Tribute - USAID

C O N S U L T A T I V E G R O U P O N I N T E R N A T I O N A L A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S E A R C H

Global

Knowledge

for Local

ImpactAgricultural

Science and

Technology

in Sustainable

Development

The year 2001 marks 30 years of Consultative Group on

International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) work for

development. Our achievements in mobilizing science for

development; forging scientific partnerships; and strengthen-

ing human, technical, and institutional capacities would not

have been possible without the support of our donors,

matched with the energy, enthusiasm, and commitment of the

many thousands of partners who form the CGIAR alliance.

Science, by definition, is a collaborative enterprise. We take

this opportunity to acknowledge the scientific, technical, and

financial support of our partners. We recognize the enormous

contributions of our developing country partners and their

national agricultural research systems. Our achievements result

from the active involvement of farmers, more than 300 non-

governmental organizations (NGOs), members of the private

sector, and outstanding individual scientists and staff whose

long-term commitment to agricultural research has made a dif-

ference in the lives of many millions of poor people worldwide.

Tribute to the CGIAR

An

nu

al Rep

ort 2001

CG

IAR

Glo

ba

l Kn

ow

led

ge

for L

oca

l Imp

act A

gricu

ltura

l Scie

nce

an

d Te

chn

olo

gy

in S

us

tain

ab

le D

ev

elo

pm

en

tCGIAR Secretariat

The World Bank

1818 H Street, NW

Washington, DC 20433

USA

Telephone ■ 1 202 473 8951

Fax ■ 1 202 473 8110

Email ■ [email protected] or [email protected]

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

www.cgiar.orgPrinted on environmentally friendly paper

CGIAR Annual Report 2001

40736_Cover_ags 10/7/02 10:45 AM


Global

Knowledge

for Local

ImpactAgricultural

Science and

Technology

in Sustainable

Development




















An

nu

al Rep

ort 2001

CG

IAR

Glo

ba

l Kn

ow

led

ge

for L

oca

l Imp

act A

gricu

ltura

l Scie

nce

an

d Te

chn

olo

gy

in S

us

tain

ab

le D

ev

elo

pm

en

t

CGIAR Secretariat

The World Bank

1818 H Street, NW


USA

Telephone ■ 1 202 473 8951

Fax ■ 1 202 473 8110





40736_Cover_ags 10/7/02 10:45 AM Page 1

African Development Bank

Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development

Asian Development Bank

Australia

Austria

Bangladesh

Belgium

Brazil

Canada

China

Colombia

Commission of the European Community

Côte d’Ivoire

Denmark

Arab Republic of Egypt

Finland

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Ford Foundation

France

Germany

India

Indonesia

Inter-American Development Bank

International Development Research Centre

International Fund for Agricultural Development

Islamic Republic of Iran

Ireland

Italy

Japan

Kellogg Foundation

Kenya

Republic of Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico


Netherlands

New Zealand

Nigeria

Norway

OPEC Fund for International Development

Pakistan

Peru

Philippines

Portugal

Rockefeller Foundation

Romania

Russian Federation

South Africa

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Syrian Arab Republic

Thailand

Uganda

United Kingdom

United Nations Development Programme

United Nations Environment Programme

United States of America

World Bank

CGIAR Members

Photo Credits Cover: WARDA. Page 2: CIAT. Page 4: CIMMYT. Page 5: Embrapa. Page 7: World Bank. Page 8:CIP. Page 11: CIP. Page 13: CIP. Page 14: CIP. Page 16: CIAT. Page 17: CIFOR. Page 18: CIMMYT. Page 19: CIP.Page 20: ICARDA. Page 21: ICLARM. Page 22: ICRAF. Page 23: ICRISAT. Page 24: World Bank. Page 25: IITA.Page 26: ILRI. Page 27: IPGRI. Page 28: IRRI. Page 29: ILRI. 0: IWMI. Page 31: WARDA. Page 42: WARDA.

Design Patricia Hord.Graphik Design

Printed by Automated Graphic Systems, Inc.

40736_Cover_ags 10/7/02 10:45 AM Page 2

CGIAR Alliance at a Glance 2

Message from the Chairman and Director 4

Thirty Years of the CGIAR

by Robert S. McNamara 7

Global Knowledge for Local Impact:

Science and Technology in

Sustainable Development

by The Right Honourable Clare Short 8

A View from a Southern Partner

by Eliseo R. Ponce 11

A View from the Private Sector 12

A View from Civil Society 13

The Future Harvest Centers of the CGIAR 15

Location of Centers 32

Executive Summary of the 2001 CGIAR

Financial Results 34

Who’s Who in the CGIAR in 2001 42

Acronyms and Abbreviations 48

CO

NS

UL

TA

TI

VE

G

RO

UP

ON

I

NT

ER

NA

TI

ON

AL

A

GR

IC

UL

TU

RA

L

RE

SE

AR

CH

Partners

40736_WB_1_AGS 10/7/02 10:47 AM Page 1

2

CGIAR Alliance at a Glance

40736_WB_2_13_AGS 10/7/02 11:05 AM Page 2

C O N S U L T A T I V E G R O U P O N I N T E R N A T I O N A L A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S E A R C H 3

Created in 1971, the Consultative Groupon International Agricultural Research is a58-member strategic alliance (including 22 developingand 21 industrialized countries) supporting a networkof 16 Future Harvest Centers that mobilize cutting-edge science to promote sustainable development byreducing hunger and poverty, improving human nutri-tion and health, and protecting the environment.

As a strategic alliance, more than 8,500 CGIAR scien-tists and staff are working in more than 100 coun-tries. Their research generates global knowledge thatis focused on local impact. It is targeted to the spe-cial needs, crops, and ecologies of poor farmingcommunities worldwide.

CGIAR research addresses almost every component ofthe agricultural sector—agroforestry, biodiversity,food, forage and tree crops, environmentally soundfarming techniques, fisheries, forestry, livestock, foodpolicy, and agricultural research services, to name afew. Improvements in these areas promote growthand provide pathways out of poverty for poor people.

A far-reaching reform program launched in 2001 ishelping increase the relevance and impact of CGIARresearch for achieving the Millennium DevelopmentGoals, expanding scientific partnership through thelaunch of innovative Challenge Programs, and creat-ing new mechanisms to ensure that the quality ofscience continues to meet the highest internationalstandards. Research at the CGIAR-supported Centersis helping launch a rice revolution in West Africa

through the release of New Rices for Africa (NERICA), and a new corn variety bred for high-quality protein is being planted on one millionhectares in 20 countries. Efforts to improve foodpolicies won the 2001 World Food Prize, a first forthe field of agricultural economics.

As a signal of growing confidence in the system, several developing and industrialized countries haveexpressed interest in joining the CGIAR alliance. In 2001, the Rome-based International Fund forAgricultural Development (IFAD) became a CGIARCosponsor, joining key multilateral development institutions in that role: the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO), the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP), and theWorld Bank.

Advocating science-based approaches to solvingsome of the world’s most pressing developmentproblems lies at the heart of the CGIAR’s mission. Allbenefits of CGIAR research are kept within the publicdomain, freely available to everyone. CGIAR researchsupports the Millennium Development Goals, includ-ing those laid out in the Convention to CombatDesertification, the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, the International Treaty on Plant GeneticResources for Food and Agriculture, and theFramework Convention on Climate Change.

In 2001, CGIAR partners contributed $337 million, representing the single largest investment in mobiliz-ing science for the benefit of poor people.

40736_WB_2_13_AGS 10/7/02 11:05 AM Page 3

C O N S U L T A T I V E G R O U P O N I N T E R N A T I O N A L A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S E A R C H4

In a world in which 75 percent of peopleliving in poverty depend on agriculture tosurvive, investment in building agricultural growthmust be a priority. Agriculture remains the single mostimportant sector in the economies of most developingcountries, accounting for up to 50 percent of grossdomestic product.

In 2001 we began to see some indication that agricul-ture was back on the international agenda. There wasrenewed recognition that the creation of global publicgoods, in the form of science and technology, has ahistory of creating agricultural growth and benefitingpoor populations and, most important, has enormouscapacity to do so in the future.

Studies indicate that in many countries with dynamic,growth-oriented agricultural sectors, science and tech-nology have been pivotal to development. The evidenceis clear that research plays a significant role in generat-ing new agricultural information, products, and tech-nologies that support these healthy agricultural sectors.

Past investments in the application of science to solvingproblems of agricultural development have yielded 20percent average rates of return, with much higherreturns for some crops. The development of high-yielding green revolution crop varieties, which began inthe late 1960s, increased real incomes for small farm-ers in southern India by 90 percent between 1973 and1994. In addition, it is estimated to have preservedover 300 million hectares of forests and grasslands,thus conserving biodiversity and reducing carbonreleases. The valuable role of the Future HarvestCenters of the CGIAR in the generation of the greenrevolution has been acknowledged widely.

But there is much more to the Centers and partners ofthe CGIAR System. The System’s outstanding achieve-ments include developing quality protein maize (QPM),which contains twice the amount of lysine and trypto-phan of regular maize. Currently, QPM is being planted

on one million hectares in 20countries, thereby boostingfood, nutrition, and incomesecurity. New Rices for Africa,which combines the rugged-ness of local African ricespecies with the high produc-tivity traits of Asian rice, istransforming agriculture inthe humid West Africa regionwhere rice imports top 3.5million tons at a cost of $1billion per year. In Guineaalone, these rice varieties,planted on 90,000 hectares,saved $10 million in rice import bills in 2001.

The development of integrated aquaculture and agricul-ture techniques and the adoption of no- or low-till farm-ing practices are boosting both farm incomes and pro-ductivity in Africa and Asia. All of these initiatives, whichwere conducted in partnership with national programs,provide real benefit to poor people and to the planet.

Most recently, CGIAR scientists have developed newwheat, derived from a cross between wheat and goatgrass, that is delivering 30 percent yield increases indryland conditions, and test plantings indicate positivepotential for Maize ZM251, developed with SouthAfrica. No- and low-till farming alternatives promotedby a consortium of researchers are being increasinglywell received across South Asia.

Recognition of the critical importance of market securi-ty—fair access to fair markets—motivated scientistsand civil society organizations to work together toenable African producers to capitalize on internationalpigeonpea markets. In another example of successfulcollaboration, CGIAR scientists and local communityorganizations in Indonesia developed a project in whichvillagers farm trees that yield enough charcoal to enablethem to establish successful businesses.

Message from the Chairman and Director

Ian Johnson visits CIMMYT

Global Knowledge for Local Impact

40736_WB_2_13_AGS 10/7/02 11:06 AM Page 4

M E S S A G E F R O M T H E C H A I R M A N A N D D I R E C T O R 5

In a sign of the growing recognition of the importance ofsound policies, CGIAR agricultural economist andDirector General of the International Food PolicyResearch Institute (IFPRI), Per Pinstrup-Andersen, wonthe 2001 World Food Prize for his contributions to theimprovement of agricultural research and food policy.We are proud to have won this prestigious award con-secutively for two years.

But many challenges remain. Sustainable food securityrequires intensification of agriculture, not extensifica-tion—intensification that is both socially and environ-mentally responsible. The green revolution failed totake hold in Africa and yield differentials between

African and Asian countries indicate unrealized poten-tial. It is imperative that we ensure access to informa-tion and new technologies for those who have so fre-quently failed to benefit from new knowledge—ruralpoor people.

And new challenges continue to arise. Climate change,widespread deforestation, and the spread of HIV/AIDShave a major impact on agriculture and require ourattention. The need for major investment in the genera-tion of global knowledge continues. But modern sci-ence is expensive. New alliances, new institutions, newpublic–private partnerships are required to properlyaddress the challenges of funding and to apply cutting-edge science for the benefit of all people.

Recognizing the need to continuously re-evaluate andstrengthen its alliances, in 2001 the CGIAR initiated areform program designed to increase positive impacton the developing world, reposition the organization asa 21st century institution, strengthen both science andgovernance, and design new mechanisms to attractpotential funds for innovative and cost-effective globalpublic goods research. The establishment of theExecutive Council and the Science Council will ensurethe CGIAR System has access to world-class gover-nance and science advice and that Members have realopportunities to influence the alliance. The establish-ment of the System Office will bring together in acohesive and efficient manner the eight units that servethe alliance and ensure effective exchange of informa-tion and knowledge. Most importantly, the ChallengePrograms, an innovative programmatic elementdesigned to address regional and global issues ofworldwide relevance by mobilizing knowledge, tech-nology, and resources, were initiated. Open to allstakeholders, the Challenge Programs will facilitate col-laborative research and potentially attract additionalfunding to the System.

The transformed CGIAR System is well positioned tofoster the creation of new alliances and the generationof new knowledge.

This edition of the CGIAR Annual Report includes con-tributions from partners who reflect the broadalliance. In particular we are delighted to include con-tributions from the Rt. Hon. Clare Short, member ofParliament and secretary of state for internationaldevelopment, United Kingdom, and Eliseo R. Ponce,director, Bureau of Agricultural Research, Departmentof Agriculture (Kagawaran ng Pagsasaka), Philippines,both of whom provide valuable perspectives on thereform process. In recognition of our 30-year anniversary, RobertMcNamara, former World Bank president and found-ing father of the CGIAR, generously agreed to sharesome reflections from his long association with theCGIAR. Contributions from both the private for-profitand not-for-profit sectors reflect the importance ofpartnerships in ensuring that research results havepractical local impact.

Francisco Reifschneider on a biodiversity expedition in theAtlantic Forest, Brazil, with botanist Luciano Bianchetti

40736_WB_2_13_AGS 10/7/02 11:06 AM Page 5


The outstanding contributions from each of theCGIAR-supported Centers highlight the practicalachievements of 2001 and demonstrate the effect that new, global knowledge is having every day at the local level.

We would like to acknowledge the invaluable supportof the CGIAR partners who contribute so much to thealliance. The work of the CGIAR would be impossiblewithout the participation and support of its Members,Cosponsors, national agricultural institutions, farmers’organizations, members of civil society, and membersof the private sector. Their contributions go far beyondthe critical financial support that funds our work.Contributions in time, energy, and intellectual commit-ment make our work possible.

We all know that the work of agricultural science isnever complete. We know that we must constantlystrive for more efficient and effective ways of working.Most of all, we know that “business as usual” is notacceptable.

We look forward to continuing to work together withall of our partners to build a healthier, wealthier, andgreener world.

