD 49.2 6.9 5.8 6.6 5.8 5.7 80.1 OPEC Fund 13.9 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 15.2 UNDP 150.6 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.1 158.6 UNEP 3.3 0.2 0.7 0.7 1.3 3.6 9.8 World Bank1 660.8 45.0 45.0 45.0 50.0 50.0 895.9 Subtotal 1,112.1 67.7 66.3 66.5 71.7 71.8 1,456.1 Non-members 31.6 15.0 19.2 23.1 24.8 26.8 140.5 Total 4,636 330 331 337 357 381 6,373 1 Before 2002 excluded support allocated to the CGIAR Secretariat. 50 consultative group on international agricultural research Figure 3 Expenditures by Object, 2003 resource allocation Depreciation In overall terms, total CGIAR expenditures in 2003 Travel 4% amounted to $395 million, 4 percent higher than in 7% 2002. Resource allocation at the Centers is largely made at the project level established in the context of a logical framework. The following paragraphs summarize, at the 46% Personnel System and Center levels, resource allocations by object of expenditure, output and region. 42% Distribution among Centers: Figure 2 shows the Supplies / Services distribution of expenditures by Center in 2003. Expenditures by Object: Overall personnel costs repre- sented 46 percent of total expenditures in 2003, com- pared with 49 percent in 2002. The total number of staff Figure 4 Expenditures by Output, 2003 increased from 7,759 in 2002 to 7,902 in 2003 as a result Germplasm of the higher investment agenda in 2003. Expenditures Improvement by object appear in figure 3. Enhancing NARS 22% 17% Outputs: Illustrative allocations by the five CGIAR out- Germplasm puts--germplasm improvement, germplasm collection, 11% Collection sustainable production, policy, and enhancing national agricultural research systems (NARS)--for 2003 are Policy 16% shown in figure 43. These ratios have remained fairly sta- ble over the five-year period, 1999­2003. 34% Sustainable Allocation by Region: Illustrative allocations by region Production appear in figure 5. Expenditures in Sub-Saharan Africa Figure 2 Expenditures by Center (millions of U.S. dollars) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 A T T Y T IIT CIA ILRI IRRI CIP IPGRI IFPRI IWMI CIFOR ISNAR ARDA CIMMY ICARDA ICRISA W ORLDFISH W GROFORESTR W/A executive summary of the 2003 cgiar financial results 51 increased from $164 million in 2002 to $180 million in 2002) saw a contraction or no change in their funding: 2003, or from 43 percent to 45 percent. Allocations in IRRI, which experienced a 5 percent contraction, and CIP, Asia for 2003 amounted to $125 million, Latin America whose funding remained unchanged. and the Caribbean $54 million, and Central and West Asia and North Africa $36 million. Operational results (expenditures matched against fund- ing and Center income) show that eight Centers, com- center perspectives pared with three in 2002, ended the year with surpluses of $0.3 million or higher. They were CIMMYT, CIP, ICRISAT, The stability noted at the System level reflects a range of IFPRI, IRRI, WARDA, WorldFish and World Agroforestry outcomes at the individual Centers. Funding increased Centre. On the other hand, three Centers, compared with for 14 Centers, compared with nine in 2002. Five of the six in 2002, incurred a deficit. These were IPGRI ($0.3 mil- increases--for CIAT, CIFOR, CIMMYT, ISNAR and IWMI-- lion), IWMI ($0.7 million) and ISNAR ($4.3 million). In the were under 10 percent. Six--for ICARDA, IFPRI, IPGRI, ILRI, case of ISNAR, the deficit was due to the costs of ceasing WARDA and WorldFish--were between 10 and 15 per- operations as an independent Center. The remaining cent; two--for ICRISAT and IITA--were between 15 and five Centers either broke even or had a marginal surplus. 