• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Foreword
 Executive summary
 Preface
 Acknowledgement
 List of acronyms
 Table of Contents
 The triple global challenge - population...
 Partners in international agricultural...
 Priorities for global research...
 Learning from existing mechanisms...
 The proposed GREAN initiative
 References
 Biographical sketches














Title: Global research on the environmental and agricultural nexus for the 21st century
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053937/00002
 Material Information
Title: Global research on the environmental and agricultural nexus for the 21st century a proposal for collaborative research among U.S. universities, CGIAR Centers and developing country institutions
Physical Description: xiii, 160 p. : ill., 1 map ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
University of Florida -- Office of International Studies and Programs
Publisher: Office of International Studies and Programs at the University of Florida,
Office of International Studies and Programs at the University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: [1995]
 Subjects
Subject: Agriculture -- Research -- International cooperation   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Environmental aspects   ( lcsh )
Agricultural productivity   ( lcsh )
Sustainable agriculture   ( lcsh )
Environmental protection   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 149-157).
Funding: Funded by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.
Statement of Responsibility: report of the Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability.
General Note: "University of Florida, Cornell University"--Cover.
General Note: "October 1995"--T.p. verso.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00053937
Volume ID: VID00002
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltuf - AKP9327
oclc - 33445390
alephbibnum - 002061229

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Title Page
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Foreword
        Page 4
    Executive summary
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Preface
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Acknowledgement
        Page 12
    List of acronyms
        Page 13
    Table of Contents
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    The triple global challenge - population growth, poverty and environmental degradation: a call for a U.S. response
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
    Partners in international agricultural research
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
    Priorities for global research on environmental and agricultural nexus
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
    Learning from existing mechanisms for collaborative research
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
    The proposed GREAN initiative
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
    References
        Page 88
        Page 89
    Biographical sketches
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
Full Text


Draft: For Discussion Only
Comments are welcome.


Global Research on the Environmental
and Agricultural Nexus

for the 21st Century


A Proposal for

Collaborative Research

Among U.S. Universities,

CGIAR Centers and

Developing Country

Institutions












Report of the
Taskforce on Research Innovations for
Productivity and Sustainability

Funded by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations


f UNIVERSITY OF
%FLORIDA


CORNELL
UNIVERSITY






Draft: For Discussion Only
Comments are welcome.


Global Research on the Environmental

and Agricultural Nexus
for the 21st Century


A Proposal for

Collaborative Research

Among U.S. Universities,

CGIAR Centers and

Developing Country

Institutions


Report of the
Taskforce on Research Innovations for
Productivity and Sustainability

Funded by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations


UNIVERSITY OF
0FLORIDA


CORNELL
UNIVERSITY














Taskforce on Research Innovations for

Productivity and Sustainability (TRIPS)


Co-chairs

Uma Lele, University of Florida
Ronnie Coffman, Cornell University

Taskforce Members
I.P. Abrol
Indian Council of Agricultural Research

Michael Collinson
CGIAR Secretariat
Larry Harrington
CIMMYT
Rattan Lal
Ohio State University
Fowden Maxwell
Texas A&M University
Roberto Martinez Nogueira
University of Buenos Aires
Calvin Qualset
University of California at Davis
Thomas Reardon
Michigan State University
M.S. Sompo-Ceesay
INSAH/CILSS
Eugene Terry
WARDA
Hubert Zandstra
CIP
Larry Zuidema
Cornell University

For comments and information, please contact:
R. Hunt Davis, Jr.,
International Studies & Programs
123 Tigert Hall, University of Florida
Gainesville, F1 32611
Phone (904) 392-7033 Fax (904) 392-8379
E-mail hdavis@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu


Collaborative Research Mechanisms
Larry Zuidema*, Cornell University (Chair)
Christian Bonte-Friedheim, ISNAR
Michael Collinson*, CGIAR Secretariat
Roberto Martinez Noguiera, University of Buenos Aires
Fowden Maxwell*, Texas A&M University
Ed Price, Texas A&M University
Sandra L. Russo, University of Florida
Larry Stifel, Cornell University
Ann Thrupp, World Resources Institute
Hubert Zandstra*, CIP
Ester Zulbenti, ICRAF

Substantive Agenda
Calvin Qualset*, University of California Davis (Chair)
I.P. Abrol, ICAR
Louise Buck, Cornell University/CIFOR
Peter Gregory, CIP
Larry Harrington*, CIMMYT
Jim Henson, Washington State University
Rattan Lal*, Ohio State University
Thomas Reardon*, Michigan State University
Marianne Schmink, University of Florida

Resource Mobilization
Ronnie Coffman*, Cornell University (Chair)
Nyle Brady, UNDP
R. Hunt Davis, Jr., University of Florida
Uma Lele*, University of Florida
John E. Noisette, ICARDA
M.S. Sompo-Ceesay*, INSAH/CILSS
Eugene Terry*, WARDA
E.T. York, University of Florida

Resource Persons for Taskforce
R. Hunt Davis, Jr., University of Florida
Sandra Russo, University of Florida

*Taskforce Members


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability















Foreword


The 1993 Rio Conference served to heighten
public awareness to the wide range of critical
global environmental issues. The 1994 Cairo
Conference brought the world's surging
population growth to the public's attention.
Less readily understood, but equally critical to
the future of humankind, is the pressing need
for vastly improving agricultural productivity.
Together, these three interlocked issues --
environmental degradation, the high rate of
population increase in the poorest countries,
and the need to greatly enhance agricultural
productivity -- constitute the triple global
challenge of the 21st century.
The core of the triple challenge can be
reduced to a somewhat deceivingly straight-
forward question: how is the world going to
feed a population which is likely to double by
2050 without inflicting even further damage on
an environment that is already under great
stress? Put another way, how can the need for
productivity growth be reconciled with
environmental sustainability, both of which are
absolutely vital to the quality of human life in
the long run. It is imperative to respond to this
pressing challenge now. Procrastination will
geometrically enlarge the difficulty of crafting
solutions.
The proposal being put forth by the
Taskforce is timely, relevant, appropriate, and
practical: timely because it relates to similar
initiatives now underway within the World


Bank, the Consultative Group for International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR), and
elsewhere; relevant because it calls for
mobilizing the full range of scientific endeavor
from basic to applied research to address the
needs of poor households at the local level in
the developing countries; appropriate because
it emanates from a voluntary effort by U.S.
universities, is funded by private U.S.
foundations, and stresses the importance of
U.S. leadership for an effective global response
to the triple challenge; practical because it calls
for a more effective approach to collaborative
research among U.S. universities, the CGIAR
Centers, and developing country institutions.
The multidisciplinary membership of the
Taskforce included highly experienced
individuals from U. S. universities as well as
CGIAR Center directors general and senior
staff, the CGIAR Secretariat, and
representatives of National Agricultural
Research Systems (NARS) in Africa, Asia, and
Latin America. I am pleased to write a
foreword to this imaginative and innovative
endeavor.



Ismail Serageldin
Vice President
Environmentally Sustainable Development
The World Bank


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability


I





DRAFT


Executive Summary


Global Research on the
Environmental and
Agricultural Nexus


Introduction

This report calls for a United States -
funded initiative, "Global Research on the
Environmental andAgricultural Nexus (GREAN)
for the 21st Century," reaching a level of $100
million of new money annuallywithin a period of
three to five years. The initiative's mission would
be to generate a second Green Revolution to create
livelihood and food security for the poorest people
in the developing world on an environmentally
sustainable basis. GREAN aims to deploy
outstanding U.S. science on a long-term,
predictable basis, in collaboration with centers
in the Consultative Group for International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and National
Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) to help
resolve the pressing global problems of
poverty, environmental degradation, and food
insecurity.
This report sets forth its recommendations
very much in the spirit which enabled a
previous generation to place a man on the
moon and to launch the first Green Revolution.


The triple challenge of poverty,
hunger, and environmental
degradation
By the year 2050, the world population
will double. Ninety percent of that increase
will occur in developing countries. Food
demand in the developing countries will more
than double by 2025, and triple by 2050. How
will this increased global population feed
itself? How can increased food production be
achieved in an environmentally sustainable
manner? Where should this food be produced,
andbywhom?
The first Green Revolution of the 1960s and
1970s saved millions from starvation, and ranks as
one of the greatest scientific and social
achievements of the century U.S. science
and particularly the U.S. universities played a
major role in generating the Green Revolution.
They helped develop new high-yielding varieties of
cereals, trained hundreds of scientists from
developing countries in new scientific methods,
helped develop their agricultural research and
educational systems, and helped to bring about
policy reforms. But the U.S. involvement in
international developmentassistance generally and
in agriculture particularly has now declined.
These are not times of plenty in international
agricultural research. Agriculture has become
sidelined in the agendas of traditional sponsors by
concerns for the environment, declining commodity
prices, and complacency in the face of OECD food
surpluses. As a consequence, all players are under
tight budget constraints, and must find


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Executive Summary


new, more cost-effective ways of addressing
formidable global problems. Since the debt
crisis began in the early 1980s, expenditures of
developing countries on agriculture have declined,
leaving a vast number of well-trained research
scientists underpaid and underutilized. The
CGIAR, too, is facing a funding crisis.
Yet the pressures of rapid population growth
have also caught up with the Green Revolution's
gains, and stagnating agricultural production,
combinedwithrampantenvironmental degradation,
once again raise Malthusian concerns of
widespread poverty and hunger. In the wake of the
first Green Revolution have come a new set of
second generation problems, indudingwater
logging and salinization of soils, yield stagnation,
and the movement of millions of farmers to
marginal lands. The challenge of productivity
growth has become more complex than ever.

A Call for a Second Green
Revolution
The most urgent task facing the international
development community is the need to
reconcile sustainability with productivity
growth. Demands and pleas to protect and
wisely manage environmental resources have
overtaken the equally strong need to produce
more food.
Some claim that international trade and
food aid can address poverty and hunger in
developing countries. But this report argues
that much of the increase in food and
agricultural production must occur in
developing countries by the poor themselves.


It is the only way of increasing their food security,
creating livelihoods, protectingnatural resources,
and establishingafoundation for long-term and
broad-based economic growth in the countries in
which the poor reside.

Benefits to the United States
Enhanced agricultural productivity in
developing countries will bring great benefits
to the United States and the world community.
The first Green Revolution in Asia led to
broad-based economic growth and improved
political stability, which in turn expanded
markets for U.S. good and services. It also
increased U.S. access to important plant
genetic material and helped to protect and
maintain global biodiversity by conserving
forest lands, including rain forests.
In a rapidly integrating and
interdependent world system, the costs to the
United States of neglecting the pressing,
interrelated problems of poverty,
environmental degradation, and food
insecurity will be profound. Such costs could
range from growing ethnic conflicts in the
developing world to increased U.S.
humanitarian and military interventions to
increased flows of impoverished international
migrants, loss of valuable plant species, global
warming and loss of potential markets. With
growing populations and poverty in the
developing world, the spread of pests and
diseases which damage humans, crops, and
animals is also a real danger.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Executive Summary


A Research Agenda for the 21st
Century
Research has been a powerful tool for
increasing agricultural productivity, and
returns to agricultural research have been
impressive. Although it is clear that the past
emphasis on productivity alone was not
enough, neither is the recent exclusive stress on
environmental concerns. In this report, we
argue for a research agenda that incorporates
objectives of both sustainability and
productivity, so that the food demands of the
21st century may be met.
This agenda involves a major mobilization
of U.S. scientific talent along the length of the
research continuum: from basic laboratory
research through strategic and applied
research, to adaptive research and
development to make significant contributions
jointly with their partners in the CGIAR
Centers and NARS. U.S. university
involvement shows greatestpromise in the
following areas: (1) enhanced productivity,
food security, and human nutrition; (2)
sustainable use of soil, water, forests and
fisheries; (3) conservation of biological
diversity in natural systems and in
domesticated plant and animals; and (4)
coping with an uncertain and fluctuating
climate. U.S. expertise would also make
invaluable contributions in bringing to bear
indigenous knowledge and policy and
institutional analysis to the concerns of
sustainability.