Ian Johnson,CGIAR Chairman

Francisco J. B. Reifschneider,

CGIAR Director

40736_WB_2_13_AGS 10/7/02 11:06 AM Page 6

T H I R T Y Y E A R S O F T H E C G I A R 7

Thirty years ago, I was glad to be associat-ed with a group of farsighted colleagues increating the CGIAR. David Bell of the FordFoundation, John Hannah of the United States Agencyfor International Development (USAID), George Harrarof the Rockefeller Foundation, and Frosty Hill of theFord Foundation were foremost among them. Today I amhappy to note the fruits of our efforts. Unquestionably,broadening the impact of research into tropical agricul-ture has greatly helped reduce hunger and poverty.

Green revolution technologies, developed by the FutureHarvest Centers of the CGIAR and their partners indeveloping countries, have transformed agriculture inAsia and much of Latin America. Center scientists arewidely acknowledged for the excellence of theirresearch and the significance of its impact. NormanBorlaug, whose work on high-yielding wheat made amajor contribution to the green revolution, is a Nobellaureate. The CGIAR itself received the King BaudouinInternational Development Prize. Nine out of fourteenWorld Food Prize laureates are from the CGIAR.

The Economist has reported that the green revolution’stoolkit probably saved a billion people from starvation.Numerous studies show that the new technologieshelped reduce poverty by fueling economic growth andresulted in the conservation of land and biodiversity.CGIAR-supported research has expanded beyond theoriginal goal of increased productivity to encompassnatural resource management, capacity building, andpolicy research. Alliances among the Centers, nationalresearch institutions, and others have grown. The vitali-ty and relevance of the CGIAR System have thus beenrenewed periodically.

All of those involved in this enterprise deserve honorand praise: farmers, international and national scien-tists, managers, and donors. The World Bank hasanchored the CGIAR System in association with other

Cosponsors. Founding Members, including the Fordand Rockefeller Foundations and USAID, continue toprovide important support. Twenty-two developingcountries (out of a total of 58 Members) have validatedthe CGIAR by joining it.

Past successes, however worthy, are not enough. In ourage of plenty, too many people are victims of absolutepoverty, hunger, conflict, and environmental degrada-tion. The CGIAR must therefore intensify its effective-ness within its own special niche. Countries in whichagricultural research has made a significant impact willneed the fruits of agricultural research for many moreyears. But the greatest need is in Sub-Saharan Africa.Poverty is pervasive in most of the 47 countries of thatregion. A third of the people are undernourished. Lifeexpectancy is low. It is here, therefore, that the CGIARconfronts its major challenges.

The tasks ahead are difficult and complex—in someways, more so than they were 30 years ago. So I urgethe CGIAR not to forsake its mission. Your efforts areneeded. You must stay the course.

Thirty Years of the CGIARby Robert S. McNamaraFormer President, World Bank, and founding father of the CGIAR

Robert McNamara visits an agricultural research station at Bambey, Senegal, 1969

40736_WB_2_13_AGS 10/7/02 11:06 AM Page 7


Although the world’s population has growndramatically over the last 30 years, fromunder four billion in 1970 to over six billion in 2000,increases in food production have largely outpaced it.

This amazing success in increased food productionresulted in large part from the green revolution, whichapplied science and technology to the problems facedby farmers in developing countries. The new varietiesof wheat, rice, and other crops developed by interna-tional research institutes in partnership with nationalresearch systems increased yields substantially and hada major impact in reducing poverty in a number ofdeveloping countries.

Despite this success, however, nearly a billion peoplearound the world who are largely dependent on agri-culture for their livelihoods live on less than $1 a day.Twice that number survive on less than $2 a day andgo hungry. In Africa, about a third of the population isundernourished and the numbers are increasing.This is unacceptable. We must drastically improve thelivelihoods of rural poor people if we are to achieve thekey Millennium Development Goals of halving the

Global Knowledge for Local Impact:Science and Technology in Sustainable

Developmentby The Right Honourable

Clare Short, Member of Parliament

United Kingdom Secretary of State

for International Development

40736_WB_2_13_AGS 10/7/02 11:06 AM Page 8

G L O B A L K N O W L E D G E F O R L O C A L I M P A C T 9

proportion of people living in extreme poverty andreducing child mortality by two-thirds by 2015.

Most of the rural poor populations live in the semi-aridareas of South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. These areecologically diverse regions with little or uncertain rain-fall, complex farming systems, and limited opportuni-ties for irrigation. The green revolution technologiessucceeded in more favorable environments in develop-ing countries. The challenge we now face is to ensurethat agriculture plays its full role in reducing povertyamong people living in semi-arid environments.

How is this to be done? A broad approach is needed,one that encompasses improved trade, rural roads andinfrastructure, governance, and marketing systems. Butwe also urgently need to help poor farmers access newtechnologies to improve their current practices andenhance their livelihoods. Some of these technologiesalready exist, but they need to be adapted to local con-ditions; others must be developed using modern scien-tific approaches.

In recent years, the CGIAR has begun to focus on theneeds of poor farmers in more difficult environments.Two examples:

■ The CGIAR is now devoting more than 40 percentof its resources to Africa and the results are becom-ing evident: better varieties of millets, maize,sorghum, beans, and cassava; improved animalhusbandry; multipurpose crops and trees; short-duration leguminous shrubs that improve soil fertili-ty; rotations that permit permanent cropping ondifficult soils in West Africa; varieties of rice, maize,and sweet potato that have enhanced nutritionalvalue; seed treatment, fertilizer application, andpest management approaches. These are the firstfruits of efforts that must be adopted more widely.

■ In India, the International Rice Research Institute(IRRI) and the national agricultural research systemhave been using participatory approaches in select-ing improved varieties of crops. Poor farmers—menand women—are involved in the research process,

with excellent results in terms of new varieties suit-ed to drought-prone environments. Elsewhere inSouth Asia, joint research by the InternationalCrops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics(ICRISAT) and UK scientists focused on seed primingof short-duration varieties of rice and legumes,offering the prospect of poor people growing twocrops on millions of hectares where only one cropgrew before.

Good work is being done, but we need to do more toremove the barriers between scientists and poor farm-ers and to enhance the focus of international andnational research systems on reducing hunger andpoverty.

Looking ahead, rapid global change inevitably willaffect poor people in developing countries most seri-ously. Changes may include widespread deforestationand land degradation, increased pressures on coastaland marine ecosystems, and losses in biodiversity. Newapproaches to research and extension will be forced byglobal warming, water scarcity, the privatization ofresearch, globalization, HIV/AIDS, and advances ininformation and communications technologies andbiotechnology. The CGIAR’s strategic thinking mustconsider how each force for change will affect progresstoward the 2015 Millennium Development Goals.Some forces may have a significant impact on povertyreduction before 2015 (for example, HIV/AIDS, global-ization); others, such as climate change and loss in bio-diversity, may be felt only over the longer term.

The CGIAR is uniquely placed to turn rhetoric into reali-ty, to assist with practical action. But it will not do thisif it continues with “business as usual.” Success willrequire change and adaptation to change, and a senseof urgency. The CGIAR will need to strive for maximumimpact of science and technology on poor populationsin the short, medium, and long term. All of this changeand urgency points to the need for a balanced CGIARstrategy that combines research having rapid payoffs inpoverty reduction with strategic research into medium-and long-term problems, which will help sustain

40736_WB_2_13_AGS 10/7/02 11:06 AM Page 9


progress in poverty reduction beyond 2015. And thereare other dimensions, including the need to balancefood production for poor consumers and direct assis-tance to help eliminate hunger among poor rural people.

The key elements for success appear to be the following:

■ Greater clarity about the needs of poor people,about their livelihood systems and priorities. Thismeans improving our understanding of who poorpeople are, where they live, and what their priori-ties are; efforts to ensure that scientists work close-ly with poor farmers and focus on pro-impoverishedfarming systems; and more emphasis on such issuesas the links between soil and water conservationand food security, integrated aquaculture/agricul-ture systems, and under-utilized crops used bypoor people.

■ Strengthened knowledge-delivery mechanisms toensure that poor people gain access to new technologies.

■ Evidence to support policies aimed at helping poorpopulations.

■ More inter-Center collaboration and working inpartnership with others, including the private sec-tor, to address the problems faced by poor people.

■ More effective teamwork, greater input by socialscientists, and recognition for effective delivery ofpro-impoverished technologies.

The CGIAR has undertaken reform with a clear state-ment of its goals: productivity, poverty reduction, envi-ronmental sustainability, and the strengthening ofnational research systems. It has new Executive andScience Councils, a System Office, and ChallengePrograms. I welcome these developments.

The challenges now are to work with greater effective-ness and lower transaction costs, and through partner-ship to apply global science and technology to producemajor reductions in poverty.

We must drastically

improve the liveli-

hoods of rural

poor people if we

are to achieve the

key Millennium

Development Goals

of halving the pro-

portion of people

living in extreme

poverty and

reducing child

mortality by two-

thirds by 2015.

40736_WB_2_13_AGS 10/7/02 11:06 AM Page 10


ThePhilippines’partnershipwith theCGIAR has ahistory that dates back to the establishment ofIRRI in 1960. The Philippines formally joined the CGIARalliance in 1980. We look at the added value of thismembership in helping us address our national objec-tives of achieving a food-secure Philippines and elimi-nating poverty in the countryside.

The country recognizes that the national and globallandscape on agricultural research has dramaticallychanged during the last three decades. The scenariohas become more complex owing to such factors asglobalization of trade, increased private sector invest-ment alongside declining public investment, advancesin biotechnology and information technology, greaterdecentralization, and heightened public concern withfood safety and the environment.

The sobering fact remains: despite the advancement ofmodern technology, the world continues to face thetwin challenges of food insecurity and rural poverty,and newer challenges, such as the threat of terrorism,are a reality. Then and now the Philippines believesthat, as a global partnership on agricultural research,the CGIAR has a continuing critical and catalytic role toplay, albeit in a different way given the drastic changestaking place in the world.

The year 2001 was a watershed year for the CGIAR asit launched fundamental reforms aimed at achievinggreater relevance and efficiency.

The Philippines views the Challenge Programs as thecornerstone of the System’s reform. They representperhaps the most important management innovationof the CGIAR System. It is still early to judge its impact;essentially, it is work in progress. However, the processand the framework of the reforms have made a signifi-cant impact on the perspective of the Philippines, bothas a partner and as an investor.

The Philippines felt itself to be a true partner in theprocess of designing the System’s reform, whichinvolved strong participation from southern Members.These Members were on an equal basis with thosefrom the north. The Philippines felt privileged to repre-sent the south, particularly Asia, on the SteeringCommittee and later as cochair of the ChallengePrograms.

The Challenge Programs are opening new opportunitiesand modalities of science partnerships, which thePhilippines hopes will lead to stronger participationfrom the southern countries, will promote south–southcollaboration, and will raise additional support for agricultural research for development.

The Philippines sees its financial contribution to theCGIAR, although modest, primarily as an investment inits own interest and secondarily in the interests of theworld. It is an investment built on the assumption thattogether with our various partners, from both thesouth and the north, we can do more to achieve ourcommon goal of a food-secure and peaceful world.

A View from a Southern Partner

By Eliseo R. Ponce, Director, Bureau of Agricultural Research,Department of Agriculture (Kagawaran ng Pagsasaka), Philippines

40736_WB_2_13_AGS 10/7/02 11:06 AM Page 11

Modernizing agriculture is essential forgrowth and for helping millions of farmers make thetransition from subsistence to commercial farming. Forsuch growth to be sustainable it must meet the triplebottom line of economic, social, and environmentalresponsibility. Rapid advances in science, largely occur-ring in the private sector, are opening up new opportu-nities. In looking to the future, new and innovativepublic–private partnerships are needed to help acceler-ate the search for farming solutions that foster growth.These solutions are key to creating a stream of benefitsthat positively affects farms and allied enterprises, such

as food-processing industries, marketing, supply ofinputs, and development of consumer products andservices. For poor farming communities worldwide,that is the surest pathway out of poverty.

The story of Papalotla Seeds shows how the privatesector can make meaningful contributions by helpingsmallholder farmers produce more, expand their oppor-tunities, and participate in the global economy. It is justone example of the growing number of public–privatepartnerships with which the CGIAR System is involved.

Papalotla Seeds began as a familybusiness in 1992 to promoteimproved pastures in Mexico. Wechose the name Papalotla, which inthe indigenous Nahuatl languagemeans “butterfly,” to highlight themetamorphosis we hoped to bring about in rural areas.

Our mission is to introduce new for-age seeds into the global livestockmarket. In this market we see aunique opportunity to build a sus-tainable and profitable enterprise.And we see huge potential forimproving the livelihoods of livestockproducers and helping reverse envi-ronmental degradation in the tropics.

Toward these ends we offer productsand services that better enable live-stock producers to compete in theglobal economy. One of these prod-ucts is Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato,the first in a series of research prod-ucts under varietal protection thathas resulted from our strategicalliance with the International Centerfor Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Wewere granted the production rightsas the result of an open, transparentselection process.

The alliance with CIAT is proof of ourdetermination to be at the forefrontof research in tropical agriculture. Infact, Papalotla is helping financeCIAT’s search for innovative solutionsto today’s farming problems.Working with CIAT has been vital forPapalotla, and has triggered a radicaltransformation of our company. Bytaking up the challenge of producing,evaluating, and disseminating newforage varieties worldwide, we haveset an entirely new trend in the trop-ical forage seed industry.

We believe that vast areas of thetropics can be transformed socially,economically, and environmentally.This may sound ambitious, but webelieve it is possible. And we areconvinced that productive newhybrid forages, able to withstand dis-eases, drought, and poor soils, canplay an important role by improvinglivestock nutrition, lowering produc-tion costs, and protecting naturalresources.

Unlike a lot of other seed compa-nies, Papalotla evaluates newhybrids with livestock producers. Thisis an essential part of our strategyfor introducing and marketing new

varieties, and it has proved funda-mental to our success. Livestock pro-ducers are convinced by evidence,not by advertising. It takes time forthem to change their practices. Theyneed to be directly involved in com-paring pastures so they can measurefor themselves the productivity ofdifferent varieties. This approach hashelped position Mulato in the marketand has generated large demand forthis first Brachiaria grass hybrid.

We are just beginning to fully graspthe biological and commercial poten-tial of improved pastures. In defor-ested areas, for example, these newspecies not only have provided sus-tainable vegetative coverage, buthave also substantially increased thepotential for animal production.Continued support of research in thepublic and private sectors is essen-tial for fully realizing the potential ofnew forages to transform the live-stock culture and economy.