20 percent; one--for World Agroforestry--was over 20 Operational surplus is the main source for CGIAR Centers percent. Only two Centers (compared with seven in to build up reserves. Table 3 Results of Operation by Center, 2002 ­ 2003 (millions of U.S. dollars) 20021 2003 Member Center Total Expenditures Result Member Center Total Expenditures Result contributions income revenue contributions income revenue Center CIAT 31.3 0.7 32.0 32.6 (0.6) 32.0 1.0 32.9 32.9 0.1 CIFOR 12.5 0.0 12.5 11.7 0.8 13.6 0.2 13.8 13.6 0.2 CIMMYT 35.4 1.2 36.6 41.5 (4.9) 36.2 2.0 38.3 37.5 0.7 CIP 18.2 0.6 18.8 19.3 (0.6) 18.0 0.4 18.4 17.6 0.9 ICARDA 23.2 1.2 24.4 24.3 0.0 25.4 0.8 26.2 26.2 0.0 ICRISAT 20.0 1.0 21.0 24.8 (4.0) 23.2 1.4 24.6 24.0 0.6 IFPRI 23.7 0.4 24.1 23.5 0.6 26.5 0.7 27.2 26.5 0.7 IITA 31.4 1.0 32.4 32.7 (0.2) 36.6 1.3 37.9 37.7 0.2 ILRI 26.6 1.6 28.1 28.8 (0.7) 29.5 1.6 31.1 31.0 0.1 IPGRI 25.3 0.4 25.7 25.7 0.1 27.9 0.2 28.1 28.3 (0.3) IRRI 28.7 4.6 33.3 33.6 (0.2) 27.3 4.8 32.1 28.8 3.3 ISNAR 7.9 0.0 7.9 8.9 (0.9) 8.3 0.3 8.5 12.8 (4.3) IWMI 20.4 0.7 21.1 20.8 0.2 22.1 0.2 22.3 23.0 (0.7) WARDA 9.7 0.5 10.1 9.8 0.3 10.7 0.3 11.0 10.1 0.9 World Agroforestry 21.5 0.6 22.1 21.9 0.2 27.3 0.7 27.9 27.4 0.5 WorldFish 12.7 0.0 12.7 12.3 0.4 14.5 1.4 15.9 15.5 0.3 Subtotal 348 14 362 372 (9.6) 379 17 396 393 3.2 System Level World Bank allocation to System Office and Committees 6.0 -- 6.0 6.0 -- 7.0 -- 7.0 7.0 -- Advance 5.2 -- 5.2 5.2 -- -- -- -- -- Subtotal 359 14 373 383 (9.6) 386 17 403 400 3.2 Less intercenter activities 2 (2.3) -- (2.3) (2.3) -- (5.2) -- (5.2) (5.2) -- Total 357 14 371 381 (9.6) 381 17 398 395 3.2 1 Restated to include System-level expenditures and intercenter activities. 2 Intercenter activities netted out at the system, not center, level to maintain the integrity of Center accounts. 52 consultative group on international agricultural research Figure 5 Allocations by developing regions, 2003 Central and West Asia and North Africa 9% Latin America and Caribbean 14% 45% Sub-Saharan Africa 32% Asia Table 3 provides 2003 and 2002 results of operations summary of challenge programs by Center and for the System as a whole. The first full year of implementation of Challenge Table 4 provides an overview of the System's finances Programs was 2003. About $19 million was contributed (funding sources and allocations) for 2003, and table 5 to the Challenge Programs, of which $8 million was summarizes the System's overall financial position for expended, leaving a balance of $11 million for future the years 1999 to 2003. implementation.Table 6 summarizes Challenge Program resources and expenditures. Centers continue their efforts to address long-term financial health through full-cost budgeting on their conclusion restricted projects, among other financial management measures. The 2003 results confirm the continued stability of CGIAR finances in the aggregate. As in the last several years, however, there has been significant variability among the 16 Centers on a number of financial health indicators, suggesting a need for continued vigilance at both the Center and System levels. 1 The results are reported in U.S. dollars. 2 For presentation purposes, the Members are divided into four distinct groups: industrialized countries (24), developing countries (23), foundations (4), and international and regional organizations (11). Industrialized countries are further divided along geographical lines into three subgroups: Europe, North America and Pacific Rim. Four new members joined in 2003: Israel, Malaysia, Morocco and Syngenta Foundation. 