The Need for U.S. Leadership
There are compelling reasons for the U.S.
scientific community to reengage itself as a
leading partner in a second Green Revolution,
all related to the United States' unique
capacities for leadership in such an endeavor.
First, there is proven track record of the
U.S. universities.
Second, the U.S. has the single largest pool of
scientific talent in the world, with a total (private
and public sector) annual investmentin agricultural
and related environmental research alone
amounting to nearly $5 billion. In contrast, the
annual outlay of the CGIAR for operation of its 16
centers for agricultural and environmental research
in the entire developingworld (population: over 4
billion) amounted to only $270 million.
Third, the United States is already the
world's largest provider of higher education to
nationals of developing countries. The tasks
facing the NARS in the upcoming century are
so massive that enhanced effort to build their
capacities is an essential component of the
research agenda. Future productivity growth
in developing countries will depend on the
ability of the national institutions to play a
central role in technology generation and
diffusion. The greatest challenge is to help
NARS scientists be productive in their home
countries, where severe constraints impact on
their ability to conduct research.
Fourth, there is a substantial reservoir of
U.S. university researchers who are keenly
interested in international issues. This talent
pool must be mobilized to generate new
technologies and promote agriculture.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Executive Summary


Finally and importantly, advances in fields
such as molecular biology, ecology, sociology,
law, and economic theory have expanded the
alternatives in addressing poverty and hunger.
Communications technology, low-cost air
travel, and computerization have brought
phenomenal improvements in the efficiency of
information exchange. The CGIAR Centers
have emerged as important bridges between
industrialized countries and the NARS. These
developments have created favorable
conditions for collaborative research between
scientists scattered across the globe.
Collaborations can reduce transaction
costs, allowing institutions to acquire research
services for which they have no comparative
advantage. The areas of comparative
advantage of U.S. universities are their
advanced capacities in basic and adaptive
science, excellence in research methods, and
client orientation. The CGIAR center are well
positioned for strategic and adaptive research,
while the NARS institutions, which are closest
to farmers and local problems, are most
effective in applied research. Effective
collaborative research plays up the
comparative advantages of each partner,
thereby capturing economies of scope and
scale. Strengths are balanced against
weaknesses for the most cost-effective
relationship.

The GREAN Initiative
Recognizing both the challenges and the
opportunities in the current scene, the TRIPS
taskforce proposes a bold new US. initiative,


GREAN, to enhance collaborative research efforts
among the US. universities, CGIARCenters, and
developing country NARS. The GREAN initiative
will establish a program of competitive research
grants, a well-proven mechanism for bringing the
best scientific knowledge and methods to bear in
collaborative, disciplinaryand interdisciplinary
research to address crucial problems on a
consistent, predictable and longterm basis.
The GREAN initiative envisions a program of
research funding, predicated on a set of basic
operatingprinciples:
GREAN would fund innovative
research proposals consistent with the research
agenda for the 21st century. Each program
would address the entire continuum of
research, from basic to applied.
Proposals would involve scientists
from all three partner institutions in true
tripartite involvement in the setting of research
priorities and the conduct of research.
High priority would be assigned to
problems perceived by NARS to be in need of
immediate attention. Proposals would include
explicit measures to strengthen NARS
capacities to design and implement their own
research agendas.
Program grants would range from
$750,000 to $1.4 million per year for periods of
generally three to ten years.
Each of the collaborating institutions
would be held to high standards of scientific
and financial accountability.


The GREAN organization would include
scientific panels who would engage in a
dynamic, ongoing process for the


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Executive Summary


establishment and review of global research
priorities. GREAN would also develop
methods for actively enhancing information
flow among scientists and institutions,
including the creation of databases.
This competitive grants program would
operate for at least 20 to 30 years and be
administered in an apolitical manner,
preferably under the auspices of the National
Research Council, National Science
Foundation or another designated lead agency.
Funding the GREAN initiative at an
adequate level requires a response on the part
of U.S. foundations and the government
commensurate with the magnitude of the
problems. The initiative envisions $10 million
to $15 million as seed money for a period of
five years to be contributed on a pilot basis by
U.S. foundations interested in issues related to
population, agriculture, environment, poverty
and gender, biotechnology, health, and human
capital. This initial contribution will allow
GREAN to perfect the program design, while
allowing the time needed to undertake the
necessary education to secure a federal
appropriation of up to $100 million of new
money annually from the U.S. Congress.


A fundamental premise of the GREAN
initiative is that a collaborative approach to
research that draws on the comparative
advantage of each partner institution
constitutes a direct, effective way to deal with
the triple challenge of population growth,
environmental degradation, and world hunger. In
an increasinglyinterconnected global economy, the
enhancement of food production and incomes of


the poor in the developing countries would be in
the best interest of the U.S. and other industrialized
countries.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability







Preface


Facing Global Challenges






The world today is faced with three
challenges of unprecedented magnitude: (1)
population growth, (2) poverty, and (3)
environmental degradation. Even taken
separately they present a set of complex and
taxing problems together they are formidable.
That is why it is now necessary to formulate
and implement a strategy to renew our efforts
to protect the environment and natural
resources while developing agricultural
technologies that will ensure an adequate food
supply for the rapidly increasing global
population. What is required is a strategy for a
major cooperative effort on a grand,
coordinated, international scale. The initiative
proposed in this report, "Global Research on
the Environmental and Agricultural Nexus," is
such a strategy.
The objective of the GREAN initiative is to
stimulate collaborative research and its rapid
application in the biological, environmental,
physical, and social sciences to address
simultaneously the problems of productivity
growth, environmental sustainability, and
alleviation of poverty in the developing world.
It is a long-term strategy one meant to
stimulate and fund consistent effort over a 20-
to 30-year period.
This report explains why such an initiative
is needed, and outlines means for its
implementation. It envisions that experts from
many fields who understand the complicated,


interrelated problems will work together to
ensure a sustainable future for the planet and
humankind. Many types of contributors are
needed to turn the vision to reality:
researchers, farmers, students, foundations,
universities, international institutions, and
political leaders. The initiative will require
political will, creative research, institutional
support, infusion of new money and to face the
challenges ahead with determination and
commitment. The report will show what can
be done and how.


This Report

"Global Research on the Environmental and
Agricultural Nexus" is an outgrowth of the
workshop in May 1993, Reconciling
Sustainability with Productivity Growth. The
workshop was organized by the University of
Florida and Cornell University in recognition
of the urgent need to increase factor
productivity in developing countries to
eliminate the massive incidence of poverty.
But given growing environmental concerns,
productive new technologies must be
sustainable in the ecologically diverse
conditions of small farm agriculture in
developing countries. The triple requirement
of productivity, sustainability, and poverty
alleviation calls for innovative new ideas,
including those from the frontiers of science.
The vast U.S. establishment and particularly
the U.S. universities have tremendous
potential to work collaboratively with
developing country scientists and with
scientists in the Consultative Group on


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability













International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
system to address the urgent problems of
poverty, hunger, and environmental
sustainability. Yet the involvement of U.S.
universities in international agricultural
research has declined steadily since the early
1970s, when the U.S. contributed substantially
to the generation of the first Green Revolution
in Asia.
To explore the causes and consequences of
the decline in U.S. involvement, to develop a
consensus on the need for action, and to decide
on the steps needed to achieve it, the
University of Florida and Cornell University
cosponsored the workshop, which involved
the participation of 120 scientists from 13
major U.S. land grant universities and 14
international centers of the Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR), several scientists in the national
agricultural research systems (NARS) of
developing countries, representatives of the
CGIAR Secretariat and members of the CGIAR
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), as well
as representatives of international and bilateral
donor organizations and private foundations.
The deliberations of the three-day workshop
in Gainesville, Florida, were highly successful.
They led the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations
to finance a follow-up taskforce, whose
mandate was to propose means for
operationalizing some of the ideas which
emerged from the workshop into concrete
actions. Guidelines to the taskforce from the
two foundations stressed that the proposals
should derive lessons from the successful
experience of the past. But the foundations


also urged that the proposals critically analyze
the reasons for past failures in cooperation
between U.S. universities and developing
countries, and reflect upon implications for
future collaborations.
Designated the Taskforce on Research
Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability
(TRIPS), the group consisted of U.S. university
scientists, CGIAR center directors, and
managers of national agricultural research
centers in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The
taskforce also called upon others with
specialized expertise for assistance.
The taskforce met four times and organized
itself into working groups on Substantive
Issues, Collaborative Mechanisms, and
Resource Mobilization.
This report is the outcome of the taskforce's
efforts.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability







Acknowledgements


The members of the Taskforce on Research
Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability
(TRIPS) would like to thank the Ford
Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation for
the funds that supported their work. They are
especially grateful for the continuing interest
shown by Joyce Moock and Robert Herdt of
the Rockefeller Foundation and Walter Coward
of the Ford Foundation.
TRIPS also appreciates the support of the
two lead institutions and their faculties, the
University of Florida and Cornell University,
each of which hosted one meeting. TRIPS
would particularly like to recognize President
John Lombardi, E.T. York, and Jim Davidson,
all from the University of Florida, for their
strong support since the inception of this effort.
Similarly, throughout the deliberations of the
taskforce, the colleagues at the CGIAR
Secretariat, particularly Alexander von der
Osten and Michael Collinson, have lent their
unwavering support, and hosted two of the
four taskforce meetings at the World Bank.
The taskforce members would also like to
acknowledge the intellectual stimulation they
have received from work on various outside
committees and groups; specifically, Uma Lele
would like to acknowledge many stimulating
discussions with the chairman of TAC, Alex
McCalla, and members of the CGIAR's Vision
Committee and Stakeholders' Panel on which
she served. They have offered many valuable
insights throughout this process. She would
similarly like to thank Ismail Serageldin,
Chairman of the CGIAR, for inspiring
discussions on the future vision of the CGIAR
and his support for this endeavor.


The taskforce also appreciates the
contributions of: David Altmann, Carl
Barfield, Randy Barker, Rick Bernstein, Robert
Bertram, Ambassador Robert Blake, Ralph
Cummings, Jr., Dana Dalrymple, Joe DeVries,
David Hansen, P.K. Nair, and Anita Spring.
Bob Emerson, Lawrence Libby, and Mohan
Agarwal who provided valuable comments on
the draft.
Project assistant Marjatta Eilitta made an
exceptional intellectual and managerial
contribution to the work of the taskforce, and
particularly to the quality and timeliness of
this report. The taskforce would also like to
acknowledge Mike Martin and Jim Gockowski
for their substantive contribution to the
presentation of this report. Paul Psychas and
Diane Stamm edited this report. Gillian Hillis
provided editorial assistance, Cyndi Aho in the
Office of International Studies and Programs at
the University of Florida did the layout, Chun
Wang and Roe Devera assisted with the
graphs, and Theresa Gagliano and Dedra
Smith provided secretarial support.

These contributions are gratefully recognized.


Uma Lele
University of Florida


Ronnie Coffman
Cornell University


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT










LIST OF ACRONYMS



ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
ANAFE African Network for Agroforestry Education
ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa
BOSTID Board on Science and Technology for International Development
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CID Consortium for International Development
CIFOR Center International Forestry Research
CIIFAD Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development
CIP Centro Intemacional de la Papa(Ch.2,p.12)
CIRAD Centre de Cooperation Internationale en recherche agronomique pour le development (France)
CRSP Collaborative Research Support Program
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GNP Gross National Product
GREAN Global Research on the Environmental and Agricultural Nexus
IARC International Agricultural Research Center(Ch.2,p.11)
ICRAF International Center for Resources in Agroforestry
IFPRI International Food Policy research Institute(Ch.l,p.4)
INSAH Institut du Sahel
IPM Integrated Pest Management
IRRI International Rice Research Institute
IRRI International Rice Research Institute
ISNAR International Service for National Agricultural Research
MUCIA Midwest Universities Consortium for International Activities
NARI National Agricultural Research Institution
NARS National Agricultural Research System
NARS National Agricultural Research System
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
NRC National Academy of Sciences
OECD Organization Of Economic Cooperation and Development
ORSTOM Institut francais de recherche scientifique pour le development en cooperation
SACCER Southern Africa Center for International Research
SECID Southeast Consortium for International Development
SPAAR Special Program for African Agricultural Research
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
UDLP University Development Linkages Program
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
WARDA West Africa Rice Development Association
WHO World Health Organization
WIAD Women in Agricultural Development
WRI World Resources Institute


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Table of Contents


FOREWORD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PREFACE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


LIST OF ACRONYMS




CHAPTER 1. THE TRIPLE GLOBAL CHALLENGE POPULATION GROWTH, POVERTY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION A CALL FOR A U.S. RESPONSE

Introduction
Poverty and Food Insecurity at Century's End
The Daunting Problem of Environmental Degradation
A Call for a Second Green Revolution

Benefits to the U.S. of Agricultural Development in Developing Countries
The Asian Scenario
The African Scenario

The New Research Agenda: Reconciling Sustainability with Productivity Growth
Lessons from the First Green Revolution
Opportunities for Future Collaboration

The GREAN Initiative


CHAPTER 2. PARTNERS IN INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Taking Stock
The Sidelining of Agricultural Research
Toward an Ideal Global Research System
A Rationale for Collaboration

The U.S. University System
Vast size and Economies of Scale and Scope
The Demand -Driven Nature of the U.S. System
Integration With Basic Sciences


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Table of Contents








The Role of U.S. Universities in International Human Capital Development
The lack of Incentives for international Research
Legal and institutional Expertise

The CGIAR System
History and Mission o the CGIAR
CGIAR Research Priorities
Funding Problems
Lack of Disciplinary Depth
Cost-Effectiveness Concerns

The NARS
History of NARS Expansion
Current Status of the NARS
NARS Research Priorities
Constraints on NARS Scientists