The challenges seem overwhelming.But we believe there are “pathwaysout of poverty,” to borrow a phrasefrom CIAT. And we are opening one ofthese pathways through sustainableintensification of livestock production.

A View from the Private Sector

Papalotla Seeds: Planting for the World

By Eduardo Sterne, Director General, Papalotla Seeds


40736_WB_2_13_AGS 10/7/02 11:06 AM Page 12

For agricultural research to be meaningful, itmust focus on improving human well-being,creating wealth, and protecting the earth’snatural resources. In addition to scientific and tech-nical excellence, the hallmarks of such research are participatory approaches, bottom-up planning, andstrategies that actively engage farmers and stakeholdersin problem identification and the search for solutions.

Civil society involvement in agricultural research fordevelopment has had a long history, and NGOs have

made important andimpressive contributionsin these developmentendeavors, especially in the areas of organizing at thecommunity level, providing inputs and services, andtesting, adapting, and disseminating new technologies.

The story of the Vitamin A for Africa (VITAA) partnershipdemonstrates the importance of broad-based partner-ships in helping tackle a silent scourge—vitamin A defi-ciency—and the value of partnerships with civil society.

On May 9, 2001, an internationalgroup of 70 agriculturists, healthexperts, and nutritionists, convenedby Centro Internacional de la Papa(CIP), launched what is believed to bethe first crop-based initiative to attackthe tragic consequences of vitamin Adeficiency in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The VITAA initiative provides a plat-form for 40 partner agencies fromthe health, nutrition, and agriculturalsectors to extend the impact of anew series of orange-fleshed sweetpotatoes. The new varieties areexpected to have a major impactover the next five years on one ofSub-Saharan Africa’s most importantpublic health problems.

Vitamin A deficiency is a leadingcause of early childhood death and amajor risk factor for pregnant andlactating women. VITAA varieties arehigh in beta-carotene, which thebody uses to produce vitamin A.

According to recent estimates, 50million African women and childrenstand to benefit from the new planttypes. Beneficiaries would include

nearly all children under six years of age in Uganda, Rwanda, andBurundi, and roughly half of the children in Tanzania.

A study by the International Centerfor Women (ICRW), a VITAA partneragency, has demonstrated thatAfrican mothers can be motivated toaccept the new varieties, thus dis-pelling the popular belief that Africantaste preferences preclude the use oforange-fleshed varieties. The ICRWstudy also suggests that the additionof less than 100 grams of orange-fleshed sweet potato to the dailydiet can prevent vitamin A deficien-cies in children, pregnant women,and lactating mothers.

As a result of these findings, repre-sentatives from seven VITAA partnercountries agreed to promote orange-fleshed sweet potatoes in each ofthe major production zones wherewhite-fleshed varieties are currentlygrown. The work, which will be community-based and focused onwomen decisionmakers, also willemphasize nutrition education andmicroenterprise development.

“VITAA is drawing a great deal ofattention,” says project coordinatorRegina Kapinga, “because it offers animmediate, common-sense solutionto a major public health problem.Our only difficulty is in meeting thedemand for planting materials.”

Kapinga notes that seed distributioncenters will be established at keylocations in each VITAA partner coun-try, mainly in collaboration with localNGOs that have programs on house-hold nutrition, child health, andincome generation for women.

“Since sweet potato is a woman’scrop grown mainly for family use, itonly makes sense to channel thenew varieties to the people whohave a vested interest in their suc-cess,” she says.

Deployment of the new varieties isscheduled to begin early in 2003.

A View fromCivil Society

VITAA Partnership Seeks Large-Scale Adoption ofOrange-Fleshed Sweet Potatoes: A Food-BasedApproach to Vitamin A Deficiency in AfricaBy Ed Sulzberger of the VITAA Initiative


40736_WB_2_13_AGS 10/7/02 11:06 AM Page 13

14

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:57 AM Page 14

T H E F U T U R E H A R V E S T C E N T E R S O F T H E C G I A R 15

Scientists at the 16 Future Harvest Centers of the CGIAR are constantly expanding andupdating the frontiers of knowledge. Theirresearch draws on the best of global knowledge but isfocused on local impacts. Their efforts address virtuallyevery component of the agricultural sector—agro-forestry, aquaculture, biodiversity, biotechnology, crops,extension, farming techniques, forestry, livestock, natu-ral resources, and food policies to name just a few.

Each year the CGIAR Science Awards acknowledge theoutstanding achievements of scientists throughout the System.

In 2001 the following individuals and teams were recognized:

■ Outstanding Scientist.

(ICRISAT): Hari C. Sharma. For research on pest con-trol in chickpea, sorghum, and pigeonpea produc-tion to increase farm productivity while cutting theuse of pesticides, thereby reducing environmentalpollution.

■ Promising Young Scientist.

(ILRI): Alex Kahi. For research combining geneticand economic analysis with simulation models toassess alternative options in livestock breeding.

■ Outstanding Partnership for Sustainable Land

Management of Acid Soil Savannas.

(CIAT): For characterizing the agroecology of acidsoil savannas, and developing land quality indica-tors and land management practices for sustainableagropastoral systems.

■ Outstanding Scientific Support Team.

(IRRI): Carlos Casal, Reynaldo de la Cueva, LuisitoCaracuel, Julito Talay, Rodolfo Toledo, AlejandroManio, Juan Alzona, Oscar Gonzales, and LeonidaNazarea. For work on hybrid rice breeding.

■ Outstanding Scientific Article.

(IRRI): Zhu Youyong, Chen Hairu, Fan Jinghua,Wang Yungyue, Li Yan, Chen Jianbing, FanJinkiang, Yang Shisheng, Hu Lingping, Hei Leung,Tom Mew, Paul Teng, Wang Zonghua, andChristopher Mundt. For their article, “GeneticDiversity and Disease Control in Rice,” published inNature 406, 17 August 2000.

In the following summaries, the Centers highlight fur-ther examples of their achievements and demonstratethe impact their work is having on the lives of poorfarming communities.

The Future Harvest Centers of the CGIAR

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:57 AM Page 15


Through the early morning mist, two Hmong womencan be seen cautiously negotiating the steep slope thatrises above a narrow, rocky canyon in northern Laos.From time to time, they halt at a spot where succulentnative vegetation is growing. Then, with sure, rapidstrokes of their scythes, they cut leaves and stems, tossthem over their shoulders into straw baskets on theirbacks, and continue the arduous ascent.

A Laotian extension officer remarks, “They can easilyspend several hours a day gathering feed for their pigs.You wonder sometimes whether the women own theanimals or it’s the other way around.”

In these remote hillside areas of Southeast Asia, live-stock is poor people’s best bet—sometimes the onlyoption for building sustainable livelihoods. Yet, as soonas upland farmers expand production, they quickly dis-cover the limits of local feed resources for sustaininglarger livestock populations.

To overcome such obstacles, Centro Internacional deAgricultura Tropical (CIAT) scientists are working withnational institutes in six countries to offer farmers a fullrange of forage options. This effort builds on nearlythree decades of international research that demon-strates the effectiveness of tropical grasses andlegumes for intensifying small-scale livestock produc-tion while protecting and improving the soil. Drawingon 22,000 forage samples maintained at CIAT, scien-tists have conducted extensive research on key speciesin tropical Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The result isa huge storehouse of knowledge about the multipleuses and adaptations of these forage species in differ-ent climates and soils.

The challenge is to incorporate superior forages intocomplex farming systems on a large scale. Doing so, inturn, requires that knowledge from formal science becombined with farmers’ insights, using participatoryapproaches. CIAT scientists and their national partnershave been pursuing such approaches since the mid-1990s with support from the Australian Agency forInternational Development and the Asian DevelopmentBank. Through intensive training and networking, proj-ect staff are building teams of national professionalsskilled at involving farmers in adaptive research, devel-

oping networks topromote informa-tion exchange,and creatingattractive manualsin different lan-guages to spreadnew knowledge.

The benefits ofthe research arebeginning toshow. In four countries, farmer-leaders conducted the research anddisseminated their findings at regularfarmer meetings. CIAT provided technical options,assisted the research process, and trained field workers.Within five years, 1,700 farmers had begun experi-menting with improved forages. A follow-up project insix countries is building on this experience, with farmer-leaders as extension agents with responsibility for mul-tiplying the new planting systems. Today the forageinnovations are benefiting some 4,000 farm families.

In East Kalimantan, Indonesia, CIAT scientists studiedthe effects of new forage technologies on farmers’livelihoods before and after technology adoption. Cash income from the sale of livestock and manureincreased 62 percent as a result of improved ruminantproductivity. Furthermore, farmers achieved labor sav-ings of 20 percent. This savings amounts to a 31 percent increase in income from livestock, assumingthat the time saved is invested in off-farm employment.Case studies in Indonesia and Vietnam show that thenew technologies reduce the drudgery of fodder col-lection, especially for women.

Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT)

Headquarters: Cali, Colombia

www.ciat.cgiar.org

New Forages Enhance RuralLivelihoods in Southeast Asia

Clippings of the forage legumeStylosanthes guianensis collectedfor feeding to pigs

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:57 AM Page 16

Tropical forests are being destroyed at an alarming rateall over the world. But despite the constant stream ofbad news, the people involved with forests have beenworking hard to make laws, create parks, fund proj-ects, and plant trees. The problem is that many of theiractions have not provided the hoped-for results. Bygenerating new ideas, providing high-quality analysis,promoting dialogue, and encouraging learning, theCenter for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) aimsto respond directly to the needs identified by foreststakeholders.

In West Kalimantan, Indonesia, local villagers are nowproducing valuable charcoal from trees that growuntended in abandoned areas. Vitex pubescens, a treethat springs up on land after fires or after farms havebeen abandoned, yields a charcoal that is as good asthat obtained from mangrove trees. Rice does notgrow well on the land and farmers find weeding therough fields too labor intensive. But establishing smalllocal industries to grow Vitex for charcoal offers a wayof making the land productive again.

The idea of developing a Vitex industry originally camefrom a local NGO, Yayasan Dian Tama (YDT), whichcollaborated with Tanjungpura University in Pontianakto explore how local farmers could best profit from thegrasslands. The collaboration capitalized on thestrengths of each partner for maximum impact. YDTwas the pivotal organization; it conducted researchwith the University and CIFOR providing scientific input.YDT used its good rapport with local people and theircontacts in the regional government while CIFOR madeconnections to outside parties. USAID initially spon-sored this research and the Australian Center forInternational Agricultural Research has been funding itin 2001 and 2002.

The technology needed to produce the charcoal is rela-tively simple and inexpensive; at most, communitieshave to invest in constructing kilns. After four years,one hectare of Vitex pubescens yields up to 18 metrictons of charcoal, which earns farmers several hundreddollars when sold to charcoal factories in Pontianak,the closest city.

Four villages are participating in field trials, helpingresearchers answer questions about planting methods,seed stock, fertilizer, and labor requirements.

Recognizing the strong market potential, farmers areworking with researchers to identify the best methodsfor cultivating trees on small plantations and for pro-ducing charcoal.

The activity is very attractive to swidden farmers inWest Kalimantan because they can grow the treealongside their regular fields without extra labor. Vitexalso tolerates fire more than many other tree crops,thus reducing the risk that farmers will lose their invest-ment. The trees actually form a barrier to the wildfiresthat plague the area. Because the YDT is making aneffort to disseminate information about the positiveeffects of these activities to a large number of parties,OXFAM UK has expressed interest in supporting similarwork in Yogyajakarta. Its interest was piqued by theproject’s high level of community involvement and thedirect benefits reaching local communities.

Apart from local impact, the collaboration has widerpotential because grasslands are common in Indonesiaand other countries. In 2001 CIFOR was approached bythe private sector and by development agencies fromNew Zealand which expressed interest in the project.CIFOR is now working with YDT to apply the processmore widely.


Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

Headquarters: Bogor, Indonesia

www.cifor.cgiar.org

Forests for the Future

A Vitexsaplinggrowingon burnt-over landthat has aflourishingcover ofImperatagrass

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:57 AM Page 17


New, hardy bread wheats being tested at theInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center(known as CIMMYT, its Spanish acronym) are produc-ing up to 30 percent more grain than one of theirhigh-yielding parents under tough, dryland conditions.Their secret? The new wheats are descended fromcrosses between different types of wheat and goatgrass (one of wheat’s wild relatives), which have giventhem drought tolerance. These promising genotypeswere identified from the many crosses of wheat andwild grass made at CIMMYT. The new wheats aremeant for dry locations where farmers are changingfarming practices to make better use of scarce water,control soil erosion, and maintain soil fertility.

Water scarcity is growing and in coming decades isexpected to affect hundreds of millions of farmersacross South Asia who derive their food and livelihoodsfrom rice-wheat crop rotations. The Rice-WheatConsortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains (RWC), aCGIAR Systemwide initiative convened by CIMMYT, ishelping farmers test and adopt resource-conservingpractices based on reduced tillage. The savings are sub-stantial: zero tillage for wheat requires around one mil-lion liters less water per hectare than do conventionalpractices. One method—the direct seeding of wheatinto paddy fields just after rice harvest—was used onsome 300,000 hectares in the region in the 2001—02growing season, and its use is spreading practically asfast as manufacturers can make the tractor-drawnseeder. An additional benefit: an average reduction

from eight to one trac-tor passes cuts dieseland labor costs, allowsearlier planting forhigher yields, andreduces carbon dioxideemissions. Building onthis success and therelationship of trustdeveloped with farm-ers, the RWC is guidingexperimentation with inno-vations such as sowing on raised soil beds, a practicethat is even more water-efficient than zero tillage, aswell as new cropping patterns.

In 2001, CIMMYT released two new, open-pollinatedmaize varieties designed for use by smallholder farmersin the drought-prone region of southern Africa. Bothvarieties were developed jointly with South Africanresearchers and other partners. The variety ZM521yields 30–50 percent more than do traditional varietiesunder conditions of drought and low soil fertility. Thesecond variety, named “Grace,” is early maturing (andthus can escape late-season drought), resists local dis-eases, and has the flinty grain type preferred by farm-ers. Seed of the open pollinated variety is usuallycheaper than hybrid seed, and that enables farmers toplant their saved grain if they do not have the meansto buy fresh seed.

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

(CIMMYT)

Headquarters: Mexico City, Mexico

www.cimmyt.org

Drought-Tolerant Maize and Wheat and Reduced Tillage Put More Food on the Table and More Drops in Farmers’ Buckets

Sudesh Pal Singh, of Sultanpur village inUttar Pradesh, India, tests reduced-tillagefarming.