3 Starting 2003 the research agenda has been presented in terms of outputs to be consistent with the concept of the logical framework. executive summary of the 2003 cgiar financial results 53 sev (+)/ w(-) 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.1 3.3 0.9 0.5 0.3 3.2 3.2 -- 3.2 ra (0.3) (4.3) (0.7) D Reser dditionA er 1.0 0.2 2.0 0.4 0.8 1.4 0.7 1.3 1.6 0.2 4.8 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.4 17 17 17 entC ncomeI otalT 8.3 32.0 13.6 36.2 18.0 25.4 23.2 26.5 36.6 29.5 27.9 27.3 22.1 10.7 27.3 14.5 379 386 (5) 381 undingF er 5 5 0 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 (5) ercent tivitiescA Int 1.5 1.4 2.5 0.5 1.3 1.8 3.3 3.9 2.1 3.9 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.1 1.4 1.3 27 27 27 Non- members 1.8 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.0 10 10 10 enue Rev oundationsF 6.8 1.4 4.8 2.9 5.5 5.2 5.5 4.1 4.5 5.8 2.8 1.1 6.1 2.9 3.1 2.4 65 7.0 72 72 Regnl & Intl ganizations Or ies 2.5 0.1 1.5 0.3 1.8 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.4 11 11 11 elopingve ountrC D th ica 6.6 1.4 2.7 6.4 5.2 5.2 4.8 1.9 4.5 1.2 2.0 1.3 5.1 3.0 76 76 76 Nor 10.0 15.0 merA imR 1.3 1.2 4.2 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.6 0.8 1.7 5.2 0.0 1.2 1.8 0.9 0.8 24 24 24 acificP 7.7 9.8 8.7 8.3 8.5 4.8 4.2 6.3 10.6 10.5 12.4 15.9 13.5 13.0 11.4 15.0 161 161 161 Europe otalT 32.9 13.6 37.5 17.6 26.2 24.0 26.5 37.7 31.0 28.3 28.8 12.8 23.0 10.1 27.4 15.5 393 7.0 400 (5) 395 100% Expenditures 4.7 0.9 7.6 2.6 6.2 4.0 9.5 8.9 3.4 8.9 5.5 4.1 2.7 5.9 1.5 86 86 86 NARS 10.0 22% Enhancing y 64 64 64 Allocations olicP 1.7 3.0 2.2 1.5 1.6 2.8 5.0 2.0 3.2 3.6 2.8 6.1 0.8 6.9 5.1 15.4 16% tion 7.0 6.6 8.2 1.5 3.7 0.0 7.3 2.6 8.3 11.0 10.8 10.8 14.3 20.5 10.2 11.5 134 134 134 34% Sustainable oducrP tion 5.0 2.7 6.1 1.4 3.1 1.8 0.0 1.5 2.2 7.9 2.4 0.0 5.5 1.1 2.4 0.1 43 43 43 11% mplasm erG ollecC ffice 2003, O 0.0 5.6 4.4 7.4 0.0 8.0 2.9 4.6 7.1 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.7 0.5 66 66 66 es 10.6 10.8 mplasm ementv em 17% erG Syst Impro inancF ot dollars) y tivities er ac nteC ees U.S. er of orestr allocation 4 T T ish elveL ercent retn grofA Bank ommittC T ld ldF otal em ld otal int ableT A ARDA or or or and (millions Ce CIA CIFOR CIMMY CIP ICARDA ICRISA IFPRI IIT ILRI IPGRI IRRI ISNAR IWMI W W W Subt Syst W Subt essL otalT 54 consultative group on international agricultural research Table 5 CGIAR System Financial Position, 1999­2003 (thousands of U.S. dollars) 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 Assets Current assets Cash and cash equivalents 212,347 151,327 142,339 149,076 201,662 Accounts receivable: Donors 54,062 60,823 63,346 72,864 87,768 Employees 2,591 3,499 2,498 3,078 2,797 Others 12,656 13,576 13,342 14,864 14,527 Inventories 6,653 6,506 6,040 4,447 4,165 Prepaid expenses 3,398 3,069 3,265 3,673 3,262 Other current assets 4,549 5,248 3,515 3,327 4,567 Total current assets 296,256 244,048 234,345 251,329 318,748 Fixed assets Property, Plant, and Equipment 399,398 289,339 274,451 261,394 266,668 Less: Accumulated Depreciation 225,702 191,265 185,392 184,222 187,083 Total fixed assets (net) 173,696 98,074 89,058 77,172 79,585 Other assets -- 25,728 33,495 41,828 37,838 Total assets 469,952 367,850 356,898 370,329 436,171 Liabilities and net assets Current liabilities Accounts Payable: Donors 100,576 56,658 54,078 78,749 110,925 Employees 9,876 5,369 12,020 11,877 13,805 Others 25,520 25,966 26,687 31,877 38,820 In-trust Accounts 3,457 3,838 2,505 2,300 8,361 Accruals and Provisions 43,855 48,259 47,223 42,377 28,925 Total current liabilities 183,284 140,090 142,513 167,180 200,836 Long-term liabilities Long-term loan Others 23,453 24,899 25,814 27,906 25,876 Total long-term liabilities 23,453 24,899 25,814 27,906 25,876 Total liabilities 206,737 164,989 168,328 195,086 226,712 Net assets Unrestricted Unrestricted net assets excluding fixed assets 89,519 104,787 99,512 96,039 126,820 Fixed assets 173,696 98,074 89,058 77,172 79,585 Unrestricted net assets 263,215 202,861 188,570 173,211 206,405 Restricted 2,032 3,054 Total net assets 263,215 