Other Significant Players
Private U.S. Foundations
Non-Governmental Organizations(NGOs)

Comparative Advantages of the Three Partners




CHAPTER 3. PRIORITIES FOR GLOBAL RESEARCH ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND
AGRICULTURAL NEXUS

Introduction

The Priorities of the GREAN Initiative
Priority Setting
Cross-Cutting, Integrating Research Themes

GREAN Priorities: Integrating Productivity with Sustainability

Research Program Area 1: Enchanced productivity, food security and nutrition
Research Program Area 2: Soils, Water, Forest and Fisheries
Research Program Area 3: Conservation of Biological Diversity in Natural Systems
and Domesticated Plants and Animals
Research Program Area 4: Coping With an Uncertain and Fluctuating Climate


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Table of Contents


CHAPTER 4. LEARNING FROM EXISTING MECHANISMS FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH

Introduction

Criteria for Evaluating Success in Collaborative Research


Existing Mechanisms for Collaborative Research
U.S.-led Modalities for Collaborative Research
CGIAR-led Mechanisms for Collaborative Research

Inadequacies of Current Collaboration




CHAPTER 5. THE PROPOSED GREAN INITIATIVE

Introduction

The GREAN Initiative: Mission Statement

Operating Principles
Financial Effectiveness
Collaborative Structure of Research
Composition and Scope of Research Programs

Organizational Structure
Lead Agency
Governing Board
Director's Office
Management of Research Program Areas
Internal Management of Research Programs

The Two-Stage Application Process

Funding Allocation

Launching the GREAN Initiative

Implication for Other Actors and Donors


REFERENCES


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


List of Figures


Chapter
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
5
5


Average Growth in Real Per Capita GNP
Population and Poverty in the Developing World
The Effects of the Green Revolution on Food Production
Fertilizer Use in the Developing World
Global Agricultural Research System
Agricultural Research Expenditures
Size of Developing Country NARS
GREAN-Related Grant Allocation of Major U.S. Foundations
Organizational Structure of the GREAN Initiative
Collaborative Relations Along the Research-Development Continuum in a GREAN Program


List of Tables
Chapter

3 Research Priorities of the GREAN Actors
3 The Ecoregional Approach and GREAN
4 U.S. University Consortia


List of Boxes
Chapter
1 The Role of Gender in Agricultural Development
1 Environmental Problems of Irrigated Agriculture
1 War and Rumors of War
2 Transaction Costs
2 Economies of Scope and Scale
2 CGIAR Global Network & CGIAR World Network Map
3 An Ecoregional Approach
3 Fostering Adoption of Sustainable Practices
3 Examples of Research Programs on Enhanced Productivity
3 An Example of a Research Program on Sustainable Land Use on Hillsides
3 An Example of a Research Program in Biodiversity
3 An Example of a Research Program on Global Climate Change
4 A Scientist Without Borders


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 1


The Triple Global Challenge -

Population Growth,

Poverty, and

Environmental

Degradation

A Call for a U.S. Response


Contents


Benefits to the U.S. of Agricultural
Development in the Developing Countries

The New Research Agenda: Reconciling
Sustainability with Productivity Growth

The GREAN Initiative


"There is today a vast technological fault line.
On one side are the fast growing, adolescent,
undercapitalized, undereducated societies; on the
other the rich, technologically inventive yet
demographically aging populations. The greatest
challenge that global society faces is preventing this
fault line from erupting into a world-shaking
crisis."

Paul Kennedy, historian and author of The Rise and
Fall of the Great Powers and Preparing for the Twenty-First
Century, and codirector of the Independent Working
Group on the Future of the United Nations. (International
Herald Tribune, Saturday-Sunday, July 23-24, 1994, p. 6)


Introduction

By the year 2050, the world population will
double, with 90 percent of the increase to occur
in developing countries, where over 80 percent
of the global population already lives. Food
demand in the developing countries will more
than double by 2025, and triple by 2050.
Indeed, by the year 2025, developing country
grain requirements will be more than three
times the current size of the U.S. harvest. This
reality raises urgent questions for the very
future of the planet and humankind.
How will this greatly increased global
population feed itself, when already a billion
people in developing countries go to bed
hungry every night? How can increased food
production be achieved in an environmentally
sustainable manner? And where should this
food be produced, and by whom?
In the middle decades of the twentieth
century, advances in agricultural research
helped provide temporary answers to such
questions. After the Second World War, great
increases in food production flowed from the
rapid progress in scientific understanding of
soils and crops, along with focused efforts to
increase productivity through breeding and
crop management. In the 1960s and 1970s,
these efforts reached farmers in developing
countries such as India and China on a scale
sufficient to prevent widespread malnutrition
and famine. The high-yielding varieties of rice
and wheat have contributed an additional 50
million tons of food per year, an extraordinary
success hailed as a "Green Revolution." The
resulting increased food security laid the


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability


I





DRAFT


Chapter 1: The Triple Challenge


foundation for socioeconomic development in
many of the developing countries.

Poverty and Food Insecurity at
Century's End

The Green Revolution was one of the
greatest scientific and social achievements of
the twentieth century, and saved much of
humanity from untold suffering and misery.
Yet the pressures of growing populations have
caught up with its gains, and the consequences
of poverty and inadequate food security are
being seen in a myriad of social crises.
Global income disparities are worsening. In
1962, the wealthiest 20 percent of the world's
population had 30 times the income of the
poorest 20 percent. Today, the gap has
doubled to more than 60 times (G. Speth, n.d.).
While certain countries in East Asia have
transformed their economies and joined the
ranks of the newly industrialized, and while
several Latin American countries have enjoyed
robust recoveries, the economic and social
deterioration of other countries, particularly in
Africa, has been severe. Average annual
growth rates in per capital income in Africa and
Latin America as a whole have declined for
two successive decades and were actually
negative in the 1980s (see figure p. 3).
Nearly 70 percent of the world's poor live
in the largely agrarian countries of South Asia
and Sub-Saharan Africa (see figure p. 4) where
roughly two-thirds of the population depends
on agriculture for its livelihood. A
disproportionate share of these poor reside in
rural households headed by women with few
productive resources (see box). There is now a


The Role of Gender in
Agricultural Development
The need for agricultural innovations that
will enhance the value and productivity of
women farmers goes right to the heart of the
issues of population growth and
environmentally sustainable development.
Given on one hand the strong negative X
correlation between earnings of women and
their fertility rates, and on the other their
extensive employment in agriculture, a strong
research effort focused on such innovations is
critical. Increased educational opportunities
for rural women, as called for in the recent
UN population conference in Cairo, are a
necessary and complementary element in this
strategy.
Women constitute almost one-half of all
farmers. Their success in agriculture is crucial
to improving the quality of children's lives as
well as reducing the number of new births.
Women tend to have a higher marginal
propensity to spend on their children's
education and health than do men farmers.
Women farmers clearly merit attention that
traditional male-dominated societies and
research systems overlook. Moreover,
breaking gender barriers in worldwide
research institutions is crucial to comprehend
uIlly the problems and. more importantIN to
access the best technical talent available

general consensus that the failure to increase
or even maintain the local production of food
and agricultural commodities is at the heart of
the overall economic failure in many
developing countries.

The Daunting Problem of
Environmental Degradation
To the global dilemmas of poverty and
hunger has now been added a third overriding
concern: environmental degradation. In the


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 1: The Triple Challenge


Average Growth in Real Per Capita GNP


-1.3% II
-2% - --- -------- ------------------ - - - -
I 1965-73 H 1973-80 [ 1980-90 -2.5%
-4%Source: World Bank 1993
Source: World Bank, 1993


wake of the Green Revolution, serious
concerns have emerged over the ecological
effects of the new agricultural technologies and
the sustainability of these practices. It has
become obvious that the productivity and
viability of our natural resource base cannot be
taken for granted. Concerns for conservation
and sustainable management of natural
resources have proven to be much more than a
fad; hence they are unlikely to disappear from
center stage.



Environmental Problems of
Irrigated Agriculture
Irrigated agriculture yields, which increased 88
percent from 1964 to 1986 in South and Southeast
Asia, have slowed considerably. Marginal response
to additional inputs of chemical fertilizers and
pesticides has diminished. Both the quantity and
quality of water have become major limiting factors.
A large share of irrigated land is being damaged by
salinization and waterlogging. If present rates of
salinization continue, according to one estimate,
nearly 30 percent of the world's irrigated area is
expected to be lost by 2025 and nearly 50 percent


ica

Arable land for food production
on a per capital basis in the
developing countries is decreasing,
while deforestation, soil erosion, and
water and fuelwood shortages have
been increasing. The current
average of 0.7 acres of arable land
per capital in the developing
countries is expected to decline to
0.4 acres by 2025 (WRI, 1992). Much
of the increased agricultural output
from the Green Revolution in Asia
was due to an increase in irrigated land with
multiple cropping sequences and high
applications of chemical inputs, supported by
World Bank lending for irrigation
development. Environmental concerns about
irrigation have virtually cut off the vast
investment in irrigation of the 1970s and 1980s
(see box).
The rapid productivity gains from the adoption
of the Green Revolution's improved wheat and rice
varieties in the 1960s and 1970s have now slowed.
Further gains are becoming increasingly more


by 2050 VVRI, 1992). With increased use of ground
water and damming of rivers for irrigation, water
tables have receded, increasing the cost of accessing
ground water. Since 70 percent of freshwater
consumption is dedicated to agricultural production, a
shortage of drinking water is also becoming severe in
areas of high population density. Indeed, water X
shortages may become the crisis of the twenty-first
centuryin manyparts of the developing world. With
increased fertilizer consumption, the runoffs of
chemicals into rivers and estuaries are also a problem,
leading to the destruction of marine life and the spread
of water-borne diseases.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 1: The Triple Challenrgo


Population and Poverty in the Developing World, 1985


29.7%
40.2% %


11.2%
11.1%
Percentage of population

Sub-Saharan Africa
E3 South Asia
l East Asia


46.4%


~5.9%
25.0% 6.6%
16.1%
Percentage of poor


Latin America and Caribbean
* Europe, Middle East, North Africa


Source: World Bank, 1990


difficult because of growing land shortages,
problems of waterlogging on irrigated lands,
reduced quality and quantity of water, and soil
erosion.

A Call for a Second Green
Revolution

Even from this brief overview of global
challenges, it is clearly evident that the need to
increase agricultural production has not lost its
urgency Rapid population growth rates
coupled with stagnating or even decreasing
agricultural production in many developing
countries still raise Malthusian concerns.
Increased agricultural productivity is essential
for reducinghunger and poverty among the billion
poor people, most earning less than one dollar per
day, who make their livelihood in agrarian-driven
economies. Thus the challenge confronting
agricultural research at the start of the twenty-first
century is one of reconciling the developing
world's need for increased agricultural production
with the imperative of sustaining environmental
resources.
What is needed is nothing less than a second
Green Revolution, one with a new agenda,


appropriate to the complex and changing
problems of today's developing world
(TAC, 1992). While its realization is
urgent, a second Green Revolution will
be harder to bring to fruition than the
first. Innovations must not only boost
factor productivity, but do so by using
fewer resources and inputs, while
simultaneously protecting the natural
resource base in heterogeneous
environments. Moreover, the advances
must reach the hundreds of millions of farmers
in Africa and elsewhere who were bypassed by
the first Green Revolution-those with the more
limited resources, the more marginal land.
The United States scientific community is in
a unique position to provide the global
leadership to direct this historic enterprise.
Compelling arguments, both economic and
political, suggest that the United States will stand to
benefit tremendously from success in this endeavor.


Benefits to the U.S. of
Agricultural Development in
the Developing Countries

Some argue that there is enough scientific and
productive capacity in the commercial agricultural
sectors of the industrial countries to feed the world
indefinitely (U.S. News and World Report,
1994). In the U.S. and Europe, 57 million acres
that have been "set aside" as part of farm
income support programs could be returned to
farming. An additional 200 million acres of
savannah land could be brought into
production by the commercial agricultural
sectors of South America with few additional


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 1: The Triple Challenge


costs (op. cit.). Such arguments sidestep the
truism that industrial countries' commercial
farmers will work these lands only if someone
is willing and able to pay for the additional
production.
Who pays for the additional food demand
in the developing countries will depend on
whether the food production and incomes of
poor rural farmers in the developing world
increase. The costs to the U.S., if incomes and
food production do not increase, will include
increased food aid, increased funding of UN
military interventions to stifle civil strife, a
rising tide of illegal immigration, and the
worsening degradation of the world's natural
resources (see box). This report argues that
increasing local food production and incomes
in developing countries is the most direct and
effective way to deal with the triple challenge
of poverty, environmental degradation, and
growing world hunger, and is in the best long-
term political and economic interest of the U.S.
In the highly agrarian economies of the
developing countries, the only way to increase
incomes and food security is through
increasing the productivity of the rural
population. The failure to achieve this growth
can have serious consequences for the U.S..
This argument is vividly illustrated by a
comparison of the following two scenarios of
agricultural development: the Asian
experience with the Green Revolution versus
theAfrican experience of stagnant agricultural
productivity. The two scenarios show that despite
the vast capacity of agriculture in the U.S.,
increased agricultural production will need to take
place in the developing countries themselves.