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:57 AM Page 18


In 2001, as the International Potato Center (CIP, for itsinitials in Spanish) celebrated its 30th anniversary,Center scientists estimated the annual benefits from itsresearch at US$150 million—more than seven timesCIP’s annual budget. This impact is channeled throughcarefully prioritized projects that are built on accumu-lated expertise and solid partnerships. A few examplesfollow.

Vital Partnership

An expanding network of partners convened by CIP isusing orange-fleshed, beta carotene–rich sweet potatoto alleviate vitamin A deficiency in Sub-Saharan Africa,where lack of this critical micronutrient in the diet is aleading cause of early childhood death and a major riskfactor for pregnant women. In May 2001 representa-tives from partner institutions in Ethiopia, Kenya, SouthAfrica, Tanzania, and Uganda formally launchedVitamin A for Africa (VITAA). VITAA works throughcommunity and women’s groups in the region inpreparing the sweet potatoes for large-scale deploy-ment. In Kenya and Uganda, these groups are conduct-ing on-farm trials on promising cultivars that includeboth traditional varieties and improved breeding lines.

Urban Harvest

In 1999 the CGIAR launched the Strategic Initiative onUrban and Peri-urban Agriculture (SIUPA) in responseto the growing reliance on farming among citydwellers in developing countries. Meeting in Hanoi inJune 2000, members created a research frameworkcalled Urban Harvest and identified critical issues.Among these were serious waste problems associatedwith starch-processing and pig-raising enterprises inHanoi. A year later, a collaborative project between CIPand IWMI had developed effective strategies for mini-mizing the environmental impacts of the waste whileutilizing its nutrient content as fertilizer.

Health First

CIP and its collaborators are helping potato-farmingfamilies in El Carchi province, Ecuador, to reduce healthrisks associated with pesticide use. Studies published in2001 showed that pesticide poisoning is widespreadand severe in El Carchi affecting most of the rural pop-ulation. A modeling tool known as “tradeoff” analysisis helping farmers balance diverse and sometimes con-flicting objectives. Meanwhile, potato growers are

learning to handle chemicals safely and are applyingintegrated pest management measures that reducepesticide use.

Models for Mountains

The CIP-led Global Mountain Program (GMP) works toincrease knowledge about mountain ecosystems, topromote integrated watershed development, and togenerate better livelihood opportunities. CIP scientistsare developing powerful tools to study fragile highlandproduction systems, and more than 200 local profes-sionals have been trained to use them. The programalso has studied eight “model” watersheds in theAndes and the Himalayas, and in 2001 it produced CD-ROMs describing each watershed and the options forits development.

China’s Cooperation 88

A CIP cross, known as Cooperation 88, is deliveringmassive yield gains over previously favored potato vari-eties in China, producing up to 60 tons per hectare. Itsuniformly large tubers and shallow eyes make it idealfor processing, an important characteristic in regionsthat are moving from subsistence to a market econo-my. By the end of 2001, less than seven years after itsrelease, Cooperation 88 covered an estimated 20 per-cent of the area devoted to potato in Yunnan provinceand spilled over into neighboring Sichuan andChongqing provinces. Its seeds are being traded across China’s borders into Vietnam and Myanmar.

Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP)

Headquarters: Lima, Peru

www.cipotato.org

Partnerships for Impact

Harvesting potato, in Yunnan, China

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:57 AM Page 19


When a technologyspreads beyond theboundaries of researchstations and pilot devel-

opment projects, it can be said to have achieved suc-cess. Such is the experience of the International Centerfor Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) inpromoting common vetch (Vicia sativa) in Aleppo gov-ernorate, northeastern Syria, where in 2001 vetch areaincreased sevenfold over the previous year.

In many marginal rainfed areas in Syria, populationgrowth is leading to unsustainable production prac-tices. More sheep are being put to graze, and the tra-ditional practice of leaving farmland fallow betweenbarley crops is giving way to continuous barley cultiva-tion to feed sheep. The results are degraded range andcropland, erosion, loss of biodiversity, and a conse-quent loss of income for farmers.

ICARDA scientists and their partners in Syria’s nationalagricultural research system felt that if farmers learnedabout the benefits of vetch in rotation with barley, theywould surely adopt it. Vetch is a nutritious feed cropthat improves soil fertility by fixing nitrogen from theair. It provides additional feed, eases pressure on range-land, improves livestock health, reverses soil degrada-tion, and increases farmers’ incomes.

In 1986 eight farmers in the community of Al Bab inAleppo governorate were provided with seed and guid-ance in managing rotation trials. The results were con-vincing. Barley planted after vetch yielded about 50percent more than barley grown after barley. One seri-ous problem remained. Hand harvesting was expensive

and labor was often unavailable. Left in the fields toolate, vetch seed pods shatter and can cause a weedproblem in the subsequent barley crop. While ICARDA

works to develop non-shattering cultivars, theimmediate problem wassolved with the introduc-tion of a tractor-mount-ed cutterbar mower.ICARDA demonstrated amower and some pro-gressive farmers sooninvested in mowers oftheir own. They save upto US$100 per hectare inlabor cost and rent outtheir mowers for a tidyprofit.

Hundreds of farmers now grow vetch in the Al Babarea and this accounts for some of the 7,000 hectaresof the crop grown throughout Aleppo governorate.The technology also is spreading to other provinces,with help from ICARDA and its community approach toresearch for development. In this approach, a list of 10potential options is developed with the participation offarmers. Subsequently, farmers and other stakeholdersselect five options to investigate. From those five, thecommunity selects two “best-bet” options and devel-ops an action plan. The community approach helpsensure that the right strategy is pursued, helps avoidcostly erroneous assumptions that might hinder adop-tion, and gives the farmers a sense of ownership. Afterthat, a good crop, like a good idea, sells itself.

International Center for Agricultural Research

in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)

Headquarters: Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic

www.icarda.org

Barley planted

after vetch

yielded about

50 percent

more than

barley grown

after barley.

Vetch Finds Favor in Dryland Syria

Sheep grazing on vetch in the community of Al Bab, northeasternSyria

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:57 AM Page 20

In the rainy season in Asia, floods inundate vast areas inan annual cycle. The inhabitants of these floodplains areamong the poorest people in Asia. Their lives and liveli-hoods depend on the yearly floods to water the ricefields and yield harvests of fish. The green revolutionbrought immense gains in productivity to irrigated farm-ing systems where production quadrupled. Other farm-ing systems have not achieved their full potential. In theflood-prone system, there were “hungry” periods whenthe land was submerged beneath the floodwaters.

In traditional rice cultivation in floodplains, two vari-eties of rice are sown at the beginning of the dry sea-son. The first, dry season rice, is harvested before thenext flood arrives. The second, deepwater rice, may beharvested but also continues to grow or regrow as thefloodwaters rise, thus providing a second, smaller crop atthe end of the wet season. Indigenous fish that migrateinto the rice fields with the floods also are harvested.

In the 1980s, the introduction of irrigation, flood con-trol schemes, and high-yielding irrigated rice varietiesled to sixfold increases in rice yields. But farmers aban-doned deepwater rice and let the land lie fallow afterthe irrigated rice had been harvested because there wasnot time before the rains began to establish the deep-water rice. The fish catch declined because of pesticidesand flood control structures obstructed fish migration.

Scientists at the World Fish Center saw opportunities toincrease food production in these flooded conditions.The goal was to improve productivity while maintainingecosystem balance and protecting biodiversity. More pro-ductive methods of fish farming in deep-water rice sys-tems had proven to be too expensive for individual farm-ers. A community-based management approach wasnow adopted. Very poor farmers and fishers in theseflooded ecosystems are largely landless and survive onless than US$0.50 a day. Fishing is an occupation oflast resort, a means whereby even the poorest havecustomary rights to catch fish in the common waters of each monsoon flood.

The community-managed rice-fish systems divide thebenefits proportionally among those who own land,those who both own land and contribute to the oper-ating costs of raising fish, and those who contributetheir labor. The landless population falls in the last cat-egory. In many communities there is agreement thatlandless people may continue to catch the small nativefish species but will leave cultured fish to grow for thebenefit of landowners. These native species are criticalto their day-to-day survival.

Productivity in these flood-prone ecosystems hasincreased dramatically. Each hectare yields between 250and 1,500 kilograms of fish. Rice yields have been main-tained, and because fewer pesticides and less weedingand plowing are required, the costs of rice productionhave dropped by 10 percent. The rice-fish culture sys-tems are environmentally nondestructive and there is noreduction in the catch of wild fish species.

In field trial sites in Bangladesh, annual per capitaincome increased by about 16 percent in three years,and fish consumption rose by about 2 percent. Manyfish also were sold. Communities neighboring the trialand demonstration sites have copied the technology.

In Vietnam, the provincial government in the Red Riverdelta is supporting the widespread application of theconcurrent deepwater rice-fish technology as a conse-quence of the trials conducted by the World FishCenter and its partners at the Research Institute forAquaculture No. 1 in Hanoi. The BangladeshDepartment of Agricultural Extension is bringing thetechnology to farmers in project areas in two districts.The NGO Proshika is planning to disseminate the tech-nology to 30 subdistricts. Forty thousand hectares inBangladesh are suitable for the technology with thepotential to produce an estimated 400,000 tons of fishper year worth some US$300 million.


The World Fish Center (ICLARM)

Headquarters: Penang, Malaysia

www.iclarm.org

Sampling of fishin a communallymanaged concur-rent deepwaterrice-fish plot inthe Red RiverDelta, northernVietnam

Community-Based Rice-Fish Culture on theFloodplains of Southand Southeast Asia

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:57 AM Page 21

One of the key goals of the InternationalCenter for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) isto intensify on-farm tree diversity. Increasingdiversity on farms gives farmers additionalways to improve their livelihoods andimproves the health of their ecosystems.Although the need to increase tree diversityon farms and in landscapes is widely accept-ed, little is really known about the existingdegree of diversity on farms. Nor is muchknown about effective and practical methodsfor gauging the extent of diversity.

To redress this lack of knowledge—and with an eyetoward promoting diversification—in 2001 the Centercompleted a detailed study designed to measure thecurrent diversity of tree species at the farm and villagelevel in four important African agroecosystems. In anera of rapid deforestation, improving tree diversity is achallenging goal, but the study provides a strongstart—and some much needed good news: speciesdiversity on African farms in the four study areas is significantly greater than was previously thought.

Hundreds of farmers were interviewed in order to learnwhy they planted the trees they did and what theyremembered about how individual trees came to be ontheir farms. Very often, the history of a particular treeon a given farm was as individual as the farmer’s own

family history, with planting material brought in fromas far away as the farmer had ventured for off-farm employment.

On-farm diversity provides farmers with a range ofoptions they cannot get from a single species: Farmersneed strong poles and flexible branches for construc-tion, and thus need several types of trees for this pur-pose. The medicinal efficacy of certain species is higherwhen used in mixtures. Some trees used for timber orboundary demarcation grow faster, whereas others areheartier. On-farm tree diversity means fruit, firewood,and charcoal are available year-round. Interestingly, thestudy revealed that, as far as farmers are concerned,they have not reached a saturation point for diversity.Those with wide diversity on their farms want more.

The study showed that many farmers are experiment-ing with new species on their farms. Wider distributionof information could result in more rapid diversifica-tion. Farmers who had experience with the perform-ance of many species opted for diversity. By diversifyingtheir tree populations, farmers are less vulnerable tochanges in market dynamics and a more diverse treepopulation is less vulnerable to pest and disease epi-demics. Whereas farmers want diversity mainly for dif-ferentiation among and within products and services,ecological research indicates that there is a positiverelationship between ecosystem diversity and ecosys-tem stability and productivity.

ICRAF promotes landscape management strategies thatsuccessfully combine the objectives of improving thelivelihoods of farmers and conserving biodiversity. Thestudy demonstrates that in the tree agroecosystemsstudied, there is more diversity on African farms thanpreviously was thought and farmers are willing to fur-ther increase diversity when they see the value in doingso. And that is very good news indeed.


World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)

Headquarters: Nairobi, Kenya

www.icraf.org

Tree Diversity on African Farms: The Good News

A young farmernear the city of Kisumu, inwestern Kenya,transports treeseedlings to hisfarm.

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:57 AM Page 22

Pigeonpea is no longer an exotic crop in eastern andsouthern Africa—it has been there too long. But nowthe crop is becoming more important to farmers thanever before, and its importance is increasing every year.It all has to do with money. Farmers are tired of beingpoor and many of them view pigeonpea cultivation astheir best bet for prosperity.

Close rapport between the International CropsResearch Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)scientists and their counterparts in the national pro-grams of the region, particularly Tanzania’s Departmentof Research and Development and the KenyaAgricultural Research Institute, and NGOs such asTechnoServe and Catholic Relief Services, is largelyresponsible for the success of this new, demand-drivenapproach to research. The initiative is enthusiasticallysupported by various donors, notably the AfricanDevelopment Bank and the Danish Agency forDevelopment Assistance (DANIDA). By serving as a catalyst between farmers and the private sector,ICRISAT scientists have made significant contributionsin the development of public–private partnerships.

Recognizing the importance of cash income to farmers,ICRISAT scientists set about identifying the demands ofend-users of pigeonpea. Through consultation with private-sector traders and processors, ICRISAT identifiedvarieties that satisfied different market niches, notablythe export of processed pigeonpeas to internationalmarkets. These included European health food shop-keepers seeking bold cream-colored seeds as well asfresh vegetable exporters who prefer large green seedswith good storage life.

The result? Some of the most impoverished farmers inAfrica are making real money from pigeonpea. Exportsfrom the region exceed 100,000 tons per annum, andin a major new development further south, a joint ven-ture has been established in Mozambique for exportingpigeonpea to international markets. In eastern Africa,pigeonpea is no longer an emerging crop. It hasarrived.


International Crops Research Institute for the

Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)

Headquarters: Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India

www.icrisat.org

Some of the mostimpoverishedfarmers inAfrica aremaking realmoney frompigeonpea.

Peas for Prosperity

Rose Frateru, a Tanzanian farmer who is successfully growing wilt-resistant varieties of pigeonpea

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:57 AM Page 23


In 2001 the InternationalFood Policy ResearchInstitute’s (IFPRI) in-depth evaluation showed thatMexico’s antipoverty program, PROGRESA (Programade Educación, Salud, y Alimentación), which combineseducation, health, and nutrition interventions in onepackage, can dramatically improve families’ ability toreverse the cycle of intergenerational poverty. PROGRE-SA raised the rate of school enrollment for girls by 14percent and for boys by 8 percent. PROGRESA studentsenter school at younger ages and experience less graderepetition, better grade progression, and lower dropoutrates. The program’s effects on health, household foodconsumption, and nutrition are striking both for chil-dren (12 percent lower incidence of illness) and foradults (19 percent decrease in sick or disability days).IFPRI’s rigorous impact assessment was instrumental inpersuading the Inter-American Development Bank toloan the Mexican government US$1 billion to expandPROGRESA.