202,861 188,570 175,243 209,459 Total liabilities and net assets 469,952 367,850 356,898 370,329 436,171 executive summary of the 2003 cgiar financial results 55 Table 6 Summary of Challenge Programs, 2003 (millions of U.S. dollars) Approved Under Preparation Total Harvest Plus1 Water & Food Generation2 Sub- Saharan Africa Cash receipts from Donors Austria 0.05 0.05 0.10 Bill & Melinda Gates Fdn 7.00 7.00 Denmark 0.50 0.50 Netherlands -- 1.83 1.83 Norway -- 0.35 0.55 0.90 Sweden -- 0.11 0.11 Switzerland -- 1.02 1.02 World Bank 3.00 3.00 0.90 6.90 Subtotal receipts 10.05 6.80 0.95 0.55 18.36 Unallocated (Austria) 0.29 Total receipts -- 18.65 Expenditures listed by Donor European Commission 0.21 0.21 Netherlands 1.22 1.22 Norway 0.35 0.35 Sweden 0.11 0.11 Switzerland 0.39 0.39 United States 0.07 0.07 World Bank 2.02 2.85 0.61 5.47 Total expenditures 2.02 4.98 0.81 -- 7.81 Balance 8.04 1.82 0.14 0.55 10.83 1 Also known as Biofortification. Total receipts do not include $0.03m in investment income. 2 Also known as Genetic Resources. 56 consultative group on international agricultural research who's who in the cgiar in 2003 the cgiar members Countries Representatives Cooperating Institutions Australia Peter Core Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Austria Marcus Heinz Federal Ministry of Finance Bangladesh M.A. Hamid Miah Ministry of Agriculture Belgium Luc Sas Ministry of Foreign Affairs Brazil Clayton Campanhola Ministry of Agriculture and Food Supply, EMBRAPA Canada Christine Campbell Canadian International Development Agency China Dongyu Qu Ministry of Agriculture Colombia Luis Arango-Nieto Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Côte d'Ivoire Kassoum Traore Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources Denmark Klaus Winkel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, DANIDA Egypt, Arab Republic of Magdy Madkour Agricultural Research Center Finland Ulla-Maija Finskas Ministry of Foreign Affairs France Denis Despreaux Ministry of National Education and Research Germany Hans-Jochen de Haas Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development India Mangala Rai Ministry of Agriculture, ICAR Indonesia Hadi Pasaribu Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Iran, Islamic Republic of Ali Ahoonmanesh Ministry of Agriculture Ireland Brendan Rogers Department of Foreign Affairs Israel Nachman Paster Ministry of Agriculture Italy Gioacchino Carabba Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan Hayato Nakajima Ministry of Foreign Affairs Kenya Wilfred Mwangi Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Korea, Republic of Kyung-Han Ryu Ministry of Agriculture Luxembourg Georges Heinen Ministry of Finance Malaysia Saharan Anang Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute Mexico Jesús Moncada de la Fuente Ministry of Agriculture Morocco Hamid Narjisse Ministry of Agriculture, INRA Netherlands Leen Boer Ministry of Foreign Affairs New Zealand Peter Adams Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Nigeria Oloche Edache Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources Norway Aslak Brun Ministry of Foreign Affairs Pakistan Zafar Altaf Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Livestock Peru Ricardo Sevilla Panizo Ministry of Agriculture Philippines William Medrano Department of Agriculture Portugal Joao Borges Ministry of Finance Romania Mihaiu Radulian Ministry of Agriculture and Food Russian Federation Viktor Dragavtsev Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences South Africa Bongiwe Njobe Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs Spain Adolfo Cazorla Ministry of Agriculture Sweden Eva Ohlsson Ministry of Foreign Affairs, SIDA 58 consultative group on international agricultural research Countries Representatives