War and Rumors of War


The recently televised crises in Somalia,
Rwanda, and Haiti are just three of nearly 100
other, lesser-known armed conflicts in the
developing world. These conflicts are a result
of a complex set of problems. They include
rising populations and stagnant productivity
growth in agriculture. The resultant pressures
on land, water, forests, and marine resources
lead to unsanitary and unproductive living
conditions, exacerbate ethnic rivalries,and force
the spread of spillover conflicts, refugees, and
communicable diseases. Poor political
leadership, entrenched vested interests, and
increased availability of small arms also
contribute to the problem. A combination of
these factors is already having a direct impact
on internal U.S. politics and resources in states
such as California, Florida, Texas, and New
York, while putting American lives in danger in
the attempt to resolve the conflicts abroad.
International humanitarian and military
interventions to assuage the human suffering of
these conflicts have sharply increased and have
siphoned off international resources from
developmental activities. Emergency aid and
I distress relief as a share of OECD development
assistance doubled from 1990 to 1992, while the
$3.6 billion cost of U.N. peace-keeping
operations in 1993 was more than tenfold the
1988 level (G. Speth, n.d.). A recent article
argues that growing resource shortages and
their socio-political consequences in developing
countries are on the verge of becoming the
major national security problem for the U.S. and
the other industrial countries (Kaplan, 1994).
Renewed U.S. leadership in international
agricultural research will be an important
component of the long-term solution to these
problems.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 1: The Triple Choallenge


The Asian Scenario
The rapidly industrializing, land-scarce
countries of East and Southeast Asia (e.g.,
China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand,
Philippines) and perhaps the large Latin
American countries (such as Mexico and
Brazil) may well have the capacity to pay for
increased food imports. The phenomenal
growth in their manufactured goods exports in
the last two decades will, in all likelihood,
continue. This group of countries was among
the major beneficiaries of the Green Revolution
as increased local agricultural production
played a major role in their relative economic
success (see figure p. 7).
The Green Revolution inAsia, which U.S.
science and technology helped engineer,
demonstrated clearly that agricultural
productivity growth:
a accelerates the rate of growth of food
production;
" saves millions of people from hunger and
starvation;
" creates livelihoods for rural households
both directly in agriculture and indirectly
by fostering development of the rest of the
country;
" saves millions of acres of marginal
agricultural land from environmental
degradation by allowing intensified
production on the most suitable lands;
" reduces birth rates by increasing the value
of women's time;
" ensures low food prices for urban
populations, which permits development
of the labor-intensive manufacturing


export sector; and
* stimulates broad-based economic growth.

The increased world trade generated by the
broad-based growth of the first Green
Revolution has improved the balance of
payments of cereal exporting countries,
particularly the U.S. and Canada. Indeed,
developing countries' imports of cereals
exceeded those of developed countries in the
early 1990s, with the dynamic Asian countries
leading the growth in those imports. The first
Green Revolution led to multiple benefits for
the United States, because the resulting broad-
based agricultural growth:

m expanded world trade, including markets
for U.S. goods and services (the most
successful Asian countries in agriculture
are the most important customers of U.S.
products, including farm inputs,
animal feeds, fruits, and edible oils);
i increased U.S. access to important plant
genetic material;
a helped to protect and maintain global
biodiversity by conserving wild lands,
including the rain forests;
* slowed the tide of international migration
by increasing the prosperity of developing
countries;
* controlled the spread of pests and diseases
that can cause harm worth billions of
dollars to the U.S. agricultural industry
and human population; and
* reduced the growing U.S. burden of
international military and humanitarian
support by improving political stability.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 1: The Triple Challenge


Effects of the Green Revolution on Food Production


1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992
Year
Source: FAO, 1993


In spite of these remarkable gains, the
food-population equation in Asia is still a
concern. Looking to the future, Asia, with a
projected population of 4.2 billion by 2020, will
have to meet much of its increased food
demand with local production. Nearly 90
percent of the world's rice is produced in Asia,
by more than 90 percent of the world's rice
farmers, who in turn constitute more than half
of the world's poor. The world must produce
350 million additional tons of rice in addition
to the base of the 520 million produced in 1993
to meet the rising demand, and a large share of
the increment must clearly be produced in Asia
(IRRI, 1994). With current per capital land
availability of only .13 acres in Asia,
productivity must increase substantially to
meet this challenge. Much of that increase
must come from lands with good soils and
assured water so as to relieve population
pressure on fragile, marginal lands.


150

140
II
130

0 120

110

o 100
U-
a
90

S80


STaskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability


I


EAST ASIA


I-


The African Scenario
Problems in Africa are, of course, very
pressing and indicative of a rapidly widening
technological gap and stagnant productivity
growth. In contrast to the large populous
Asian countries such as China, India, and
Indonesia, which increased their food self-
sufficiency ratio thanks to the sophisticated
research capacity established and productivity
growth achieved in the Green Revolution, African
per capital food production and self-sufficiency
ratios have declined (see figure). African self-
sufficiency ratios have dropped from 100
percent at the beginning of the 1970s to 80
percent by the end of the 1980s. There are
many factors that explain the poor
performance of African agriculture, but near
the top of any list would be its inadequate
agricultural research capacity. National
research systems in Africa are small, fragile,
and woefully underfunded.
The poor countries in Africa, and others in
South Asia and Latin America will not have
the foreign exchange to pay for food imports to
feed their poor and landless on the scale
needed. Even if theywere capable of importing
their projected food demand, the port, storage,
transport, and handlingfacilities to manage the vast
increase in imports are not currently sufficient.
And finally, and most importantly, the
imported food is not likely to reach the poorest
of the poor, who lack the money to buy it.
In addition, with African agriculture more
dependent than Asia on less fertile soils and on
low and uncertain rainfall, technological
change has been more difficult to achieve in


AFRICA





DRAFT


Chapter 1: The Triple Challenge


Fertilizer Use in the Developing World



All Developing .. ..


S 15 .-.. -.. -...................................... ..- .....-....






S ....................... Africa


1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991
Source FAO, 1993
Source FAO, 1993


and Africa in the next quarter
century (Gavira et al., 1989).
The crux of these arguments is
that unless something is done,
and done quickly, to improve
agricultural productivity, not only
will the budgetary burden on the
U.S. of increased food aid to the
least developed countries in
Africa and Asia be large, but
increasing U.S. domestic yields to
levels capable of meeting these
world food requirements will
have high environmental costs
and meet political resistance.


the diverse semiarid production conditions on
which the growing African population is
increasingly dependent. Average fertilizer use
in Africa is only 4 kg per acre, while Africa's
share of world fertilizer consumption has
eroded further from 8.4 percent in 1970 to 2.5
percent in 1991 (see figure). Though demand
has increased, Africa's food import capacity
has diminished, with declines in the real prices
of its primary commodity exports and
declining export volumes; as a consequence,
levels of food aid have been increasing.
As if these problems were not pressing
enough, the limited bases of finance and
trained personnel, underfunded institutions,
and poor infrastructure make achieving
technological progress and adoption of
technology a great challenge in Africa. With
today's population densities similar to those of
India's in the 1950s, Nigeria has only
approximately 20 percent of the feeder roads
India possessed at that time, and most African
scholars are arguing that the infrastructure
gap is unlikely to be bridged between Asia


The New Research
Agenda: Reconciling
Sustainability with
Productivity Growth

Our call for a second Green Revolution
is based on the belief that reconciling
sustainability with productivity growth is
the most urgent task facing the
international agricultural research
community. On the one hand, the world's
annual population growth of 100 million
compels an increase in food production.
On the other hand, this need for higher
levels of food production causes an
increased use of agricultural chemicals and
other inputs, an intensified utilization of
marginal lands, and greater demands on
already limited infrastructures, leading, in
many cases, to environmental stress and
degradation. Demands and pleas to
protect and wisely manage environmental
resources compete with equally strong
demands and


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 1: The Triple Challenge


pleas to produce more food.
How then can the scientific community mobilize
its energies and apply them in a coordinated
manner to accomplish this task in a timely fashion?
How can the U.S. help to lead this second
revolution? It is instructive to look to the first
Green Revolution as a precedent.

Lessons from the First Green
Revolution
Why were U.S. scientists and universities
able to make such dramatic contributions to
meeting the developing world's needs for food
and fiber? First, they brought some of the best
basic science to bear on technological change.
Second, they helped to build local capacity
through training. Third, they helped to
redirect research programs in the developing
countries to areas where there was the greatest
potential for technological breakthroughs.
Fourth, the U.S. also helped to institute
appropriate agricultural policies in many
developing countries that provided the
incentives for farmer adoption of improved
varieties. The first Green Revolution
demonstrated the value of partnerships among
scientists, politicians, and administrators;
partnerships among donor agencies; the
centrality of training and institution building;
development and implementation of a
strategic research agenda; and perhaps most
importantly, the importance of flexibility,
learning-by-doing, and institutional
innovations.
The breakthrough technologies and systems of
the Green Revolution, developed in the 1960s and
1970s, resulted from intense collaborative efforts


among scientists throughout the world. The
major contributors were U.S. land grant
universities, National Agricultural Research
Systems (NARS) and the newly established
International Agricultural Research Centers
(IARCs). Exciting developments at the
International Centers, supported by basic and
applied research in U.S. universities, enabled
progress in improving yield potential and
management techniques that could have
hardly been imagined in the 1950s. In
addition, U.S. universities aided these
extraordinary accomplishments of the
International Centers by training their
scientists and helping to build their research
systems.
In 1971, the International Centers, together
with a consortium of U.S. donors, formed the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR), which has expanded the
number of International Centers. The CGIAR
system operates with a heavy focus on the
production of staple food commodities and a
mandate to assist the NARS in enhancing
nutrition and well-being, especially of low
income people.
During the Green Revolution the critical role
played by developing country governments
and their NARS in adapting the IARC
innovations to local conditions was facilitated
by various forms of U.S. assistance. The
research capabilities of the NARS were
strengthened by U.S. investments, provision of
scientific expertise, and graduate training of
nationals from developing countries at agricultural
land-grant institutions.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 1: The Triple Challenge


Opportunities for Future
Collaboration
In the past two decades, the U.S. university
system, still the largest and most advanced in
the world, has seen its once prominent role in
international agricultural research diminish.
The involvement of U.S. universities with the
CGIAR system has decreased, both absolutely
and relative to that of institutions in other
donor countries. Especially significant have
been the decline in U.S. bilateral assistance and
the reduced support for U.S. university
involvement. While the U.S. still contributes
nearly one-fifth of the CGIAR system's
resources, existing opportunities for engaging
U.S. scientific resources in the work of the
system remain limited.
Unfortunately, just as the CGIAR Centers
and the NARS are rising to confront the new,
highly challenging research agenda of the
twenty-first century, they find that the
resources at their disposal are decreasing.
Funding for the CGIAR Centers has stagnated
since 1985 and it has actually decreased since
1991-92, when five new centers oriented to
sustainable resource management were added
to the system. Also, the NARS in many
countries are operatingin extremely difficult
economic situations.
A sustained coordinated approach byU. S.
universities, the CGIARsystem, national programs,
and donors is needed to improve the lot of
hundreds of millions of small farmers and
consumers. The vast system of U.S. land grant
universities continues to have great potential for
assisting the NARS and the CGIAR system in
moving forward a complex research agenda.


The potential for effective collaboration among
these organizations is great because each has
complementary strengths (detailed in Chapter
2). A second basic reason is that the CGIAR
system resources are limited to about $270
million a year (4 percent of total agricultural
research expenditures for developing
countries), and those for the NARS are
stretched very thin, while agricultural science
in the U.S. represents a vast reservoir of human
talent and material resources. In the U.S.
annually, over 11,000 scientists, federal
expenditures of $2.7 billion, and another $3 to
$4 billion of private sector funding are
dedicated to agricultural research-some of
which could be brought to bear on this work.
The CGIAR system has always valued working
with universities and other agricultural research
institutions. By relying on universities and
other research-oriented institutions to conduct
some of the basic research and to devise new
methodologies and conceptual approaches,
CGIAR Centers can use their own scarce
resources more efficiently. Additional benefits
to the CGIAR Centers of a partnership with the
U.S. scientific community include considerably
increasing the productivity of the CGIAR
system at a relatively small cost and sensitizing
the American public to the value of
international agricultural research. CGIAR-
university collaboration has great potential, as
yet unrealized.
The ability of the NARS to play a central
role in technology generation and diffusion
will determine the extent to which future
productivity growth will actually materialize.
Strengthening of NARS research, training, and


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 1: The Triple Challenqe


extension in close collaboration with potential
users is essential. U.S. universities could play
a major role in these areas. The U.S. still
educates a vast number of agricultural
scientists from developing countries, yet only a
few small-scale arrangements currently exist
for financing student and faculty involvement
in the CGIAR system. By strengthening these
linkages, students from developing countries
educated on U.S. campuses would acquire the
necessary training to be productive at home.
The CGIAR system recognizes that it needs to
continue to help strengthen NARS, if it is to
increase productivity in a sustainable manner.
For these reasons, the inclusion of NARS in
collaborative arrangements will be very
important; in fact, it is essential that a tripartite
partnership be formed among NARS, the
CGIAR Centers, and U.S. universities.