IFPRI researchers evaluated Bangladesh’s innovativeFood for Education (FFE) program, which distributesstaple foods to families in return for their children’sschool attendance. FFE improved household food secu-rity, raised girls’ enrollment significantly, and boostedchildren’s educational levels by increasing overall schoolenrollment, promoting attendance, and reducingdropout rates. To make the program more effective,IFPRI recommended ways for the government to raisethe quality of FFE schools, target poor households

through more reliable means testing, and adopt a dis-tribution system that would reduce diversion of foodgrains to the black market.

Demonstrating how food programs and policies suc-ceed or fail in benefiting target populations is a centralconcern of IFPRI researchers and of donors who sup-port the research. Policy research plays a vital role,informing, persuading, and influencing decisionmakersabout the merits of policy change. Impact assessmentis an important part of IFPRI’s work.

Beyond the project or country level, however, it is moredifficult to attribute policy changes to a specificresearch project, public policy, or program. Often there

are time lags between therelease of research infor-mation, the formulation ofnew policies, and theirimplementation. InNovember 2001 theNetherlands Ministry ofForeign Affairs and IFPRIconvened a group ofresearchers to considerhow better to measure theimpact of policy-orientedresearch. Participants iden-tified a number of waysfor social scientists toincrease their impact onpolicy, and prescribedinnovations like incorporat-ing communications strate-gies into study design, andfield postings forresearchers to better ana-lyze policy processes andresponses. The lessons

from this symposium are helping donors, governments,and research institutions make policy-oriented socialscience research more effective in improving the livesof poor people.

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

Headquarters: Washington, D.C.,

United States of America

www.ifpri.org

PROGRESA

students

enter school

at younger

ages and

experience

less grade

repetition,

better grade

progression,

and lower

dropout rates.

EvaluatingPolicyImpact

Schoolchildren inBangladesh

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:57 AM Page 24

The single most severe biological constraintto cereal production in Sub-Saharan Africanow can be better managed, thanks to newtechnologies developed by the InternationalInstitute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and itsresearch partners. Using integrated pestmanagement and participatory researchapproaches, IITA scientists are able to greatly reducecrop damage, and many farmers participating in fieldtrials are reporting 80 percent yield increases in affect-ed cereal crops.Striga (commonly called “witch weed”) is a parasiticplant that leaches nutrients from the roots of cereals(for example, maize, sorghum, millet, and rice), leavingthem stunted with almost no grain. These crops are animportant part of the diets and incomes of poor farmers.In Sub-Saharan Africa the witch weed infests about 21million hectares of land and affects 100 million people.

IITA and its research partners used a multidisciplinaryapproach to attacking the Striga problem. An integrat-ed pest management approach empowers farmers byenabling them to choose from a basket of technologiesthose best suited to their particular circumstances whileproviding the required level of weed management.Some of the most innovative technologies build on thestrengths of existing farming systems. For example,many farmers in northern Nigeria grow legume cropseither in rotation or intercropped with a cereal. Thishelps maintain soil fertility by using the nitrogen-fixingcapability of the legume. But some varieties of legumesalso cause a higher proportion of Striga seeds to ger-minate. The Striga that attacks cereals like maize, how-ever, cannot parasitize the legumes and so it dies. Thisprocess is rather colorfully called “suicidal germination”and the technology is called “trap cropping.” The dis-covery that the high genetic diversity of Striga requiresscreening of legumes to find effective trap crops fordifferent locales is one of IITA’s important research con-tributions, and has made it possible to recommendlegume varieties targeted to specific locations.

In a major research breakthrough, IITA’s breeders alsohave succeeded in developing varieties of Striga-resistantmaize. This is an important achievement because trapcropping alone is not enough. Striga-resistant cerealsimprove the control system. Seed cleaning to removeStriga seed, crop rotations, and weeding Striga plantsbefore they set seed all enhance the package.

Another importantproject innovation isdefining “impactpathways” that permitidentification of thebest-bet options thatfarmers are adopting,the modifications andamendments theymake, and the ways inwhich technologiesand knowledge arespreading.

In one pilot village theimpact pathway showed that use of Strigamanagement technologies spread on itsown, from 6 farmers in 1999 to 112 farm-ers in 2001. The participatory technologydevelopment approach in which teammembers see themselves as facilitators of farmer learning, is leading to learning,adaptation, and adoption of a complex butvaluable system.

The challenge is to develop an extension approach thatencourages the scaling up of such tried-and-testedapproaches, but at a lower cost. With support from theUK government, IITA and its partners are promotingadoption of integrated Striga control and suitablestrategies for its extension among local, state, national,and international institutions. In this way, IITA ensuresthat research knowledge goes from global to local toglobal again.


International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)

Headquarters: Ibadan, Nigeria

www.iita.org

The Witch Weed ofAfrica: Integrated Striga Control inNorthern Nigeria

Example of Strigahermonthicaparasitizing amaize plant in a research field at Mokwa, west-central Nigeria

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:57 AM Page 25


By supporting “informal” dairyproducers and sellers withpolicies better suited to theircircumstances, developingcountries are taking advantageof the historic opportunity thatlivestock now offers to lift mil-lions of people out of poverty.

With demand for foods of ani-mal origin expected to doubleover the next 20 years indeveloping countries, the dairycow is fast becoming one ofthe smartest investments afarmer can make. Small-scaleAfrican farmers are alreadydoing a brisk trade in dairyproducts. Particularly in EastAfrica’s three million dairyhouseholds, dairying acts as acash crop, generating moreregular household income andjobs for the unskilled than doother enterprises.

Traditional milk markets—which handle unpasteurized,

or “raw” milk—arebehind the dairyboom in manydeveloping coun-tries. In Kenya, forexample, where per

capita consumption of liquid milk totaled 85 kilogramsin 1999, traditional milk markets supply more than 80percent of the milk sold. Compared with their commer-cial competitors, small-scale dairy agents providecheaper milk to consumers and pay better prices toproducers. Despite these benefits, public officials con-cerned about the possible health risks of unpasteurizedmilk actively have discouraged the country’s indigenousmilk markets. Kenya’s dairy development authoritiesurgently needed more reliable information to makemore judicious policies.

A Smallholder Dairy Project (SDP) conducted a series ofrisk analyses needed to safeguard both public healthand dairy livelihoods. Starting in 1999 with funds fromthe United Kingdom’s Department for InternationalDevelopment, staff from the Kenya Ministry of

Agriculture and RuralDevelopment, the KenyaAgricultural ResearchInstitute, and the Nairobi-based International LivestockResearch Institute (ILRI)forged partnerships with theKenya Dairy Board, Nairobiand Egerton Universities, the Kenya Medical ResearchInstitute, and the KenyaMinistry of Health. Theseinstitutions provided thebreadth of scientific expertiseneeded (in bacteriology,immunology, economics, epi-

demiology, and clinical medicine) to better analyze therisks to poor people posed by alternative dairy policies.

In 2001 the project’s policy recommendations werebroadly adopted thereby enhancing milk marketing byand for poor populations. The recommendations pro-vide more “carrots” (licensing, training) than “sticks”(policing) to small-scale operators. A new dairy devel-opment policy and revised dairy legislation now explic-itly recognize the predominance of the raw milk tradein Kenya, its importance to the poor population, andthe need for regulations and technologies to optimizethe quality of raw milk.

Lessons from this research are being applied in otherAfrican countries through joint projects conducted byAfrican institutions, ILRI, and the FAO. These projectsaim to build a framework suitable for all traders—smalland large, formal and informal—that will provide thepublic with safe milk and protect dairy livelihoods andfoods that are vital to poor people.

International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)

Headquarters: Nairobi, Kenya; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

www.cgiar.org/ilri

As the mar-

ket for dairy

products

grows, dairy

cows prove

to be a good

investment.

Redressing Raw Deals: Enhancing Milk MarketsVital to the Poor

Brisk trade in raw milk provides asteady source of cash income for threemillion dairy producers in East Africa

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:57 AM Page 26

The International Plant GeneticResources Institute (IPGRI) worksexclusively in partnership, oftenthrough multicountry and multire-gional activities. The followingexamples show how IPGRI’s uniquemodus operandi offers local focusand impact complemented by broadapplication through adaptation andadoption of know-how from onecountry to another.

In Situ Conservation of Agricultural

Biodiversity On-Farm

Despite the benefits of improved varieties in manyfarming systems, in other systems seeds purchasedfrom the formal sector can represent only a minority ofthose planted in farmers’ fields in any one year—lessthan 3 percent of rice in Nepal, 5 percent of sorghumin Burkina Faso, and 13 percent of durum wheat inMorocco. IPGRI is working with farmers, NGOs, andcommunity-based organizations in nine countries toestablish and apply a knowledge base to support on-farm conservation of local crop varieties as a key com-ponent of agricultural biodiversity. Drawing on anunderstanding of the effect of management practicesand the important role played by gender, age, and eth-nic grouping, the project has strengthened the survivalof local varieties. It has generated a portfolio of devel-opment options to enhance the benefits of local cropdiversity to rural livelihoods and ecosystem health. Theproject’s output has been instrumental in setting up theConvention on Biological Diversity's new work programon agricultural biodiversity and thus has vastly expand-ed its reach.

Sharing Improved Banana Varieties

The International Musa Testing Program (IMTP) joinsthe International Network for the Improvement ofBanana and Plantain (INIBAP), national agriculturalresearch systems (NARS), and the world’s five majorMusa breeding programs, including that of IITA, inevaluating trials in 22 countries in Africa, Asia, andLatin America. INIBAP plays a pivotal role, harmonizingevaluation procedures and facilitating access toimproved material indexed to ensure freedom from dis-ease. Varieties that perform well over a range of envi-

ronments and disease pressures are identified and rec-ommended for further distribution. These improvedvarieties now are enhancing the livelihoods of farmersin countries as far apart as Cuba and Tanzania throughthree- to five-fold productivity increases.

Enriching Diets with Tropical Fruits

Asia’s tropical fruits are important sources of supple-mentary food. They offer a nutritionally balanced diet,enhance household incomes, and earn export revenue.IPGRI is coordinating a 10-country project on the con-servation and use of native tropical fruit biodiversity inwhich national partners are conducting research onmutually agreed priority species—mango, citrus,rambutan, jackfruit, litchi, and mangosteen. To date,collections with approximately 2,500 accessions havebeen identified or established, and 1,000 new acces-sions have been collected. The project has significantlyenhanced the level of research and information sharingamong countries and has raised awareness of theimportance of indigenous fruits, thereby providingpartner countries with a strong base for geneticimprovement and long-term production increases.

Coconuts for Combating Poverty

Ninety-six percent of the world coconut crop is pro-duced by smallholder farmers who earn $200 or lessper year. A major reason for this poverty is a lack ofresearch support and access to usable research results.The International Coconut Genetic Resources Network(COGENT), which is coordinated through IPGRI, workswith 38 countries to support coconut-growing commu-nities. COGENT is collaborating with partners in 15 ofthe countries to develop a package of income-generating, village-level industries based on multipleuses of coconut genetic diversity. The strategy has thepotential to increase incomes up to ten-fold by intro-ducing high-value varieties via community-managednurseries; by developing value-added products fromthe kernel, husk, shell, water, wood, and leaves; andby promoting improved intercropping systems thatinclude livestock and fodder production.


International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI)

Headquarters: Maccarese (Fiumicino) Rome, Italy

www.ipgri.org

Agrobiodiversity Partnerships Against Poverty

On-farm conservation:woman farmer fromTaounate, Morocco,describing agromorpho-logical traits of a localfaba bean

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:57 AM Page 27

Rice feeds almost half of the world’s population andcovers about 11 percent of the earth’s arable area, soit has great potential to affect human health and theenvironment. Working closely with partners in severalnational programs, scientists from the InternationalRice Research Institute (IRRI) have been able to getthousands of farmers to reduce their insecticide use inthe Mekong River delta of Vietnam, and have providednew methods to help rice growers in China cut backon chemical use while boosting incomes. The innova-tions in Vietnam this year won one of the world’smajor environmental awards, the $25,000 SaintAndrews’ Environmental Prize.

First launched in 1994 in the Mekong delta—one ofthe great rice bowls of Asia—the research and subse-quent campaign marked a milestone in rice productionfor two reasons. First, it clearly identified the damagecaused by insecticide overuse that kills off friendlyinsects and encourages pests that otherwise wouldhave been kept in control. Second, it developed acompletely new way of communicating importantinformation to farmers.

After testing their campaign in the Mekong delta,where almost two million rice growers were persuadedto cut back on using harmful and unnecessary farmchemicals, the research partners launched a similarcampaign in northern Thailand’s Sing Buri province onWorld Environment Day 2001. The Saint Andrews’ prizemoney is being used to extend the campaign to anothermillion rice farmers in Vietnam’s Red River delta.

Meanwhile, in southern China, in what the New YorkTimes has described as a “stunning success” in one ofthe “largest agricultural experiments ever,” IRRI scien-tists found in 2000 a new way to control a major dis-ease in rice without using any chemicals. By plantingdifferent types of rice alongside each other, they foundthey could almost completely control the spread of riceblast, a disease that reduces harvests and costs the riceindustry millions of dollars a year. Known in scientificcircles as “exploiting biodiversity for sustainable pestmanagement,” the idea is hardly new to many farm-ers. But what was new was the cutting-edge scienceinvolved in finally showing farmers how to use thisstrategy to achieve maximum effect.

By the end of 2001, about 60 percent of the ricefarm households in the indica rice area of YunnanProvince had adopted the mixed planting of ricevarieties and the area under mixtures had expand-ed to 102,667 hectares. In 2001, in SichuanProvince the technique was evaluated on morethan 3,000 hectares. In addition to cutting back onthe need for chemicals, mixture plantings yieldedan average of 0.7 ton per hectare more thanhybrid rice alone. The diversification concept alsohas been extended to control diseases and insectpests in other major crops in Yunnan, particularlywheat and broad beans. As part of a rice-wheatcropping system, wheat and broad beans areplanted during winter on more than 250,000hectares in Yunnan.