Cooperating Institutions Switzerland Dora Rapold Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Syrian Arab Republic Adel Safar Ministry of Agriculture and Agricultural Reform Thailand Chakarn Saengruksawong Department of Agriculture Uganda William Otim-Nape National Agricultural Research Organization United Kingdom Paul Spray Department for International Development United States Emmy M. Simmons United States Agency for International Development Foundations Representatives Ford Foundation Jeff Campbell Kellogg Foundation Rick Foster Rockefeller Foundation Peter Matlon Syngenta Foundation for Andrew J. Bennett Sustainable Agriculture International and Regional Organizations Representatives African Development Bank Afework Aklilu Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development Mervat Wehba Badawi Asian Development Bank Robert J. Dobias Commission of the European Community Uwe Werblow Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations John Monyo Gulf Cooperation Council of the Arab States Hilal Ambusaidi Inter-American Development Bank Ruben Echeverria International Development Research Centre Peter Cooper International Fund for Agricultural Development Rodney Cooke OPEC Fund for International Development Suleiman Al-Herbish United Nations Development Programme Alvaro Umaña United Nations Environment Programme Shafqat Kakakhel World Bank Kevin Cleaver who's who in the cgiar in 2003 59 the cgiar CGIAR Chairman Ian Johnson, Vice President, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, World Bank CGIAR Director Francisco J. B. Reifschneider Co-sponsors and their Representatives Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: John Monyo International Fund for Agricultural Development: Rodney Cooke United Nations Development Programme: Alvaro Umaña World Bank: Kevin Cleaver executive council Civil Society (temporarily vacant) Robert B. Horsch Executive Secretary, ExCo: William S. Niebur Chairman: Ian Johnson Francisco J. B. Reifschneider Mumeka M.Wright Co-Sponsors: CGIAR Secretariat: Selçuk Özgediz Usha Barwale Zehr John Monyo (FAO) Kevin Cleaver (World Bank) standing committees cgiar system office Rodney Cooke (IFAD) CBC: John Vercoe (CBC Chair) Advisory Committees CGIAR Secretariat CDC: Adel El-Beltagy (CDC Chair) Interim Science Council Francisco J. B. Reifschneider, Director Interim SC: Emil Javier (iSC Chair) (until Sept. 2003) Feroza Vatcha, Administrative Officer (until Sept. 2003) Emil Javier, Chair Josephine Hernandez,Senior Executive Richard Harwood (SC Transition Michael Cernea Assistant Coordinator (Sept.-Dec. 2003) Alain de Janvry GFAR: Mohamad Roozitalab Elias Fereres Governance and Partnerships (GFAR Chair) Hans Gregersen (ex-officio) Selçuk Özgediz, Management Adviser OECD/DAC Richard R. Harwood Manuel Lantin, Science Adviser Americas: Franklin Moore Maria Antonia Martinez Maria Iskandarani, Research Analyst (United States) Oumar Niangado Jason Yauney, Senior Program Assistant Asia-Pacific: Hayato Nakajima (Japan) Hirofumi Uchimiya Barbara Eckberg, Program Assistant Europe: Klaas Tamminga (Netherlands) Vo-Tong Xuan Jochen de Haas (Germany) Investor Relations and Finance Klaus Winkel (Denmark) Standing Panel on Impact Ravi Tadvalkar, Lead Finance Officer Developing Countries Assessment (SPIA) Shey Tata, Senior Finance Officer Americas: Luis Arango Nieto Hans Gregersen, Chair Salah Brahimi, Senior Cofinancing (Colombia) Ruben Echeverria Officer SSA: Bongiwe Njobe (South Africa) Hermann Waibel Zewdnesh Abegaz, Senior Program Asia-Pacific: Dongyu Qu (China) Assistant CWANA: Noureddin Mona (Syria) Partnership Committees Regional Fora: Abel Al-Nabi Fardous NGO Committee (temporarily inactive) Information and Corporate (AARINENA) Communications Foundations: Peter Matlon Private Sector Committee Fionna