The GREAN Initiative

This report presents our proposal for a bold
new U.S. initiative, called Global Research on the
Environmental and Agricultural Nexus (GREAN),
whose mission is to promote, facilitate, and
enhance collaborative research efforts among
CGIAR Centers, developing country NARS,
and the U.S. scientific community, particularly
U.S. universities. The purpose of the initiative
is, through a program of competitive grants, to
focus and channel the best of U.S. agricultural
science on the triple challenge of global
population growth, poverty, and
environmental degradation.
The plan envisions up to $100 millionin funding


by the U.S. Congress in the next three to five
years to permit long-term, consistent planning
and implementation of a collaborative research
effort to spawn a second generation of
"greener" green revolutions throughout the
developing world. It proposes that private
foundations provide $10 million to $15 million
in seed money. These funds would be used to
develop pilot programs in high-priority,
collaborative, and interdisciplinary research
involving the biological, environmental,
physical, and social sciences.
There are four areas of outcome-oriented
research envisioned as priorities in the GREAN
initiative:
a enhanced productivity, food security and
nutrition,
a protection of soils, water, forest, and
fisheries,
a conservation of biological diversity in
nature and in domesticated plants and
animals, and
a coping with an uncertain and fluctuating
climate.

Although the GREAN initiative is
proposed as a U.S.-led effort, the university
systems of other industrialized countries might
be expected to enhance their own involvement
in similar collaborative research. A successful
GREAN initiative would ideally evolve into a
truly global effort, reflecting the shared
responsibility of all nations in finding solutions
to global problems.
The GREAN initiative is proposed as a
direct, effective way to deal with the triple
challenge of population growth, environmental


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT

Chapter 1: The Triple Challenge








degradation, and world hunger. In an
increasingly interconnected global economy,
the enhancement of agricultural research in the
developing countries has major spillover
benefits to the industrialized countries.
Without improved agricultural productivity
and economic growth in the developing
countries, the incidence of famine, civil strife,
and environmental degradation will only
increase.


This chapter has explained the triple
challenges of food insecurity, poverty, and
environmental degradation facing the planet,
and has argued that U.S. leadership is critical
to meet them. Chapter 2 discusses the
interrelated roles of the U.S. university and
CGIAR systems, NARS, and private
foundations in the global research system.
Chapter 3 explores the subject of research
priorities and how to establish them. Chapter
4 examines the lessons of existing collaborative
arrangements and explains why the GREAN
initiative is necessary. And, finally, Chapter 5
outlines the principles underlying the GREAN
initiative and describes its structure.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability








-F


Chapter 2


Partners in International
Agricultural Research




Contents


Taking Stock
The U.S. University System
The CGIAR System
a The NARS
Other Significant Players
Comparative Advantages of the Three
Partners

Agricultural research is an endeavor without
international boundaries. Its major suppliers
include, among others, universities, private
foundations, businesses of industrial countries, the
CGIAR Centers, and a range of developing country
institutions. If the collective energy, talent, and
knowledge of this vast and scattered system could
be harnessed and directed, its potential for
improving living standards and protecting the
environmentwould be enormous.


Taking Stock

The GREAN initiative is a proposal to
harness and coordinate the energies of a subset
of these global research institutions. They are
working toward similar goals but have
different strengths and weaknesses.
Harnessing their energies is not easy but the
large potential returns to such effort make it
well worthwhile.
To do so, we must take stock of the current


situation of international agricultural research,
with a focus on the proposed partners in
collaborative research. The U.S. universities,
the CGIAR Centers and the NARS: Where are
they today, and where are they going? What
are they currently doing well, and what are
their deficiencies? Based on this analysis, we
may identify potential areas for partnership.
It is also important to explicitly examine
our values, and ask: What are our ideals for
international agricultural research? How can we
justify the value we place on collaboration in
research? This chapter will explore answers to
these critical questions.

The Sidelining of Agricultural
Research
Agricultural developmenthas become
sidelined in the agendas of donors. In the
1960s and 1970s, strong U.S. bilateral presence
and the innovative work of private
foundations such as the Rockefeller and Ford
Foundations provided major funding for
agricultural research, training, and institution
building inAsia (Lele & Goldsmith, 1989). Private
and public donors from both industrialized and
developing countries also made significant
investments. During the 1980s and 1990s,
however, large agricultural surpluses in the OECD
countries, declining international prices of
agricultural commodities, and growing
environmental concerns resulted in complacency
aboutfood and agriculture, and reduced public
supportfor agricultural research and education. As
a consequence, all players in the global research
system are under tight budget constraints and must
find new ways of becoming more efficient in


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability


DRAFT





DRAFT


Chapter 2: Partners in Research


addressing formidable global problems.
Fortunately, several recent trends do favor
increased efficiency in agricultural research. A
brief overview:
* Scientific breakthroughs in molecular biology
and ecology and institutional advances in legal
and economic theory have expanded alternatives
in addressing world hunger and environmental
decay.


* Phenomenal improvements in information and
communication technology can serve to
streamline the research system and enhance
efficiency.


* The proliferation of non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), staffed by committed
field personnel, assures that the concerns of
small and disenfranchised households can be
reflected in the search for new solutions.

* The CGIAR Centers have emerged as important
international bridges between the industrialized
world and developing countries in the effort to
address poverty and food security through
agricultural research.

Toward an Ideal Global Research
System
To appreciate the significance of recent
scientific and political developments for cost-
effective future partnerships, one must step
back and envisage how an ideal global
research system would operate (see figure, p. 2-3).
In an ideal global research system, poor rural


households in developing countries would be the
central focus because they can be a powerful
engine of global economic growth. Besides, the
vastdiscrepancy between current per capital
governmentexpenditures in developed and
developing countries would benarrowed (see
figure). A stable and predictable share of global
research expenditures would be earmarked to focus
on problems of the poor on a long-term, sustained
basis. Informationwould flow easily among
research institutions to facilitate collaboration that
exploits the comparative advantages of each.
Collaborative mechanisms which draw on the
complementary strengths of each contributor
would emerge to serve common goals in a more
cost-effective and scientifically sound manner.
Applied and adaptive research would be conducted
at the local level by local researchers, NGOs, and
communitygroups thatunderstand farmer
concerns and therefore have a comparative
advantage in such services. They, in turn, would
be linked to national institutes connected to
relevant ministries such as agriculture, forestry,
andwater.
Together these players would set priorities
responsive to the needs of households, conduct
research, and ensure that the research findings
are continuously tested on farmers' fields for
rapid adoption of technology. They would
develop new, more refined problem solving
research agendas in an iterative manner built
on strong links between basic, strategic,
applied, and adaptive research, between
research and extension, and including other
support services in the rural sector.
Small countries that lack sufficient numbers of


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


C17,rpbpr 2. Tlha Research Pa-rtneirs


Global Agricultural Research System


Industrialized
Country
Research Systems
* Universities
* public sector
* private sector


National
* NARIS

Local
community groups
local NGOs



Farm Ihouseholds
and their Resources


Agricultural Research Expenditures
1981-85


Less Developed 2%




I/



More Developed 98%

per economically active
person in agriculture


Less Developed 31%








More Developed 69%


per land unit


Source: Anderson, Pardey and Roseboom, 1994


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


chaiptkir 2?: Patein Re'se-arh


researchers and have a highly diversified
production system would be able to rely more on
regional centers. There would be political
consensus among member governments to freely
share research responsibilities and research output.
At the international level, the CGIAR system
would specialize in strategic research which
cuts across national boundaries, while in the
short and medium run helping to build the
capacity of developing countries to conduct
high quality applied and adaptive research.
At the global level are the universities,
foundations, the private sector, and research
laboratories in developed countries. The U.S. land
grant universities' strengths upstream in basic
science and downstream in private sector
application would offer major spillover benefits to
developing countries. Additionally, in an ideal
world, some agricultural research would be
conducted by industrial countries specifically for
the benefitof developing countries. Whereas
concerns about commercial competitiveness have
made countries wary of sharing research, ideally
the common threats to human and animal health of
such problems as poor sanitation, pests and
diseases, environmental degradation, and
global warming would be sufficient grounds to
share new scientific knowledge and
technologies through public action.
Both CGIAR Centers and NARS would work
closelywith selected institutions in industrial
countries that have large basic-oriented research
and educational systems and train large numbers of
graduate students of developing countries. Since
technical progress is an increasingly important
source of growth, the knowledge base and
cognitive skills embodied inhuman capital would


The Economics of
Collaboration
Economies of Scope: Situations in which the
cost of producing two products in combination
is less than the total cost of producing each
separately Scope economies often arise
because production processes require much the
same overhead, or because fixed investments
are lumpy and result in some unused capacity
Diseconomies of scope arise when the cost of
producing two products in combination ismore
than the cost of producing them separately.
Scope diseconomies could occurwhen
production exigencies stretch investments in a
new product at the expense of a previous one,
depleting the efficiencies derived from
specialization.
Economies of Scale: Traditionally refers to the
reduction of average costs in the long run, or as
long-run increasing returns to expansion when
inputproportions remain fixed. Economies of
scale can result from innovations such as the
use of standardized, interchangeable parts, or
the partitioning of complexprocesses into
simple and repetitive sub-operations, or the
specialization of assignments and the division
of labor, or reliance on computerized systems
and designs.
Transaction Costs In a 1937 article, future
Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase posed a question
astounding in its simplicity: Why do firms
exist? Why do entrepreneurs, managers, and
workers combine forces in a firm rather than
justbuying and selling each others' services in
an open market? And by the same token, why
don't theyproduce everything theyneed? The
answer lies in transaction costs.
Coase postulated that markets and firms are
alternative modes of economic organization.
Firms have the option of conducting
transactions internally or across the market
with autonomous firms. When transaction
costs are high, collaboration with other firms is
the favored mode.

~ ~ ~~~~ --------------------... ... ... ..


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 2: Partners in Resee;:arch


capture the most important ingredients of technical
progress. The graduate-level training and research
activities of developing country scientists in
industrial countries would provide a crucial bridge
between scientific frontiers and local applied
research. The focus would be on problems of a
global magnitude, such as soils and water, or tenure
and pricing.


---m--------- -------
A Rationale for Collaboration

It must be emphasized that the "ideal
world" of well coordinated research just
described is not based merely on fantasy, but is
consistent with well known economic
principles. Given the right political and
managerial impetus, such arrangements are
certain to improve efficiency.


The GREAN initiative proposes
collaborative partnerships intended to reduce
the transaction costs (see box, previous page) of
public institutions at the global, regional, and local
levels. A rough analogy from the private
sector is the joint venture. The reduction of
transaction costs would enable each of these
actors to acquire services of others for which
they themselves have no comparative
advantage. Most NARS, for example, have no
comparative advantage in doing basic
research. In spite of diminishing resources, the
CGIAR Centers and NARS have been under
pressure to incorporate the new environmental
mandate, leading either to considerable waste
of resources because of disceonomies of scope,
or alternatively to the deterioration in the ability to


conduct their traditional functions such as
germplasmcollection and enhancement. The
GREAN initiative is intended to ameliorate those
inefficiencies by redirecting assignments to the
institutions that can best carry them out. The
potential for capturing economies of scope can only
be achieved by systematic global coordination.
Finally, the global economies of scope
generated by GREAN would enhance the
potential for economies of scale at all levels.
Unfettered by the responsibilities of conducting
basic and strategic research, the NARS would be
able to devote their scarce resources to adaptive
research and demonstrations; CGIARCenters could
relinquish basic research to U.S. universities and
concentrate on strategic and adaptive research; U.S.
universities would have much greater access to
precise local and regional information. Economies
of scale, in short, would allow each institution to
expand the bases of their respective operations to
address looming environmental and production
challenges.
This analysis provides a rationale for our
conviction that an ideal global research system
would invest in facilitating information
exchange, communications, and consultation
among researchers, and would foster long-
term collaboration between scientists.
It is from this perspective that we now
review the changing roles and mandates of the
major actors and identify the important
strengths and weaknesses of each.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 2: Partners in Research


The U.S. University System

There are at least six major strengths of the
U.S. university system relevant to its potential
partnership in global research and development:
*' vast size and associated internal
economies of scale and scope,
research driven by demand of beneficiaries
integration with upstream basic sciences,
demonstrated track record in downstream
application,
continued importance in the development
of human capital from developing
countries, and
expertise in establishing the legal
institutions and property rights
fundamental to development.