In the Philippines, field trials have shown that varietalmixtures could reduce the incidence of tungro, a seriousrice virus disease in the tropics. In the Mekong delta andcentral Vietnam where disease resistance has becomeineffective in commonly grown varieties, diversificationexperiments are being planned to control rice blast.

Responding to growing demand, IRRI released an inter-active CD-ROM on tropical rice, titled RiceIPM that pro-vides a comprehensive source of information and train-ing material for improving the management of ricepests, diseases, and weeds.

Other features of RiceIPM include a diagnostic key thatassists in shortlisting the likely causes of observed ricedisorders; a series of interactive, multimedia keys thatlead to help in identifying insects found in rice; and acustomized search engine that provides a rapid meansof directing the user to specific topics to be found onthe CD and to links to Web sites that offer additionaltopical information. There also are sections on pestecology; crop checking; fact sheets on major insectpests, rats, diseases, weeds, nutrient deficiency, andtoxicity; crop growth and pest damage; pest manage-ment options; and decisionmaking and economics.


International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)

Headquarters: Los Baños, Philippines

www.irri.org

A Cleaner, Greener Rice Industry

Womenpulling riceseedlingsfor a fieldexperimenton cultivarmixture inGejiu,YunnanProvince,China

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:58 AM Page 28

Modern agricultural biotechnologyposes enormous challenges toindustrial and developing countries alike. The decisionto tackle these challenges, to what extent, and howcan only be made on the basis of a thorough under-standing of the technology and its implications (partic-ularly for environmental health and safety). The deci-sion becomes all the more pressing as the opportuni-ties to use genetically modified organisms (GMOs)increase. Working with the Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and Virginia Tech, and supported by fundsfrom the governments of Japan, the Netherlands,Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, the InternationalService for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) con-tinued to strengthen its expertise in biosafety during2001 and to make that expertise available to develop-ing country institutions as part of the ISNARBiotechnology Service (IBS). The timing could not havebeen better.

International consensus on biosafety (the environmen-tally safe application of modern biotechnology) wasreached under the Cartagena Protocol in 2000. Fromits unique perspective of linking international andnational agricultural research, ISNAR has been assistingcountries in taking a strategic and systematic approachto the design and implementation of efficient biosafetysystems. The analysis of wider issues, such as theimpact on poor farmers, international trade, the envi-ronment, and consumer acceptance, should guide thedevelopment and implementation of legal frameworks,biosafety measures, and regulatory systems. No countryshould be pressured into establishing piecemealbiosafety procedures simply because an application toimport GMOs has been made by powerful groups anda response is urgently required. Nonetheless, such isoften the case and so the importance of the systematicfocus being undertaken by ISNAR is increased.

An equally important element relates to people.Clearly, the quality of biosafety review and decision-

making and the safe and appropriate handling ofGMOs are linked directly to the training and experienceof the people involved. During 2001 ISNAR constructeda framework for biosafety capacity building under theCartagena Protocol and, in collaboration with theGlobal BioDiversity Institute, developed training courses

on biosafety for countries inSub-Saharan Africa. A totalof 500 participants from 43countries attended fiveregional training courses.

With a long-term approachto biosafety and a reputa-tion for objective, balancedreporting, ISNAR is makinga significant contribution tothe development of biosafe-ty systems worldwide—arole it expects to expandfurther in future. Thisexpansion will occur byincreasing collaborationwith African and AsianNARS, FAO, and other inter-national organizations inIBS’s work on decision-sup-port tools, training, capacitybuilding, and research.


International Service for National Agricultural

Research (ISNAR)

Headquarters: The Hague, Netherlands

www.isnar.cgiar.org

ISNAR has

been assist-

ing countries

in taking a

strategic and

systematic

approach to

the design

and imple-

mentation

of efficient

biosafety

systems.

Supportingand EnhancingBiosafetySystems

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:58 AM Page 29

In 2001 the International Water Management Institute(IWMI) focused on forming new strategic partnershipsthat tap its expertise and feed the Institute’s researchoutput into broader networks in the development andresearch communities.

In India, the IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program draws onthe skills and experience of a range of partners toidentify and analyze promising approaches to thecountry’s water management challenges. This researchis synthesized for maximum policy impact in the WaterPolicy Briefing series.

In Africa, IWMI is an active participant in the AfricanWater Task Force, which brings together the leaders ofregional institutions and agencies concerned withwater to shape a shared agenda. The group’s priority isto synthesize African positions and programs on waterto be presented at the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment. IWMI provides strategic advice and sec-retariat functions to the task force. IWMI is also a newmember of the Agricultural Research in Eastern andCentral Africa initiative and a partner in the initiative’sSoil Water Management Network (SWMNET). IWMI iscommitted to providing intellectual and practical sup-port to SWMNET by designing collaborative researchprojects.

IWMI is a founding partner in a number of new international initiatives, including the CGIARComprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture; the Dialogue on Water, Food, andEnvironment; and the CGIAR Systemwide Initiative on Malaria and Agriculture (SIMA).

SIMA represents a unique partnership among commu-nities, researchers, and the health and agriculture sec-tors formed to better understand the multiple interac-tions between agricultural production systems andmalaria. This innovative initiative seeks to controlmalaria by combining improved agricultural practices,proper management and use of natural resources, andexisting antimalaria approaches. SIMA is providingdevelopment practitioners with a good example ofhow knowledge-sharing communities can help create

an international agenda in a cost-effective, rapid, andpractical way. Follow-up activities include seminars inArusha, Tanzania, and Montreal, Canada.


International Water Management Institute (IWMI)

Headquarters: Battaramulla, Sri Lanka

www.cgiar.org/iwmi

IWMI is an activeparticipant in theAfrican Water TaskForce, which bringstogether the leadersof regional institu-tions and agenciesconcerned withwater to shape ashared agenda.

Strategic Partnerships Maximize Research Impact

Bucket and drip irrigation kits being promoted in Sub-SaharanAfrica prevent shallow pools of water from forming on fields

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:58 AM Page 30

In April 2001 theWest Africa RiceDevelopmentAssociation(WARDA)launched the

NERICA Consortium for Food Security in Sub-SaharanAfrica. Subsequently, the African Rice Initiative waslaunched to boost dissemination of NERICA in 7 pilotcountries in West and Central Africa and 18 countriesthroughout Sub-Saharan Africa. NERICA were devel-oped by interspecific crossing of African and Asian cul-tivated rices, and the research drew on farmers’ knowl-edge of their farming environments and their opinionsabout the varieties best suited for each upland-rice

region through participatory varietalselection (PVS).

It is estimated that in 2001 NERICAcovered almost 4,000 hectares inWest and Central Africa, yieldingproduction of about 15,000 tonsworth approximately US$1.5 millionin rice import substitution value.More than 58,000 farmers havebegun using NERICA throughoutthe subregion, with an estimatedadoption rate of 20 percent.Adopting farmers grew NERICA on15 percent of their rice land, onaverage. The NERICA philosophy isnot to replace existing varieties, butto increase on-farm biodiversity andfarmers’ varietal options.

Community-Based Seed Systems

Deliver Adapted Varieties to

Farming Communities

The Participatory Rice Improvementand Gender/User Analysis (PRIGA)network for West and CentralAfrica, coordinated by WARDA,delivers adapted rice varieties tofarmers throughout the subregion.As the news spreads and demandgrows among neighboring farmers,

PRIGA coordinators increasingly are turning to commu-nity-based seed systems (CBSS) to meet the surgingdemand for seed. CBSS starts with farmers’ existing

seed harvesting and conservation practices, which arerefined on the basis of research-generated knowledgeon improved seed management. CBSS activities aregoing on in most of WARDA’s 17 member states. Forexample, in Benin several farmers were trained in 2001to multiply the three most popular varieties selected inthe PVS trials; seeds were sold, exchanged, or given asgift to 110 non-PVS farmers. In Burkina Faso, threevarieties were multiplied in three locations by a total of11 farmers. From 7 hectares, 14 tons of seed were pro-duced. In The Gambia, five varieties were multiplied on0.1 hectares each, and additional seed was taken fromthe ratoon (regrowth) crop to produce 2 tons of seed.In Togo, seven varieties were multiplied by 54 farmersin three villages.

Integrated Rice Management in Inland Valleys

After the success of integrated crop management inSahelian irrigated systems, the WARDA-hosted InlandValley Consortium began a campaign to promote inte-grated rice management (IRM). Participatory learningand action research (PLAR) was used to build 70 farm-ers’ capability to observe, analyze, and make decisionsrelative to production constraints and opportunities.The knowledge base is a combination of known IRMcomponents (from the research and extension side) andfarmers’ own knowledge of their cropping systems. In2001, the first year, application of IRM increased farmyields by 0.7 tons per hectare. Moreover, each partici-pating farmer shared at least one component of theIRM with an average of two (nonparticipating) neighbors.Four of the 70 farmers were trained as farmer-trainersto extend the PLAR-IRM concept to neighboring inlandvalley lowlands. The methodology is being delivered tosix more countries. Four lowland communities nearBouaké, Côte d’Ivoire, have asked WARDA to imple-ment the program for them.


West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA)

Headquarters: Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire

www.warda.org

New Ricefor AfricaMarches On

Digbeu Ori Elise, afarmer from Saioua,Central Côte d’Ivoire,has benefited fromNERICA. All six of herchildren attendschool.

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:59 AM Page 31

IPGRIRome,Italy

WARDABouaké,

Côte d’Ivoire

IITAIbadan,Nigeria

ISNARThe Hague,

Netherlands

IFPRIWashington, D.C.,United States ofAmerica

CIPLima,Peru

CIATCali,Colombia

CIMMYTMexico City,Mexico

C O N S U L T A T I V E G R O U P32

CGIAR

Future Harvest Centers of the CGIAR

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:59 AM Page 32

ICARDAAleppo,Syrian Arab Republic

ICLARMPenang,Malaysia

IRRILos Baños,Philippines

CIFORBogor,Indonesia

IWMIBattaramulla,Sri Lanka

ICRISATPatancheru,India

ICRAFNairobi,Kenya

ILRINairobi,

Kenya

40736_WB_14_33_AGS 10/7/02 10:59 AM Page 33

34

ExecutiveSummary of the 2001 CGIAR FinancialResults

The 2001 financial results reported

here are based on audited financial

statements of the 16 Future Harvest

Centers supported by the CGIAR.

Consolidated analyses and reports,

including this summary, were produced

on behalf of the CGIAR Secretariat by

an ICLARM team (Su Ching Tan and

Rainelda Ampil) led by Edward Sayegh,

Assistant Director General, Corporate

Services. A more detailed financial

report including time series tables and

charts is contained in the enclosed

compact disc and is posted on the

CGIAR’s Web site.

40736_WB_34_41_AGS 10/7/02 10:54 AM Page 34

35E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y O F T H E 2 0 0 1 C G I A R F I N A N C I A L R E S U L T S

CGIAR Members support the Future HarvestCenters and programs of their choice, andeach Center directly receives and expendsthese funds. Thus, the CGIAR financial results presented here are a consolidation of the financialresults of the 16 international Centers. The results arereported in US dollars.

CGIAR’s 2001 Financial Goals

As in past years, the CGIAR’s financial goals in 2001were to attract sufficient resources to enable it toimplement its approved work program for the year andto maintain its strong financial position. The financialtargets for 2001 approved at International Centers’Week 2000 (ICW00) were ■ to raise $340 million in funding from Members,

which would be supplemented by $15 million inCenter income to implement a work program of$355 million

■ to maintain the same levels of financial positionand operating ratios as in the previous year.

Overall Financial Outcome

The overall 2001 result confirms that the CGIAR wassuccessful in achieving its financial targets. The systemregistered a modest operating deficit ($2 million) in2001 on total resources of $353 million against totalexpenditures of $355 million. Total resources consistedof $337 million in Member funding (1 percent belowthe goal set at ICW00) and $16 million in Center-generated income. The CGIAR was in a strong financialposition at the end of the year: net assets totaled $189million, compared with $203 million in 2000; and liq-uidity indicators, such as cash, working capital, and

current ratio, remained healthy. Highlights of the Group’s2001 financial performance are shown in table 1, withcomparative information for the previous four years.

Contributions

For the Centers supported by the CGIAR, 2001 markedanother year of stable financial support.1 The overalllevel of support of $337 million in 2001 compares with$331 million in 2000, and with an average level ofapproximately $332 million for the 1997–2001 period.In 2001, 55 of the 58 Members2 contributed $314 million ($312 million in 2000); the remaining $23 mil-lion came from a broad range of sources, includingnonmember foundations and developing countries.Table 2 lists the contributions for 1997–2001 by contributor.

The increase in total contributions from 2000 to 2001 is illustrated by Member group in figure 1.Contributions were higher from North America, fromfoundations, and from the European group, and theypartly offset the substantial decline in contributionsfrom the Pacific Rim. Contributions by nonmembersincreased by $3.9 million, from $19.2 million in 2000to $23.1 million in 2001.