Douglas, Communications (Rockefeller) Sam Dryden, Chair Advisor Partners: Alejandro Delfino Sarwat Hussain, Senior Private Sector: Sam Dryden Bruno Ferrari Communications Officer (PSC Chair) Bernward J.H. Garthoff Danielle Lucca, Information Officer 60 consultative group on international agricultural research M. Caryl Jones-Swahn, Mortimer Neufville, IITA cgiar Communications Assistant Eugene Terry, World Agroforestry 1971­2003 Elizabeth Charles, Program Assistant (CBC Executive Secretary: M. Caryl Jones-Swahn) CGIAR Chairmen, 1971­2003 Science Council Secretariat Center Directors Committee Ian Johnson, 2000- Amir Kassam, Acting Executive Secretary Adel El-Beltagy, ICARDA, CDC Chair Ismail Serageldin, 1994­2000 Timothy Kelley, Ronald P. Cantrell, IRRI V. Rajagopalan, 1991­1993 Senior Agricultural Research Officer William D. Dar, ICRISAT Wilfried Thalwitz, 1990­1991 Sirkka Immonen, Senior Agricultural Research Jacques P. Eckebil, ISNAR W. David Hopper, 1987­1990 Officer Dennis Garrity, World Agroforestry S. Shahid Hussain, 1984­1987 Peter Hartmann, IITA Warren Baum, 1974­1983 Richard H. Demuth, 1971­1974 Central Advisory Service for Intellectual Emile Frison, IPGRI Property Masaru Iwanaga, CIMMYT CGIAR Directors, 2001-2003 Victoria Henson-Apollonio, Manager David Kaimowitz , CIFOR Francisco J. B. Reifschneider, Kanayo F. Nwanze, WARDA 2001- Chief Information Officer Frank Rijsberman, IWMI Enrica M. Porcari, Chief Information Officer Carlos Sere, ILRI CGIAR Executive Secretaries, Joachim von Braun, IFPRI 1972­2001 Executive Secretary, Center Directors Joachim Voss, CIAT Alexander von der Osten, 1989­2001 Committee Meryl Williams, WorldFish Curtis Farrar, 1982­1989 Kerri Wright Platais Hubert Zandstra, CIP Michael Lejeune, 1975­1982 (CDC Executive Secretary: Kerry Wright Platais) Harold Graves, 1972­1975 Future Harvest Foundation Jason Wettstein, Communications Officer Public Awareness and Resource Mobilization iSC Chairmen, 2001-2003 Committee (until AGM 2003) Emil Javier, 2001-2003 Gender and Diversity William Dar, Chair Vicki Wilde, Program Leader Kevin Cleaver TAC Chairmen, 1971­2001 Emil Q. Javier, 2000-2001 Emile Frison Donald Winkelmann, Internal Audit Dennis Garrity 1994­1999 John Fitzsimon Klaus Leisinger Alex McCalla, 1988­1994 Alex McCalla Guy Camus, 1982­1987 Strategic Advisory Service on Human Kanayo Nwanze Ralph Cummings, 1977­1982 Resources Ruth Raymond Sir John Crawford, 1971­1976 N. P. Rajasekharan, Director Francisco J. B. Reifschneider TAC Executive Secretaries, John Riggan 1971­2003 Joachim Voss center committees Shellemiah Keya, 1996­2003 Meryl Williams Guido Gryseels, 1995­1996 Hubert Zandstra John Monyo, 1985­1994 Committee of Board Chairs Alexander von der Osten, John E.Vercoe, ILRI, CBC Chair 1982­1985 Isher Ahluwalia, IFPRI Philippe Mahler, 1976­1982 Margaret Catley-Carlson, ICARDA Peter Oram, 1971­1976 Angela Cropper, CIFOR Benchaphun Shinawatra Ekasingh, IPGRI Remo Gautschi, IWMI James Godfrey, CIP James Jones, CIAT Angeline Kamba, IRRI Robert Kearney, WorldFish Alex McCalla, CIMMYT Moise C. Mensah, ISNAR Richard Musangi, WARDA A. Uzo Mokwunye, ICRISAT who's who in the cgiar in 2003 61 facts about cgiar staff People are the CGIAR's biggest strength, committed to mobilizing quality science to benefit poor farmers in developing countries. Research, by definition, is a collaborative enterprise. A recent survey showed the diversity of CGIAR staff, all of whom are joined in a solid bond of partnership to promote development where it matters: in rural areas where the inhabitants often live on the fringes of the global economy. In 2003, the CGIAR had 7,651 staff--the largest groups were based in Colombia, India, Nigeria A recent survey showed and Philippines, all countries that host a CGIAR Center. About 90 percent of CGIAR staff