Shortcomings thatnow significantlyhinder the
efficient participation of U.S. universities in global
agricultural research include:
lack of institutional incentives for the
involvement of U.S. university scientists in
the conduct of research and development
in developing countries, and
suboptimal linkages with local and
regional research institutes in developing
countries, including poor exchange of
information.

Vast Size and Economies of Scale
and Scope
Agricultural research in the United States
benefits from a large and impressive overall
public educational system with over 11,000
faculty and $2.7 billion of federal spending


dedicated to agricultural research. The U.S. has the
single largest pool of scientific talent in the
world with a total (private and public sector) annual
investment in agricultural and related
environmental research alone amounting to $5
billion. This expenditure is in sharp contrast to that
of the CGIAR, whose annual outlay in 1994
amounted to less than $300 million. The 142,000
articles published in the sciences and engineering
account for 35 percent of the world's output in
these fields, of which over 70 percent are from the
academic sector. The states of California and
Florida each boast public research systems a
quarter the size of the entire CGIAR system.
These impressive numbers result in extensive
economies of scope and scale (de Groot et al.,
Cohn et al., 1989). Economies of scale are
particularly pronounced in the production of
supportive services such as computerization,
libraries, and administration. Indeed, the potential
for scale economies was the historical motivation
for the amalgamation of disparate colleges and
agricultural training and research centers into
centralized universities. Beginning around 1920,
agricultural research centers developed upstream
links with existing academic institutions (Huffman
and Evenson, 1993). Specialization allowed for
economies of scope in that the national research
system became able to provide more services.
Upstream assistance in basic science freed
agricultural institutes to concentrate their resources
on local concerns, thus broadening their impact.
These economies in the system help to explain
the relatively low costs of conducting scientific
research in the United States. In the CGIAR
Centers, the incremental cost of salaries, support


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 2: Partners in Research


services, and laboratory equipment needed to create
an additional scientist position is 50 to 100 percent
higher than in US. universities, which are already
equipped with laboratories and a concentrated
payroll of university faculty.

The Demand-Driven Nature of the
U.S. System
The impressive productivity growth in US.
agriculture for well over a century is the best
illustration of the dynamic nature and the
client orientation of the U.S. research system.
The network of state agricultural and
experimental stations in the U.S. originated to
represent the interests of small farmers and its
evolution has been driven by farmer demand.
Close ties to agricultural producers have been
maintained even as the emphasis of public
research has gravitated to basic sciences and
graduate education since the late 1970s and
early 1980s.
Influential contemporary critics have argued
that the US. land grant system has become
excessively oriented toward commercial farmers
(Libby, 1994). Clearly, in a competitive system
which responds to only two percent of the
population in agriculture and where interests of the
powerful groups are more strongly represented
than those of the weak, the U.S. system does not
represent the interests of its small and poor farmers
in a way it did before.
Whether U.S. scientists can help developing
countries to respond to the needs of small,
poor farmers whose interests are poorly
represented in both the U.S. land grant system
and the research systems of developing
countries remains an open question. Continuing


evolution can well be expected, as the capacity for
adaptation constitutes the enduring core strength of
theAmerican research system.

Integration with Basic Sciences
Since the late 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S.
educational system has made concentrated
investments in basic science research, a
development closely connected to the growing
importance of private sector research. The
share of private sector research has increased
from one-third to two-thirds of the total in just
two decades. As such, the U.S. agricultural
research system is the harbinger of the future,
particularly in the large middle- and low-
income countries. As increasing numbers of
agricultural technologies have become
patentable, the private sector has become
interested in research and development of
those technologies. American farmers have
benefited from the private sector's rapid
translation of high-quality basic research into
practical applications.

The Role of U.S. Universities in
International Human Capital
Development
The U.S. has an unsurpassed record in
training human capital and institutional
development, particularly related to science and
technology. While the U.S. capacity to provide
relevant training to nationals of developing
countries has diminished somewhat as U.S.
engagement in global research and application has
attenuated, it nonetheless remains invaluable.
One-third of all developing country students who
pursue higher education outside their own countries


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 2: Partners in Research


study in the US. Though agriculture's share of this
enrollment is small, there was a sharp increase
(10.3 percent) in international agricultural student
enrollment between 1991-93, with a notably
stronger increase (34 percent) in the number
studying renewable natural resources.
Unfortunately, graduate students often receive
training in research areas that are inappropriate to
their homeland, because US. faculty must respond
to state and local funding exigencies. State
monies, and therefore state priorities, have
supplanted past involvement in international
research. States individually cannotbe expected to
take on the tasks of training students in the
disciplines that foster sustainable international
development. This is a national concern, requiring
federal funding.

The Lack of Incentives for
International Research
Drastic reduction in U.S. development aid
levels and increased multilateralization of
international agricultural research has reduced
U.S. universities' involvement in, and
understanding of, the rapidly changing
international agricultural scene. While their
participation is needed, it would be foolish to
assume that U.S. universities will make the
changes necessary to meet global challenges
without financial incentive to do so. Domestic
agricultural research funding is far more
competitive.
As state and local funding replaced federal
grants, U.S. universities have had to concentrate
on local agricultural research. This suggests that
changes in state policy and/or increased funding


from other sources will be necessary to re-engage
US. universities in international agricultural
development
Additional disincentives to international work
at U.S. universities include current tenure and
promotion systems and a narrow, disciplinary
approach to research in many departments. These
topics are pursued further in Chapter 4.

Legal and Institutional Expertise
Sustainable agricultural development
cannot be achieved by technological advances
alone. At least as important is the need for an
incentive-based, legal and economic
framework that puts a proper price on scarce
resources and establishes enforceable property
rights. U.S. university scientists have
conducted extensive research on programs and
policies that address these issues. For
example, interdisciplinary collaboration
between economists and other social scientists
has led to new tools in natural resource
economics that hold promise for application in
the developingworld.



The CGIAR System

The strengths of the CGIAR system are its:
important nonpolitical bridging function,
hunger and povertyoriented mission,
demonstrated track record of scientific
achievement, and
possession of the largest collection of
plant genetic materials in the world


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 2: Partnrers in Research


The CGIAR system's weaknesses are its:
lack of disciplinary depth,
overly broad mandate in environmental
areas,
ongoing funding crisis,
insufficient resources to increase NARS
human capacity, and
diseconomies of scope.

History and Mission of the CGIAR
The Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was
established in 1971 to fund the expansion and
continued operation of a system of
International Agricultural Research Centers
which had demonstrated the ability to develop
and deploy effective food crop production
technologies for the developingworld.
For over 20 years the CGIAR system has played
a leadership role in international agricultural
research. A remarkable feature of the CGIAR is
that it is an informal consortium of 40 public and
private donors, encompassing national
governments and international agencies, linked by
the common purpose of eradicating hunger and
poverty through research. The CGIAR supports a
network of 16 international agricultural
research centers (see map).
While each CGIAR Center has its own board
and largely sets its own agenda, all centers
must conform to the priorities and objectives of
the umbrella CGIAR mission, as determined
by an independent TechnicalAdvisory Committee
(TAC). That mission is: "Through international
research and related activities, and in partnership
with national research systems, to contribute to
sustainable improvements in the productivity of


agriculture, forestry, and fisheries in the developing
countries in ways that enhance nutrition and well
being, especially of low income people." Its
mandate covers a broad range of crops and
livestock, centering on staple food crops, but
excluding export crops.
The World Bank, the Food andAgriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) are
cosponsors of the CGIAR. The United States,
Japan, and Canada are the leading donor countries,
followed closely by several European countries.
The annual CGIAR budget in 1994 is $270 million.
The non-political nature of the CGIAR System
is its great strength. This, and the location of most
centers in developing countries (see map) has
helped them to form an essential role between the
NARS and advanced institutions in industrialized
countries.

CGIAR Research Priorities
The CGIAR system has a considerable record
of research achievements over the past 30 years,
especiallyin germplasm characterization, plant
breeding, plant pathology, and the field application
of new technologies of tillage and soil
conservation. Initially, the CGIAR Centers
focused on basic grain and root crops thatwould
significantly improve the diets of people in
developing countries, particularly the rural poor.
Recently, the system has begun to concentrate
on many environmental concerns, with the scope
of research shifting from crop yield growth to
natural resource management. In order to conduct
research in forestry, agroforestry, water
management, and fisheries, five new centers were


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 2: The Research Partners


The CGIAR
World Network


, ---- _, .. ISC R .--. rv .... !

"I\ CARDA l
S- 'I.- CRISAT .
-Z-IFPRI

IAT ILCNP --IRR
CIMMYT ICRAF ,
WARDA Y ?ILRAD .
CIP CIFO ,
^ *


CIAT -- Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical Columbia.
CIFOR -- Center for International Forestry Research.
CIMMYT -- Centro International de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo.
CIP -- Centro Internatcional de la Papa.
IPGRI -- International Plant Genetics Resource Institute.
ICARDA -- International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas.
ICLARM -- International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
ICRAF -- International Council for Research in Agroforestry.
ICRISAT -- International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
IFPRI -- International Food Policy Research Institute.
IIMI -- International Irrigation Management Institute.
IITA -- International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.
ILCA* -- International Livestock Center for Africa.
ILRAD* -- International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases.
IRRI -- International Rice Research Institute.
ISNAR -- International Service for National Agricultural Research.
WARDA -- West Africa Rice Development Association.



Merged into ILRI, to be located in Nairobi








Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 2: Partners in Research


recently added to the system. Perhaps most
importantly, the CGIAR system is gradually
making a transition from an "institutes-based
system" to a "programs-based system." In other
words, it is adopting a programmatic approach to
research issues of major global or ecoregional
importance.
Research funds are allocated across five broad
activity categories:
conservation and management of natural
resources including germplasm
conservation;
germplasmenhancementand breeding;
production systems developmentand
management;
socioeconomic, public policy, and public
managementresearch;
institution building.
The process used by the CGIAR system to set
research priorities has become more sophisticated
overtime. Unlike the demand-driven U.S. system,
however, the CGIAR system sets priorities by a
cerebral process driven by the expectations of its
donors and TAC, not by the expressed needs of its
ultimate beneficiaries. For example, the system
still remains centered on food crops, due largely to
its populistappeal among donors. Export crop
production was seen by the poverty-oriented donor
supporters as antithetical to achieving food security,
a view that economic analysis has proven to be
misguided. Income growth and factor productivity
improvements, rather than specific food crops, are
the main determinants of food security. Yet, the
focus on food crops endures, in part because donor
countries, including the United States, have
opposed export-crop production on the grounds
that itwill compete with their export prospects.


Funding Problems
One of the system's most critical problems is
shrinking resources at a time when its research
agenda has expanded and become more complex.
The system's budget was $270 million in 1990,
falling to $240 million in 1994 in large part due to a
drastic cut in USAID's contribution from $40
million to $26.9 million. These amounts
constituted only 4 percent of global public
sector spendingin developing countries on
agricultural research.
The uncertainty of funding has led to a
major restructuring, so that CGIAR Center
scientists have recently spent much of their
time on reorganizing rather than on research.
Decreased funding and increased pressure to
respond to donors' demands has left the
system scrambling to respond while trying to
maintain valuable core programs.

Lack of Disciplinary Depth
Given the small size of the system and its
large, complex, and growing mandate, it is not
surprising that CGIAR Centers lack the
disciplinary depth to conduct research to satisfy
increasing demands. The Centers are forced to
stretch shrinking resources to engage in
increasingly diverse areas of research, jeopardizing
their widely acclaimed germplasm and plant
breeding research that saved millions from
starvation. Lack of depth is particularly
pronounced in staffing. A single soil science
department in many U.S. universities has more soil
scientists than the entire CGIAR system.
The limited staffing, combined with the narrow
focus of each Center on specific crops, tends to


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 2: Partners in Research


restrict the scope of individual research institutions
in understanding interactions between food and
export crops, between crops and livestock, and
between agriculture and forestry The CGIAR
system is encouraging greater intercenter
cooperation to address these problems, particularly
in the context of its new focus on agroecological
zones.

Cost-Effectiveness Concerns
In an ideal situation, basic research (at the
industrial country level), or applied research
(at the national level), would precede strategic
research by the CGIAR institutions. But
current CGIAR funding mechanisms are such
that the Centers have no incentive to follow the
principle of subsidiarity, which would dictate
that any research be done at the lowest level
where it can be conducted effectively. They are
inclined instead to conduct the research
themselves, as a way of accessing CGIAR
funds. This explains, in part, why some of the
upstream research, which maybe better conducted
by the universities in industrial countries, and
downstream research, which maybe more
appropriately conducted by NARS, is
conducted in the CGIAR Centers. For
example, CGIAR Centers have come under
criticism for duplication of adaptive and
applied research.