Contributions from North American Members increasedby $3.5 million, or 7 percent, largely as a result ofhigher contributions from the United States, whichcontributed $45.4 million in 2001 compared with$42.1 million in 2000. Contributions from Canadaremained stable at the 2000 level. Foundationsincreased their support in 2001 by $2.6 million. TheRockefeller Foundation’s contribution grew from

40736_WB_34_41_AGS 10/7/02 10:54 AM Page 35

36

ACTUAL 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Center income (millions of US dollars)

Agenda funding 319 338 328 331 337(percent of which is unrestricted) 64% 61% 54% 50% 42%Center earned income 13 13 13 14 16Other income (nonagenda, and so on) 14 0 0 0 0Advance/draw on reserves TOTAL 345 351 341 345 353

Membership agenda support (millions of US dollars)

Europe 141 148 126 128 131Pacific Rim 40 44 49 44 37North America 51 53 52 54 57Developing Countries 11 13 15 14 14International and Regional Organizations 63 62 66 66 67Foundations 6 7 6 7 9Nonmembers 7 12 15 19 23TOTAL 319 338 329 331 337

Top three contributors World Bank World Bank World Bank World Bank United States United States United States Japan United States World Bank

Japan Japan United States Japan JapanStaffing (number)

Internationally recruited staff 862 893 907 955 958Support staff 8,016 7,458 7,721 7,583 7,527

Agenda program expenditures (percent)

Increasing productivity 40% 37% 34% 36% 35%(percent of which is germplasm enhancement/breeding) 19% 18% 18% 18% 18%Protecting the environment 17% 19% 20% 18% 19%Saving biodiversity 11% 11% 10% 10% 9%Improving policies 11% 12% 13% 14% 14%Strengthening NARS 21% 21% 23% 22% 23%(percent of which is training) 8% 8% 9% 9% 9%TOTAL (millions of US dollars) 333 337 347 338 355

Object expenditures (percent)Personnel 51% 50% 50% 49% 49%Supplies/services 36% 37% 38% 39% 40%Travel 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%Depreciation 6% 6% 5% 5% 4%

Regional expenditures (percent)

Sub-Saharan Africa 41% 41% 42% 42% 43%Asia 30% 32% 32% 32% 32%Latin America and the Caribbean 17% 18% 17% 17% 16%Central and West Asia and North Africa 12% 10% 9% 9% 9%

Result of operations 12.4 13.6 (6.4) 6.6 (1.7)

Center financial information

Net assets 316 323 263 203 189Unappropriated net assets 43 52 44 62 79Appropriated net assets 273 271 219 141 110Annual Center cost change (percent) 0 0 0 0 0

Short-term liquidity indicator

Working capital (days expenditure) 114 127 122 112 129Current ratio 1.72 1.8 1.63 1.74 1.88

Longer-term sustainability indicator

Operating fund/revenue (percent) 13% 15% 13% 18% 22%

Fixed asset indicators

Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) 21.7 22.2 17.9 14.9 15.9Capital expenditure/depreciation (percent) 105% 110% 100% 93% 104%

Table 1. CGIAR Program and Resource Highlights, 1997–2001

40736_WB_34_41_AGS 10/7/02 10:55 AM Page 36

Table 2. CGIAR Contributions to the Research Agenda by Member Group 1997–2001(millions of US dollars)

MEMBERS 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

EuropeAustria 1.8 2.3 2.3 1.8 2.1Belgium 5.5 6.0 6.8 4.7 4.5Denmark 19.1 17.7 14.0 11.0 10.6European Commission 23.1 24.9 6.0 22.3 21.7Finland 2.1 2.1 1.5 1.5 1.5France 4.9 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.0Germany 16.6 16.3 15.5 10.2 12.3Ireland 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.5Italy 4.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.7Luxembourg 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.3 0.8Netherlands 14.5 14.7 11.6 13.7 12.2Norway 7.2 8.3 8.9 7.7 8.3Portugal 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3Spain 1.8 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.2Sweden 7.1 9.3 10.3 9.4 9.2Switzerland 20.9 22.7 22.8 18.3 15.7United Kingdom 10.2 11.5 13.9 14.9 19.2Subtotal 140.6 147.6 125.8 128.3 130.8

North AmericaCanada 12.9 12.3 12.3 11.4 11.6United States 38.3 40.5 39.4 42.1 45.4Subtotal 51.2 52.8 51.7 53.5 57.0

Pacific RimAustralia 6.6 7.8 8.1 8.5 7.2Japan 33.5 35.3 40.0 34.6 29.2New Zealand 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7Subtotal 40.0 43.5 48.5 43.5 37.1

Developing and transition economiesBangladesh 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2Brazil 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4China 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.9Colombia 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.5Côte d’Ivoire 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Egypt, Arab Republic of 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3India 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8Indonesia 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3Iran, Islamic Republic of 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.7Kenya 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3Korea, Republic of 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.1Mexico 0.5 0.6 1.7 1.8 1.3Nigeria 0.1 1.0 1.6 1.0 0.0Pakistan 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.6Peru 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6Philippines 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.2Russian Federation 0.0Saudi Arabia 0.0South Africa 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5Syria 0.5 0.5Thailand 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1Uganda 0.3 0.3Subtotal 10.8 13.4 14.7 13.7 13.6

FoundationsFord Foundation 3.2 3.1 2.6 2.6 2.7Kellogg Foundation 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2Rockefeller Foundation 2.1 3.4 3.5 4.0 6.3Subtotal 5.6 6.8 6.2 6.6 9.2

International and regional organizationsADB 1.8 3.8 4.4 6.0 6.9AFDB 1.0 0.8 2.3 1.2 0.3Arab Fund 1.0 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.6FAO 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.4IDB 4.5 2.1 1.5 1.4 0.5IDRC 2.4 2.4 3.0 2.3 2.5IFAD 3.1 4.0 6.9 5.8 6.6Opec Fund 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4UNDP 4.5 3.2 2.1 1.8 1.6UNEP 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.7World Bank 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0Subtotal 64.0 63.7 67.7 66.3 66.5

Other Donors 8.1 11.9 15.0 19.2 23.1

Total 320 340 330 331 33737

40736_WB_34_41_AGS 10/7/02 10:55 AM Page 37


$4 million in 2000 to $6.3 million in 2001. Contributionsfrom nonmember foundations were stable at $5 million.

Contributions from European Members increased by$2.5 million, or 2 percent. In particular, higher contri-butions were received from the United Kingdom ($19million), Germany ($12 million), and Norway ($8.3 mil-lion). Stable contributions from most other EuropeanMembers, including the European Commission, morethan offset modest exchange-related declines in othercases.

Contributions from Pacific Rim Members declined from$43.5 million in 2000 to $37.1 million in 2001, largelyas a result of Japan decreasing its contribution by $5.4million, or 8 percent. Half of that decrease reflects anactual reduction in the contribution and the other halfresulted from exchange losses. Contributions byAustralia and New Zealand remained stable at the2000 level.

The 21 developing countries that are Members of theCGIAR maintained their support at $13.6 million—thesame level as in 2000—providing approximately 4 per-cent of the total. Colombia maintained its position as

the largest contributor among the developing coun-tries. Support from international institutions was stableat $66.5 million, representing 18 percent of total contributions.

Disbursements

There was a slight improvement in the disbursementspicture in 2001 when only 12 percent of fundsremained outstanding at the end of the year, com-pared with 18 percent at the end of 2000. When com-pared with the normative schedule, however, the paceof disbursement continues to present a challenge tothe Centers’ cash flow, a situation that could becomemore difficult as targeted funding increases as a per-centage of total funding.

Resource Allocation

In overall terms, expenditures in 2001 amounted to$355 million, 4 percent higher than those in 2000.Resource allocation at the Center level is governedlargely through research projects established in thecontext of CGIAR activities. These allocations are sum-marized at the system level by Center and by object ofexpenditure, and are illustrated by activity and develop-ing region.

0

30

60

90

120

150

2000

2001

FoundationsNon-CGIAR members

Developing countries

Pacific Rim

North America

International & regional

organizations

Europe

Figure 1 Contributions to CGIAR

Millions of US dollars

40736_WB_34_41_AGS 10/7/02 10:55 AM Page 38

Distribution of Expenditures among Centers: Figure 2shows the distribution of expenditures by CGIARCenters in 2001. The distribution remained broadly inline with expenditures by Center in 2000.

Expenditures by Object: The trend toward reduced per-sonnel spending continued in 2001. Personnel costsamounted to 49 percent of the total costs in 2001,compared with an average of 55 percent in the mid-1990s. The total number of staff continued to declineas well: there were 8,485 in 2001 compared with8,638 in 2000. Approximately 958 staff members were recruited internationally, a number essentiallyunchanged from 2000. A significant reduction in inter-nationally recruited staff (IRS) by several Centers wasoffset by a similar increase at IWMI, which almost dou-bled its IRS complement from 26 to 49. Expendituresby object are indicated in figure 3.

Allocations by Activity: Amounts allocated in 2001 tothe five principal CGIAR activities—increasing produc-tivity, protecting the environment, saving biodiversity,improving policies, and strengthening national agricul-tural research systems—are shown in figure 4. Theseallocations are broadly congruent with those of the lastseveral years.

39E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y O F T H E 2 0 0 1 C G I A R F I N A N C I A L R E S U L T S

0

10

20

30

40

ISNAR

WARD

A

IWM

I

CIFO

R

ICLA

RMCIP

ICARD

A

IFPR

I

ICRA

F

IPGRI

ICRI

SAT

ILRI

CIATIRRIIITA

CIM

MYT

Supplies and Services 40%

Depreciation 4%

Travel 7%

Personnel 49%

Figure 2 Expenditures by Center

Millions of US dollars

Figure 3 Expenditures by Object

40736_WB_34_41_AGS 10/7/02 10:55 AM Page 39


Allocations by Region: Allocations by region are shownin figure 5. The CGIAR’s investment in Sub-SaharanAfrica increased from 42 percent in 2000 to 43 percentof total investment in 2001. Investment in Asiaremained at 32 percent. Allocations targeted to LatinAmerica and the Caribbean decreased from 17 percentto 16 percent. Investment in West Asia and North Africaremained at 9 percent of the total amount allocated.

Center Perspectives

The stability noted at the system level reflects a rangeof outcomes at the individual Centers. Funding foreight Centers was within 4 percent (plus or minus) offunding levels in 2000. Three Centers were funded at 6percent or higher levels, and funding for the remainingfive Centers contracted by approximately 7 percent.

Following a continuing decline in unrestricted support,unrestricted funding levels ranged from 31 percent to45 percent at most Centers, and averaged 42 percent(compared with approximately 50 percent in recentyears). As a consequence, during 2001 Centers initiated

precautionary cost reduction measures, such as expendi-ture curtailment and staff separations. These measures,which are continuing in 2002, are somewhat concen-trated at Centers with large field operations (for exam-ple, ICRISAT, IITA, ILRI, IRRI, CIP, and CIMMYT). Thesecircumstances led to deficit spending at eight Centers,with deficits ranging from $0.5 million to $2 million.

Conclusion

The 2001 results confirm the continued stability ofCGIAR finances in the aggregate. As in the last severalyears, however, there is wide variability in financial per-formance among the 16 Centers, and that suggests aneed for continued vigilance at the Center level.Furthermore, Members need to address the system-level issue of slow disbursements.

Compliance with Financial Guidelines

The Centers are independent institutions governed bytheir respective boards of trustees. In the interest oftransparency and consistency in financial practices andthe presentation of financial information, the Centers

Strengthening NARS 23%

Improving Policies 14%

Saving Biodiversity 9%

Protecting the Environment 19%

Increasing Productivity 35%

West Asia and North Africa 9%

Latin America and Caribbean 16%

Asia 32%

Sub-Saharan Africa 43%

Figure 4 Allocations by Principal Activity Figure 5 Allocations by Developing Region

40736_WB_34_41_AGS 10/7/02 10:55 AM Page 40

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y O F T H E 2 0 0 1 C G I A R F I N A N C I A L R E S U L T S 41

follow financial guidelines issued by the CGIARSecretariat. In the following finance-related areas, theseguidelines seek to promote “best practices” in theCGIAR: financial management, accounting, budgeting,internal audit, and procurement. Developed with theinput of Center finance personnel, external financialexperts, and Secretariat staff, the guidelines areamended as required to reflect changing practices andto ensure that the CGIAR’s practices are in conformitywith those generally accepted worldwide. Guidelinescovering accounting policies and the preparation ofexternally audited annual financial statements are par-ticularly relevant in this regard. The most recent updateof these guidelines took effect in 1999 and broughtCGIAR practices up-to-date with the current practicesof not-for-profit organizations.

As part of the annual review of the substantive finan-cial performance, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) isreviewing the externally audited 2001 Center financialstatements to ensure compliance with CGIAR policyand reporting guidelines. PwC will verify Center com-pliance with existing policy and reporting guidelinesand ensure that any departures have resulted in nomaterial misstatement of the financial information.

Endnotes

1. This report does not include a discussion of the World Bank’s support allocated to the CGIAR Secretariat and the Technical AdvisoryCommittee/Interim Science Council Secretariat. In 2001 this support amounted to $5 million.2. For presentation purposes, these 58 Members are divided into four distinct groups: industrialized countries (21), developing coun-tries (22), foundations (3), and international and regional organizations (12). Industrialized countries can be further divided along geo-graphical lines into three subgroups: Europe, North America, and the Pacific Rim.

The CGIAR’s financial

goals in 2001 were to

attract sufficient

resources to enable

it to implement its

approved work pro-

gram for the year and

to maintain its strong

financial position.

40736_WB_34_41_AGS 10/7/02 10:55 AM Page 41

42

Who’s Who in the CGIAR

in 2001

40736_WB_42_48_AGS 10/7/02 10:48 AM Page 42

43W H O ’ S W H O I N T H E C G I A R I N 2 0 0 1

CGIAR Members

COUNTRY KEY REPRESENTATIVE KEY COOPERATING INSTITUTION

Australia Robert J. Clements Australian Center for International Agricultural Research

Austria Walter Rill Federal Ministry of FinanceBangladesh Zahurul Karim Ministry of AgricultureBelgium Luc Sas Ministry of Foreign AffairsBrazil Alberto Duque Portugal Ministry of Agriculture and Food Supply,

EmbrapaCanada Iain C. MacGillivray Canadian International Development AgencyChina Longyue Zhao Ministry of AgricultureColombia Luis Arango-Nieto Ministry of Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentCôte d’Ivoire Kassoum Traore Ministry of Agriculture and Animal ResourcesDenmark Klaus Winkel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, DANIDA Arab Republic of Egypt Youssuf Amin Wally Ministry of Agriculture and Land ReclamationFinland Anna-Liisa Korhonen Ministry of Foreign AffairsFrance Gilles Saint-Martin Ministry of Foreign AffairsGermany Hans-Jochen de Haas Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and

DevelopmentIndia Panjab Singh Ministry of Agriculture, ICARIndonesia Abdul Fattah Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryIslamic Republic of Iran Behzad Ghareyazie Ministry of AgricultureIreland Brendan Rogers Department of Foreign AffairsItaly Gioacchino Carabba Ministry of Foreign AffairsJapan Toshinori Mitsunaga Ministry of Foreign AffairsKenya Wilfred Mwangi Ministry of Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentRepublic of Korea Kyung-Han Ryu Ministry of AgricultureLuxembourg Georges Heinen Ministry of FinanceMexico Jorge Kondo-Lopez Ministry of AgricultureNetherlands Adrian Koekoek Ministry of Foreign AffairsNew Zealand Keneti Faulalo Ministry of Foreign Affairs and TradeNigeria Olatunde Oloko Ministry of Agriculture and Natural ResourcesNorway Aslak Brun Ministry of Foreign AffairsPakistan Zafar Altaf Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and LivestockPeru Ricardo Sevilla Panizo Ministry of AgriculturePhilippines Eliseo R. Ponce Department of AgriculturePortugal Armando Trigo Abreu Ministry of FinanceRomania Ilie Sarbu Ministry of Agriculture and FoodRussian Federation Vicktor Dragavtsev Russian Academy of Agricultural SciencesSouth Africa Bongiwe Njobe Ministry of Agriculture and Land AffairsSpain Adolfo Cazorla Ministry of AgricultureSweden Eva Ohlsson Ministry of Foreign Affairs, SIDA