and 58 percent of CGIAR scientists come from developing the diversity of CGIAR staff, countries. all of whom are joined in a About one-third of CGIAR staff operates outside Center headquarters in regional, country or field solid bond of partnership offices. About 27 percent of CGIAR staff are women. to promote development Of the 16 Center Directors leading CGIAR Centers, 4 are from developing countries. where it matters: in rural Each CGIAR Center is run by a Board of Trustees--overall, there were 188 individuals serving on areas where the inhabitants the Board of Trustees of different Centers, including Center Directors. Of the 188 Board members, 59 percent come from developing countries and 28 percent of all often live on the fringes of Board members were women. the global economy. Sharing and strengthening knowledge is key to building the scientific capacities of developing countries--in 2003, CGIAR scientists participated in the training of 676 students at the master's level, and 719 students at the doctoral level. In 2003, nearly 2,000 peer-reviewed articles and books were published by CGIAR scientists. Of the 2,000 articles published by CGIAR Centers in 2003, around 40 percent were coauthored with partners from developing countries. In conveying this composite portrait of CGIAR staff, we recognize the continuing need to improve diversity and gender balance across the entire staff. 62 consultative group on international agricultural research acronyms and abbreviations AARINENA Association of Agricultural Research Institutions ExCo Executive Council of the CGIAR in the Near East and North Africa FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Nations Research GFAR Global Forum on Agricultural Research AGM03 2003 Annual General Meeting of the CGIAR GIS geographic information systems AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome GRPI Genetic Resources Policy Initiative of IPGRI AMBIONET Asian Maize Biotechnology Network HNPV Helicoverpa nuclear polyhedrosis ARI African Rice Initiative IAS International Accounting Standards AVRDC Asian Vegetable Research Development Centre ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research CAC Central Asia and the Caucasus region ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in CAPRi Collective Action and Property Rights program the Dry Areas of the CGIAR ICG International Coconut Genebank CBC Committee of Board Chairs of the CGIAR ICIMOD International Center for Integrated Mountain CDC Center Directors Committee of the CGIAR Development CGI crop germplasm improvement ICIPE International Center for Insect Plant Ecology CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre Research ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the CIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical Semi-Arid Tropics International (Center for Tropical Agriculture) ICT-KM Information and Communications Technology and CIDA Canadian International Development Agency Knowledge Management CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research IDB Inter-American Development Bank CIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y IDRC International Development Research Centre Trigo (International Maize and Wheat IER Institut d'Economie Rurale (Institute of Rural Improvement Center) Economy) CIP Centro Internacional de la Papa (International IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development Potato Center) IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute CMD cassava mosaic disease IFReDI Inland Fisheries Research and Development COGENT Coconut Genetic Resources Network Institute CONDESAN Consorcio para el Desarrollo Sostenible de la IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Ecorregión Andina ILRI International Livestock Research Institute