The NARS

National Agricultural Research Systems
(NARS) are broadly defined in this initiative to
include a diverse set of institutions concerned with
research and application, including particularly


universities and NGOs in developing countries.
The strengths of the NARs are:
their closeness to the problems, and
therefore their comparative advantage in
conducting applied and adaptive research,
and
their great expansion since the early
1970s, especially in human capital
investments.
Theirweaknesses are
lack of high-level political support for
science in developing countries,
chronic under-funding,
frequent absence of a research culture,
tragic decline of educational institutions
in many developing countries,
low level of scientific output,
poor capacity to formulate national
researchagendas.

History of NARS Expansion
Research systems in developing countries
experienced a period of rapid expansion from
1961 to 1985. The number of researchers
increased by 7.1 percent per year, compared to
1.7 percent in developed countries, increasing
the average size of NARS from 150 to 600 full-
time equivalent researchers. The scope of research
institutions also expanded, first to include
agricultural universities and later NGOs.
During the Green Revolution the critical role
played by developing country governments
and their NARS in adapting the IARC innovations
to local conditions was facilitated by various forms
of U.S. assistance. The research capabilities of the
NARS were strengthened by U.S. investments,
provision of scientific expertise, and graduate


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 2: Partners in Research


training of nationals from developing countries at
agricultural land grant institutions. US. bilateral
assistance once strongly supported institutions of
higher education and training. This aid helped shift
some of the research responsibilities from
monolithic government departments, ministries,
and research entities to NARS educational systems.
Regrettably, such U.S. support has dropped
drastically.

Current Status of the NARS
There is today great diversity in size,
sophistication, and human resources of NARS.
Not only has China six times the researchers of
the entire African continent, but its per
researcher cost is less than half that in Africa.
The higher costs in Africa are due to a greater
reliance on expatriate scientists. Large NARS,
such as those in China, India, Brazil, and
Mexico are capable of more advanced scientific
collaboration (both in terms of scale, scientific
capacity, and low costs) than smaller NARS,
such as those in West African countries. The
majority of NARS are very small (see figure).
For example, of the 130 NARS in less-
developed countries 95 employ less than 200
researchers, while 39 NARS employ less than
25 (ISNAR, 1992).


NARS expenditures per researcher are
relatively low and have been steadily falling
since the early 1970s as increasing numbers of
scientists have been hired without
corresponding increases in research budgets. From
1981 to 1985, expenditures per scientist for the less
developed country NARS averaged $59,200,
compared to $99,100 per U.S. researcher (ISNAR,


1993). Indeed, the current spending level in
developing countries is similar to that in the U.S. in
the early 1900s (Huffman and Evenson, 1993).
Moreover, the overall annual growth rate in
research investment in less developed countries
slowed in the 1980s, especially in the debt-ridden
regions of Sub-SaharanAfrica, LatinAmerica, and
the Caribbean.
Currently only percent of global published
research is produced in developing countries.
Even the larger NARS (e.g., India, Brazil,
Argentina, and China), are unable to keep up
with applications derived from advances in basic
sciences. Poor communication, limited access
to industrialized country scientific institutions,
and the poor condition of laboratories have
restricted potential technological transfers and
weakened educational institutions in
developing countries.

NARS Research Priorities
In contrast to the U.S., the research systems of
developing countries tend to adopt a more top-
down, non-demand driven approach to
agricultural research. There is typically less
consultation with stake holders and less
orientation to small farmers. The U.S.
encouraged client-oriented research systems in
developing countries in the process of
strengthening their NARS at the time of the
first Green Revolution (Lele and Goldsmith,
1989). Indeed, commercially oriented regions
and crops do have strong farmer representation in
many of the NARS (see figure). With trade
liberalizations, systems in some of the more
advanced developing countries are already
beginning to model themselves extensively on the


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 2: The Research Partners


Size of Developing Country NARS
Average Number of Researchers,
1961-65 and 1981-85


22%
1961-65


30%19-5"



28%
1981-85


<25 Researchers
400-999 Researchers


E 25-99 Researchrs
0 > 1000 Researchers


S100-399 Researchers


Source: ISNAR, 1992







Commodity Orientation of Developing Country NARS

by Research Personnel


87%


Sub-Saharan Africa


93% /

C 2%n




Latin America & Caribbean


81 %o/ .-


81'10%
9%

Asia & Pacific, excl. China



92% ,-


6%


West Asia & North Africa


Crops & Livestock ] Forestry M Fisheries

Source: ISNAR, 1992.



Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 2: Partners in Research


U.S. research system. An example is the
developmentand diversification of horticultural
crops in Chile. The same needs to occur over time
in poorer countries.
Research priorities of the national system are
formed by a combination of historical factors, donor
influences and structural deficiencies. Collaboration
with US. universities in the process of priority
setting and conduct of research help make
developing country systems more participatory. All
systems tend to be almost exclusively crop oriented
and are only now beginning to reflect environmental
concerns.
InAfrica, export crops dominated in the
colonial period. Food security received priority in
the post colonial period, but now the priorities are
difficult to discern, with small systems and a large
number of cropping and livestock activities. The
reliance on donors amounts to 80 percent of
expenditures in some cases (Lele and Goldsmith,
1989).
In LatinAmerica, interests of large
farmers and commercial interests have
dominated. (Montes, 1986).
InAsia, research priorities have been
relatively more egalitarian, being
determined ina more participatory manner
(Pray, 1991).

Constraints on NARS Scientists
The greatest challenge is to ensure high-quality,
timely output from national researchers. Often
factors beyond the control of individual researchers
tend to place severe constraints on their scientific
productivity.
The political culture is often not conducive
to high-quality science. As governments
face fiscal strains, they lower expenditures


on operation and maintenance rather than
reduce the number of researchers.
Logistical problems tend to be
overwhelming. Electricity outages destroy
valuable germplasm. The lack of funding
for operating expenses prevents field visits
to supervise experiments. The
lack of spare parts inhibits maintaining
equipment
Promotion and salary increases within
manyNARS tend to be based on
subjective criteria such as ethnic, regional,
religious, and caste connections, rather
than on performance.
Salaries and fringe benefits of NARS
scientists have declined substantially in
real terms with large devaluations and high
domestic inflation. Many researchers have
to hold two jobs to make ends meet.
These frustrations lead many NARS
researchers to look for employment elsewhere.
Some analysts now argue, with justification,
that brain drain and brain waste is a far bigger
problem for developing countries than lack of
skilled personnel.
In summary, the situation in many NARS is
disappointing. After the rapid expansion of their
agricultural research systems in the 1960s and
1970s, expenditures have stagnated. Since the
debt crisis began in the early 1980s, a vast number
of well-trained research scientists from developing
countries have been left underutilized and
underchallenged.


Other Significant Players

While the focus of this report is on the three
partners described above, there are, of course,


M Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 2: Partners in Research


other players with significant roles in international
agricultural research. They include private
foundations, NGOs, the private sector, and the
private and public actors of other industrialized
countries' systems. In the following, we will
briefly discuss private foundations, NGOs, and
other industrialized countries' systems.

Private U.S. Foundations
Private U.S. foundations have been a major
force in international research because of their dear
focus; their reliance on outstanding science; their
long-term, stable commitment; and their mission of
building capacityin developing countries.
The Rockefeller Foundation, which together
with the Ford Foundation was a founding member
of the CGIAR system, is a pioneer in the field of
agricultural technology It played a key role in
financing the new wheatvarieties that were the
basis of the Green Revolution and most recently in
bringing biotechnology to rice production.
The Ford Foundation has been at the
forefront of research on poverty, forestry,
and gender.
The MacArthur Foundationhas funded
research in the fields of environment and
population.
The McKnight Foundation has recently
begun to bring cutting edge biotechnology
to developing countries.
The Carnegie Corporation of NewYork
has funded programs to build science and
technology capacity and to develop human
capital inAfrica.
The Pew and Kellogg Foundations have
funded importantprograms to benefit
farmers.


In 1993, these foundations together granted
$147.4 million (out of a total of $820 million) for
agriculture, population, environment, health, and
other programs in developing countries (see figure).
An important question is how to leverage
foundation support more effectively in combination
with the vast resources of US. universities, CGIAR
Centers, and NARS.

Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs)
At both the local and global levels, the
primary NGO mission is to help
disadvantaged people, particularly in
countries where special interests or political
instability may render governments and
bureaucracies unresponsive to their needs. The
effectiveness of NGOs varies greatly
They are particularly strong in advocacy
and coalition building and in attracting the
attention of governments and multilateral
donors.
They are especially active in population,
poverty, health, and environmental issues,
and have had a major impact on shaping
public opinion in the western world.
International NGOs have also become an
important force in research and
development at the global level, whereas
local NGOs are becoming strong voices
for rural peoples.
In countries with major political problems
NGOs may have a much stronger presence
than other actors.
Not all NGOs are as effective on the ground as
they are in lobbying. Both local and international
NGOs often fail to sufficiently appreciate the


M Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chlpter 2: The Research Partnrers


GREAN-Related Grant Allocation
of Major U.S. Foundations


$151.2




(19.3%)


i- 1 1-'"""


Pew MacArthur Rockefeller


$56-4 $51.8

(278%) 1(.


McKnight Carnegie


j= Total amount spent on grants, domestic and international, in 1993
(in millions of $)
M =Amount spent on environment, population, agriculture,
rural development and health in developing countries.


















Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability


300

0 250

* 200

S150

100

50

0


$287.9


(15.0%)


Ford


(4.1%)





DRAFT


Chapter 2: Partners in Research


importance of productivity increases and income
growth in alleviating the massive poverty in
developing countries. Some overlook the need to
use science and technology to address the poor's
problems. Others lack the historical perspective
needed to appreciate that developing countries need
to go through much of the process that developed
countries have, including the use of modem inputs,
to realize productivity growth. Many also lack
local support.
The diversity of NGOs brings an assortment of
views on how to concentrate research efforts.
While some NGOs are efficient players in countries
where the NARS are not operating at full capacity,
it is important that they complement, rather than
substitute for, the NARS. Local NGOs do not
always see eye-to-eye with international ones.
Notwithstanding these limitations, NGOs have
emerged as an important force and must be
actively involved in future collaborations
concerning local communities.

Other Industrialized Country
Systems
France
The French tropical agriculture research
system is perhaps the most extensive one operating
in the temperate zone. In 1994, it spent some $260
million on tropical agricultural research, the same
as the size of the CGIAR. About 1,000 of the
system's total of 5,000 agricultural research
scientists are engaged in tropical research, mainly
in CIRAD. In 1992, CIRAD was reorganized and
has attempted to become more responsive to cross-
cutting agricultural issues. ORSTOM's
AgriculturalActivities department is directly


involved with agriculture. France also trains a large
number of developing countryagricultural
scientists, mainly from the francophoneAfrican
countries. It is, however, questionable whether the
current funding levels will continue.


Great Britain
Great Britain funds agricultural research
through its Natural Resources and
Environment Department. Most of this
research is basic and strategic; adaptive or
applied research is usually funded under
bilateral programs. In 1992 and 1993, $160
million was allotted to basic and strategic research.


Australia
Australia spent about 2 percent of its aid
budget on agricultural research in 1991. The
Australian Centre for International
Agricultural Research (ACIAR) commissions
Australian research institutions to undertake joint
research with developing countries. Research
focuses heavily on Southeast Asia, China, the
South Pacific, and New Guinea.



Comparative Advantages of
the Three Partners

This chapter has argued that an international
research system that coordinates its efforts will
yield a great harvest in terms of both final products
and efficiency of operations. The GREAN
initiative is a plan for collaborative research that
will enable each partner to specialize in its areas of
comparative advantage, and to match its


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


ChaptE~r 2: Partners in Re~se~arcl


weaknesses with the others'
strengths.
U.S. universities contribute new
advances in basic and adaptive
science, excellence in research
methods, and client orientation.
The US. universities can also
importantly enhance the pool of
human capital from developing
countries. Those students and
trainees must, however, be allowed to
address problems of their own
countries by their more direct
engagementindevelopingworld
problems.
U.S. university excellence in
molecular biology and the other high-
technology fields is especially
valuable.
The CGIAR Centers are an apolitical bridge
betweenindustrial and developingcountries'
science and technologywhose mission is to
address problems of poverty and hunger in a
sustainable manner. They offer strong
communication links with the governments
and institutions in developing countries
because of their international character.
The CGIAR Centers have comparative
advantages in strategic and adaptive research.
Their strengths include access to the world's
largest collection of germplasm, crucial to
maintaining biodiversity within and outside
the food crop system.
The NARS are closest to the farmers'
problems and have a comparative advantage in
adaptive and applied research. The NARS also


offer a vast pool of well-trained but
underutilized scientific talent to address
their countries' problems.
The education sectors in developing
countries are in a position to play a
substantially greater role in setting research
agendas and generatingnew knowledge.
Having surveyed the potential research
partners, we now turn to the question of the
research agenda for the 21st century.