40736_WB_42_48_AGS 10/7/02 10:48 AM Page 43


Switzerland Dora Rapold Swiss Agency for Development and CooperationSyrian Arab Republic Issam El-Zaim Ministry of Agriculture and Agricultural ReformThailand Somsak Singholka Department of AgricultureUganda Joseph Mukiibi Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry, and

FisheriesUnited Kingdom Andrew J. Bennett Department for International DevelopmentUnited States of America Emmy M. Simmons United States Agency for International

Development

FOUNDATION REPRESENTATIVE

Ford Foundation Michael E. ConroyKellogg Foundation Rick Foster Rockefeller Foundation Robert W. Herdt

INTERNATIONAL AND REPRESENTATIVE REGIONAL ORGANIZATION

African Development Bank Akililu A. AfeworkArab Fund for Economic

and Social Development Mervat Wehba BadawiAsian Development Bank Joseph B. EichenbergerCommission of the

European Community Uwe WerblowFood and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations Jacques P. Eckebil

Inter-American Development Bank Ruben Echeverria

International Development Research Centre Peter Cooper

International Fund for Agricultural Development Rodney Cooke

OPEC Fund for International Development Y. Seyyid Abdulai

United Nations Development Programme Alvaro Umaña

United Nations Environment Programme Shafqat Kakakhel

World Bank Robert L. Thompson

CGIAR REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES

Africa Seyfu Ketema (Ethiopia)Asia S.D.G. Jayawardene (Sri Lanka)Pacific Samison Ulitu (Fiji)Europe Ervin Balazs (Hungary)LAC Compton Lawrence Paul (Dominica)MENA Osman A. A. Ageeb (Sudan)

COUNTRY KEY REPRESENTATIVE KEY COOPERATING INSTITUTION

40736_WB_42_48_AGS 10/7/02 10:48 AM Page 44

45W H O ’ S W H O I N T H E C G I A R I N 2 0 0 1

Executive Council (from October 2001)

Chairman: Ian JohnsonCosponsors:

Jacques P. Eckebil, FAORobert L. Thompson, World BankRodney Cooke, IFAD

CDC: Meryl WilliamsCBC: John VercoeTAC/iSC: Emil JavierGFAR: Rajendra Paroda

OECD/DAC

Americas: Jonathan Conly (United States)

Asia-Pacific: Toshinori Mitsunaga (Japan)

Europe: Gilles Saint-Martin (France), Ruth Haug (Norway), Klaus Winkel (Denmark)

Developing Countries

Americas: Alberto Duque Portugal (Brazil)

Sub-Saharan Africa: Bongiwe Njobe (South Africa)

Asia-Pacific: Longyue Zhao (China)

CWANA: Issam El-Zaim (Syria)

Regional Fora: Mustafa Yaghi (AARINENA)

Foundations: Robert W. Herdt(The Rockefeller Foundation)

Civil Society:

Ann Waters-Bayer, NGOCSam Dryden, PSC

Executive Secretary:

Francisco J. B. Reifschneider

Interim Executive Council

(from May to October 2001)

Chairman: Ian JohnsonCGIAR Director:

Francisco J. B. ReifschneiderCosponsors:

Jacques P. Eckebil (FAO) Frank Pinto (UNDP)Robert L Thompson (World Bank)Membership:

Guda Abdullah (Nigeria) (deceased)

Luis Arango-Nieto (Colombia)Andrew J. Bennett

(United Kingdom) Ian Bevege (Australia) Rodney Cooke (IFAD) Christine E. Grieder (Switzerland)

Hans-Jochen de Haas (Germany) Ruth Haug (Norway)Iain C. MacGillivray (Canada) Toshinori Mitsunaga (Japan) Bongiwe Njobe (South Africa)Alberto Duque Portugal (Brazil) Gilles Saint-Martin (France)Emmy M. Simmons

(United States)Robert L. Thompson (World Bank) Carl-Gustaf Thornström (Sweden)Longyue Zhao (China)CBC Chair: Kurt Peters (ICLARM)CDC Chair: Hank Fitzhugh (ILRI)TAC Chair: Emil JavierNGOC Chair: Ann Waters-BayerPSC Chair: Sam DrydenGFAR Chair: Rajendra ParodaSecretary: Selçuk Õzgediz

Advisory Committees

Technical Advisory Committee

(TAC was phased out on December 31,

2001, and was replaced by an Interim

Science Council in early 2002)

Emil Q. Javier, ChairShellemiah O. Keya,

Executive SecretaryMichael CerneaElias Fereres

CGIAR Chairman: Ian Johnson, Vice President, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, The World Bank

CGIAR Director: Francisco J. B. ReifschneiderCGIAR Executive Secretary: Alexander von der Osten

(until January 31, 2001)Cosponsors and Their Representatives:

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Jacques P. EckebilInternational Fund for Agricultural Development, Rodney CookeUnited Nations Development Programme, Alvaro UmañaThe World Bank, Robert L. Thompson

The CGIAR

40736_WB_42_48_AGS 10/7/02 10:48 AM Page 45


Hans Gregersen (ex-officio)Richard R. HarwoodAlain de JanvryMaria Antonia Fernandez MartinezOumar NiangadoHirofumi UchimiyaLucia de VaccaroJoachim F. von BraunVo-Tong XuanUsha Barwale Zehr

TAC Standing Panel on Impact

Assessment (SPIA)

Hans Gregersen, ChairRuben Echeverria Christina David

(until February 2001)Frans L. Leeuw

(until February 2001)Hermann Waibel

Genetic Resources Policy

Committee

M. S. Swaminathan, Chair Robert BertramRonald P. CantrellJosé T. Esquinas-AlcazarCarmen Felipe-Morales

(left in 2001)Christine E. GriederGeoffrey C. HawtinBernard Le BuanecMarcio de Miranda SantosGodwin Y. MkamangaTimothy ReevesRenato SalazarCarl-Gustaf Thornström

Partnership Committees

NGO Committee

Ann Waters-Bayer, CochairMonica Kapiriri, CochairChristian Castellanet (left in 2001)Julian Francis GonsalvesAssétou KanoutéDwi R. Muhtaman (left in 2001)

Mutizwa MukutePatrick MulvanyAntonio QuizonPeter RossetJuan SanchezJean Marc von der Weid

(left in 2001)

Private Sector Committee

R. N. Sam Dryden, ChairClaudio BarrigaBadrinarayan R. BarwaleWallace D. BeversdorfRobert HorschSeizo SumidaBarry ThomasFlorence Wambugu

Science Partnership Committee

(dissolved in May 2001)

Werner Arber, ChairR. James CookMouïn HamzéLydia MakhubuSudha NairSatohiko SasakiJose Israel Vargas

Center Committees

Committee of Board Chairs (CBC)

John E. Vercoe, ILRI, CBC ChairKurt J. Peters, ICLARM

(CBC Chair until November 2001)Sjarifuddin Baharsjah, IRRIKlaas Jan Beek, IWMILucie Edwards, ICRAFRobert D. Havener, ICARDALauritz Broder Holm-Nielsen, CIATLindsay Innes, WARDADavid R. MacKenzie, CIPJagmohan S. Maini, CIFORAlex McCalla, CIMMYT

(Walter P. Falcon until April 2001)

Moise C. Mensah, ISNARGeoff Miller, IFPRI

Marcio de Miranda Santos, IPGRIEnrico Porceddu, IITAMartha B. Stone, ICRISAT (Ragnhild

Sohlberg until February 2001)

Center Directors Committee (CDC)

Meryl Williams, ICLARM, CDC Chair

Stein W. Bie, ISNARRonald P. Cantrell, IRRIWilliam D. Dar, ICRISATAdel El-Beltagy, ICARDAHank Fitzhugh, ILRI

(until December 31, 2001)Dennis Garrity, ICRAF

(Pedro A. Sánchez until September 30, 2001)

Peter Hartmann, IITA (Lukas Brader until November 2001)

Geoffrey C. Hawtin, IPGRIDavid Kaimowitz , CIFOR

(Jeffrey A. Sayer until March 2001)

Kanayo F. Nwanze, WARDAPer Pinstrup-Andersen, IFPRI

(CDC Chair until October 2001)Timothy Reeves, CIMMYTFrank Rijsberman, IWMIJoachim Voss, CIATHubert Zandstra, CIP

(CDC Executive Secretary: Jean-Pierre Jacqmotte)

Public Awareness and Resource

Mobilization Committee

William Dar, ChairKlaus LeisingerIain C. MacGillivrayAlex F. McCallaKanayo NwanzeRuth RaymondTimothy Reeves (left in 2001)Francisco J. B. ReifschneiderJohn RigganEbbe SchiolerRobert L. Thompson

40736_WB_42_48_AGS 10/7/02 10:48 AM Page 46

Alexander von der Osten (left January 31, 2001)

Meryl WilliamsHubert Zandstra

(Chair until October 2001)

Standing Committees(dissolved in May 2001)

CGIAR Oversight Committee

Andrew J. Bennett, Chair, United Kingdom

Mervat W. El Badawi, Arab FundJuan L. Restrepo, ColombiaGilles Saint-Martin, FranceRuth Haug, NorwayEmmy M. Simmons,

United States of AmericaBongiwe Njobe, South Africa Longyue Zhao, China

CGIAR Finance Committee

Robert L. Thompson, Chair,World Bank

Robert Clements/Ian Bevege, Australia

Francisco J. B. Reifschneider, BrazilBruce Howell, CanadaHans-Jochen de Haas, GermanyRodney Cooke/Shantanu Mathur,

IFADUmaru Al Kaleri, NigeriaHiroaki Isobe/Tetsushi Kondo,

JapanCarl-Gustaf Thornström, SwedenChristine E. Grieder, Switzerland

47

CGIAR 1971–2001

CGIAR Chairs, 1971–2001Ian Johnson, 2000–Ismail Serageldin, 1994–2000V. Rajagopalan, 1991–1993Wilfried Thalwitz, 1990–1991W. David Hopper, 1987–1990S. Shahid Hussain, 1984–1987Warren Baum, 1974–1983Richard H. Demuth, 1971–1974

CGIAR Director, 2001–Francisco J. B. Reifschneider, 2001–

CGIAR Executive Secretaries, 1972–2001Alexander von der Osten, 1989–2001Curtis Farrar, 1982–1989Michael Lejeune, 1975–1982Harold Graves, 1972–1975

TAC Chairs, 1971–2001Emil Q. Javier, 2000–Donald Winkelmann, 1994–1999Alex McCalla, 1988–1994Guy Camus, 1982–1987Ralph Cummings, 1977–1982Sir John Crawford, 1971–1976

TAC Executive Secretaries, 1971–2001Shellemiah Keya, 1996–Guido Gryseels, 1995–1996John Monyo, 1985–1994Alexander von der Osten, 1982–1985Philippe Mahler, 1976–1982Peter Oram, 1971–1976

W H O ’ S W H O I N T H E C G I A R I N 2 0 0 1

40736_WB_42_48_AGS 10/7/02 10:48 AM Page 47


ADB Asian Development BankAFDB African Development BankCBC Committee of Board ChairsCBSS community-based seed systemsCDC Center Directors CommitteeCIAT International Center for Tropical

Agriculture (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical)

CIFOR Center for International Forestry ResearchCIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement

CenterCIP International Potato Center (Centro

Internacional de la Papa)COGENT International Coconut Genetic Resources

NetworkCWANA Central and West Asia and North AfricaDAC Development Assistance Committee

(of the OECD)FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United NationsFFE Food for EducationGFAR Global Forum on Agricultural ResearchGMO genetically modified organismGMP Global Mountain ProgramIBS ISNAR Biotechnology ServiceICAR Indian Council of Agricultural ResearchICARDA International Center for Agricultural

Research in the Dry AreasICLARM World Fish CenterICRAF World Agroforestry CenterICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for

the Semi-Arid TropicsICRW International Center for WomenIDB Inter-American Development BankIDRC International Development Research

CentreIFAD International Fund for Agricultural

DevelopmentIFPRI International Food Policy Research InstituteIITA International Institute of Tropical AgricultureILRI International Livestock Research InstituteIMWI International Water Management InstituteINIBAP International Network for the Improvement

of Banana and Plantain

IPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources InstituteIPM integrated pest managementIRM integrated rice managementIRRI International Rice Research InstituteIRS internationally recruited staffiSC Interim Science Council ISNAR International Service for National Agricultural

ResearchNARS national agricultural research systems NERICA New Rices for AfricaNGO nongovernmental organizationNGOC NGO CommitteeOECD/DAC Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development/Development Assistance Committee

PLAR Participatory Learning and Action ResearchPRIGA Participatory Rice Improvement and

Gender/User AnalysisPROGRESA Programa de Educación, Salud, y

AlimentaciónPSC Private Sector CommitteePVS participatory varietal selectionPwC PricewaterhouseCoopersOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and DevelopmentOPEC Organization of Petroleum-Exporting

CountriesQPM quality protein maizeRCW Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-

Gangetic PlainsSDP Smallholder Dairy ProjectSIMA Systemwide Initiative on Malaria and

AgricultureSIUPA Strategic Initiative on Urban and Peri-urban

AgricultureSPIA Standing Panel on Impact AssessmentSWMNET Soil Water Management NetworkTAC Technical Advisory CommitteeUSAID United States Agency for International

DevelopmentUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeVITAA Vitamin A for AfricaWARDA West Africa Rice Development Association

Acronyms and Abbreviations

40736_WB_42_48_AGS 10/7/02 10:48 AM Page 48


Global

Knowledge

for Local

ImpactAgricultural

Science and

Technology

in Sustainable

Development




















An

nu

al Rep

ort 2001

CG

IAR

Glo

ba

l Kn

ow

led

ge

for L

oca

l Imp

act A

gricu

ltura

l Scie

nce

an

d Te

chn

olo

gy

in S

us

tain

ab

le D

ev

elo

pm

en

t

CGIAR Secretariat

The World Bank

1818 H Street, NW


USA

Telephone ■ 1 202 473 8951

Fax ■ 1 202 473 8110





40736_Cover_ags 10/7/02 10:45 AM Page 1

Tribute - USAID

Documents

Transcript of Tribute - USAID