CORPOICA Colombian Corporation for Agricultural Research INIA Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología COSOP Country Strategic Opportunities Agraria y Alimentaria CP Challenge Program INRA Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique CSO civil society organizations (National Agricultural Research Institute) CTVM Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University IPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources Institute of Edinburgh IPM integrated pest management CWANA Central and West Asia and North Africa IPR intellectual property rights DANIDA Danish International Development Agency IRRI International Rice Research Institute, Philippines DFID Department for International Development, UK IRS internationally recruited staff EMBRAPA Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation IRT ISNAR Restructuring Team who's who in the cgiar in 2003 63 iSC Interim Science Council of the CGIAR PhilRice Philippine Rice Research Institute ISNAR International Service for National Agricultural PwC PricewaterhouseCoopers Research RAFNET Rwanda Agroforestry Network IWMI International Water Management Institute RWC Rice-Wheat Consortium IWWIP International Winter Wheat Improvement Program SC Science Council LAC Latin America and Caribbean SGRP Systemwide Genetic Resources Program of the LIRI Livestock Health Research Institute, Uganda CGIAR NARO National Agricultural Research Organization SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation NARS national agricultural research systems Agency NCAP National Centre for Agricultural Economics and SPIA Standing Panel on Impact Assessment Policy TAC Technical Advisory Committee of the CGIAR NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development TICAD III Third Tokyo International Conference on African NERICA new rices for Africa Development NGO nongovernmental organization UAM University of Madrid NIA National Irrigation Authority, Philippines USAID United States Agency for International NZAID New Zealand's International Aid and Development Development Agency UNDP United Nations Development Programme OECD/DAC Organisation for Economic Co-operation and UNEP United Nations Environment Programme Development/Development Assistance UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Committee Organization OPEC Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries USDA United States Department of Agriculture PARC Public Awareness and Resource Mobilization USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Committee VITAA Vitamin A for Africa PRAPACE Programme Régional d'Amélioration de la Culture WARDA West Africa Rice Development Association ­ de la Pomme de Terre en Afrique Centrale et de The Africa Rice Center l'Est (Regional Potato and Sweet Potato WEHAB United Nations initiative for integrated action on Improvement Network for East and Central water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity Africa) WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development PSC Private Sector Committee of the CGIAR WTO World Trade Organization 64 consultative group on international agricultural research Rockefeller Foundation Romania Russian Federation Homenagem aos Parceiros do CGIAR South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture tribute to cgiar partners Syrian Arab Republic Thailand Uganda United Kingdom United Nations Development Programme United Nations Environment Programme United States of America World Bank Homenaje a los colaboradores del CGIAR Hommage aux partenaires du CGIAR CGIAR Secretariat A Unit of the CGIAR System Office 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USA CGIAR t 1 202 473 8951 f 1 202 473 8110 e cgiar@cgiar.org www.cgiar.org Printed on environmentally friendy paper July 2004