Private Sector
Involvement in Research
Private firms operate under the broad
confines of national and internationalpatent,
copyright, trade, and securityregulations. The
firms establish their own criteria for
participation in international research. When
they are able to capture part of the economic
gain from innovation, they are stimulated to
engage in research and are thus inclined to use
research results forpractical application. The
eventual ownership of innovations can result in
their being used to generate profits, which are
then earmarked for research.
A common consequence of the profit-
orientation, however, is an unwillingness to
share knowledge and information. Yet sharing
is often necessary to ensure that the poor
benefit. Private sector involvement may also
resultininequityin economic development,
neglect of long-term research, and promotion of
practices with undesirable environmental
consequences.
m.. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . m . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability






DRAFT


Chapter 2: Partnors in Research









Interdisciplinary Research GREAN and the World
Bank Initiative on NARS
Interdisciplinary groupshavepermeated agricultural
research in many U.S. universities. Examples are To ensure greater predictability, stability and
the Centers forAfrican and LatinAmerican Studies ownership of the CGIAR system by its
at the University of Florida; the agriculturally stakeholders, the newly appointed chairman of the
focused development institutes such as CuFAD at CGIAR, Mr. Ismail Serageldin, Vice-President of
Comell; and the issue-focused research, Environmental Development at The World Bank,
development, and training groups, such as the has reaffirmed the international "public good"
Farming Systems group, based at the Institute of nature of the CGIAR system, emphasized its
Food andAgricultural Sciences at the University of continued focus on the problems of hunger and
Florida. poverty, and stressed the need for the CGIAR
In contrast, most NARS hire agricultural scientists institutions and NARS to capitalize on their
with very traditional agronomic and plant science respective advantages, with the CGIAR Centers
focus because those fields address the greatest undertaking relatively more strategic research in
perceived needs. The complexity of problems the future, and the NARS (particularly the large
associated with sustainable agricultural ones) undertaking more of the applied and
developmentrequire thatNARSmove toward an adaptive research (Serageldin, 1994). The World
interdisciplinary approach to agricultural research. Bank also plans to commitup to $500 million
Much more needs to be done by U.S. universities to annually to the development of National
foster academically rigorous and respected Agricultural Research and Extension Systems over
interdisciplinary research both athome and abroad. the next 5 years to develop their capacity. By
leveraging its programs with NARS, the GREAN
initiative can greatlyincrease the productivity of
111111111 .......................the proposed World Bank resources for NARS,
particularlybyhelping to strengthen the content
and conduct of research.


-----------





DRAFT


Chapter 3


Priorities for Global Research

on Environmental and

Agricultural Nexus





Contents


a The Priorities of the GREAN Initiative

m GREAN Priorities: Integrating Productivity
with Sustainability


Introduction

Research has been a powerful tool for
increasing productivity, and returns to
agricultural research have been impressive.
Yet, critics argue that the past research focus
has been narrowly based on crop technologies
which rely mainly on yield-increasing plant
breeding techniques, and that the calculations of
returns do not account for the environmental
degradation that increased chemical use has
brought with them. In this chapter, we argue for a
research agenda that incorporates the concerns for
both sustainability andproductivity, so that the food
demands of the 21st century can be met.


Indeed, it is clear that although the past


emphasis on productivity alone was not
enough, neither is the recent exclusive stress on
environmental concerns. The conventions on
biodiversity, global climate change and
desertification following the UNCED
conference in 1992, while useful, do not
provide an operational basis for promoting
research on these issues. The conventions are
riddled with internal contradictions reflecting
the very different concerns of industrialized
and developing countries. They have perhaps
inadvertently helped divert attention from the
fundamental importance of productivity
growth in the food and agricultural sector in
meeting the population and poverty challenges.
The conventions also understated the important role
of technology in addressing the inextricable
relationships between the dynamics of resource
degradation, population, and food insecurity.
Global climate change, while a major issue in
the north, is of little concern to the poor and the
hungry in developing countries, in contrast to
degradation of soils, depletion of water tables, and
low and unstable rainfall or increased salinity
Biodiversity is already practiced by the poor, by
their overwhelming reliance on disease- and pest-
resistant traditional varieties, which offer relatively
low but stable returns and have other desirable
characteristics. Additional protection of
biodiversity must come from saving land otherwise
needed to meet food and fuelwood production.
That requires greatly enhancing land and labor
productivity through yield-enhancing germplasm,
in a sustainable manner.
Yet the concept of sustainability is elusive and
has escaped definition except in the most general
sense, and perhaps at a most location-specific level.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 3: The Research Agenda


The Brundtland Commission's definition of
sustainable development, i.e., development that
meets the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs is the most popular.
However, Ruttan (1994) argues that its popularity
maybe due to its broadness which renders italmost
devoid of operational significance. He points out
thatwe are far from being able to design either
technological or institutional responses to achieve
sustainable growth in agricultural productivity with
any certainty. Ruttan argues that sustainability is
more appropriatelyviewed as a guide to
agricultural research agendas than to agricultural
practice.
As such the definition of sustainability should
include:

a the development of technology and
practices that maintain and/or advance
the quality of land and water resources,
and
a the improvements in the performance of
plants and animals and advances in
production practices that will facilitate the
substitution of biological technology for
chemical technology

Concern for sustainable productivity
increase suggests virtually a limitless number
of research possibilities, since it adds vastly
expanded dimensions of time (i.e., long-term
impacts on resources) and space (i.e., research
questions are not assessed only at the crop or farm
level, but at higher levels of aggregation). Research
on sustainability may for instance include:

impacts of productivity on human


nutrition and health, as well as of
population densities and population
movements on the use and sustainability
of resources;
" research involving impacts of global
warming on yield levels, yield stability,
pests, diseases or indeed even on the
amount of cultivable area;
" conserving biodiversity, implying research
not simply at the level of individual crops
and farming systems but on inventories of
plant, animal and insect populations, and;
" indicators of sustainability, particularly of
a quantitative nature.

But if the expanded environmental agenda is
not to lose sight of the billion poor and hungry
whose numbers are increasing rapidly,
research must also focus on:

* consumption and nutrition needs of the
poorest households, and the factors
affecting them; and
* impacts of private as well as communal
property rights on resource use, resource
quality, and income distribution.

A long-term, spatial view, as is advocated
by GREAN, has been rare in traditional
agricultural research but has already provided
valuable hypotheses, for example, on questions
regarding the impact of population growth and new
technologies on natural resources.
Such a view is incorporated in the ecoregional
research thrusts of the CGIAR (See box). Research
in the Machakos district in Kenya over a period of
several decades suggests, for example, that the


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 3: The Research Agenda


impact of population growth on natural resources
depends on a complex set of policies, technologies,
physical infra-structure, and institutions. Other
research has shown that a policy-led intensification
following population growth has a positive impact
on productivity and sustainability, whereas adverse
policies can result in agricultural involution.


The Priorities of the GREAN
Initiative

GREAN envisages four research program areas
where U.S. universities, in collaboration with


CGIAR Centers and NARS, could make significant
contributions through collaborative research:
" enhanced productivity, food security, and
human nutrition

" sustainable soil, water, forest and fisheries
use
" conservation of biological diversity in
natural systems and in domesticated
plants and animals
" coping with an uncertain and fluctuating
climate.

However, the focus and content of the research
program areas need to be kept flexible, and they
have to be continuously redefined through a process


An Ecoregional Approach


The CGIAR recentlycoined the term "ecoregional" to mean a regionally defined agroecology. The term
recognizes, for example, that the semiarid tropics, as an agroecology, can be identified in each major landmass, yet
itspotential is strongly dependent on the economic and cultural characterisitcs of the indigenous people. Itis
important to recognize thathuman factors are central to the waynatural resources are managed and productivity is
achieved.

The ecoregional approach to research identified areas under imminent threat of resource degradation. Acute soil
erosion, desertification, and salinization are examples. The approach seeks to identify, describe, and measure
degradation at several levels of anaturalheirachy: the soil, the field, the farm, the agroecosystem, and the
landscape unit It also seeks to identify human causes of such degradation through a heirachy of human decision
points at individual, household, community institutional, and policy levels. Itresearchesboth the technical
solutions to thephysical and biological degradation and ways to change human decisions at the levels causing the
problem.

The ecoregional approach recognizes that effort is needed at all stages of the research continuum: basic, strategic,
applied and adaptive. It also recognizes that a wide diversity of skills is required to operate at multiple levels of
both the natural and human hierarchies, and that there is the need for partnerships between institutions with
complementary skills to implement an ecoregional approach to research. The NARS, including the university
systems of developing countries, have a knowledge of local culture, institutions, and policies that must be tapped
to make the ecoregional approach work.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 3: The Research Agenda


of consultation with the three partners.
In the following, we will discuss the priority
setting process, and the content of each program
area.

Priority Setting
Priority setting is not an easy task. Research
must address the most glaring problems, such as
poverty and hunger, thereby reflecting the changing
demand for research. On the other hand, it must
also reflect the rapidly changing frontiers of
science which influence the supply of technology.
Simultaneously, long-term effects on the impacts
on resources must receive attention to improve
management of resources for societal benefit
though there may be no market demand for such
research. Research priorities must be transparent
and relevant to the users of research results.
In Chapter 2, we have shown that U.S. public
sector research on agriculture carried out mostlyby
the land grant universities relies on a highly
participatory process of priority setting. All too
often, however, the process is dominated by interest
groups that have geared research towards benefits
of large, commercial farms. The CGIARarrives at
priorities through a more cerebral process as
described in Chapter 2. The CGIAR Centers, too,
are responsive to their clients, namely the donors,
who are currently oriented towards both poverty
alleviation and environmental sustainabilty The
priorities of NARS seem to have been established
in a relatively top-down manner. They tend to be
very crop-oriented and determined by the
importance of particular commodities in a country,
by historical and structural factors, and by the
growing dependence on external financing of
research. There are, of course, great differences in


NARS among countries and continents, as
discussed in Chapter 2.
Several factors have guided the process by
which the TRIPS taskforce generated the research
priorities for the GREAN initiative. Naturally this
process would be on-going. Mechanisms for
furthering this process are structured in the
initiative, as outlined in Chapter 5. The following
considerations have directed the priorities of the
GREAN initiative proposed in this chapter:

z The urgency of the research problems
necessitates allocation of a large share of the
GREAN resources to areas where the need is
greatest, i.e., quickly increasing populations that
depend on agriculture in a fragile environment. In
addition, the urgency of the problems dictates that
solutions be found in the short- and medium-term,
by bridging the gap between known technologies
and their adoption particularly in the more
favorable areas. In the near (1-3 years) and
medium (3-10 years) term, a number of "shelved"
technologies can be identified that are not being
applied and which can greatly increase productivity
so that the short-term food demand can be met. Yet
there are also long-term problems which need
stable and consistent funding for research to be
able to make progress.

a Local concerns and needs must be the focus
of the global agricultural research system. As
discussed in the previous chapters, there can be a
substantial basic and strategic research component
to the addressing of such local concerns. In
addition, when research originates from local
concerns, NARS become a natural partner in the
research process.

n Priorities must reflect U.S. comparative


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 3: The Research Agenda


advantages. The U.S. had considerable success in
working in partnerships with NARS in the first
Green Revolution. However, the U.S. has
substantially reoriented its research priorities
in recent years. The particular strengths

exploited by the USDA's current National
Research Initiative (NRI) could be harnessed
for application in developing countries. New
advances occurring in genetics, research
methods, computer sciences, and information
systems offer significant potential for rapid

development of agricultural technologies for
adoption by households in developing
countries. This potential is especially great if
the three-way collaborations are utilized to
realize the specialization and comparative
advantage of the partners.


m The research priorities of the GREAN
initiative need to reflect the common ground
of the priorities of the U.S. universities, CGIAR
Centers, and the NARS. Chapter 2 discussed

the strengths and weaknesses of the three partners
in terms of their research emphases, and pointed
out that the U.S. strengths lie in the more basic and
strategic ends of the research. In addition, the
partners' research priorities differ (see table below).
For example, the US. institutions complement
their NARS partners' research foci in areas such as

nutrition, food safety, health and food production
processes. GREAN emphasizes the incorporation
of productivity and nutrition under the same
research program area so that the relations between
these entities are adequately addressed. Research
in this GREAN priority is strengthened by the
cross-cutting emphasis on policy, institutions


Research Priorities of the GREAN Actors


CGIAR Research
Priorities


Conservation and
management of
natural resources,
including germ
plasm conservation
Germ plasm
enhancement
and breeding
Production systems
development
and management
* Socioeconomic,
public policy,
and public
management of
research
* Capacity and
institution
building


NARS Research
Priorities


Food and export
crops


GREAN Research
Priorities


* Enhanced produce
tivity, food security,
and human
nutrition
* Sustainable use
of soil, water,
forests, and
fisheries
* Conservation of
biological diversity
in nature and in
domesticated plants
and animals
* Coping with a
fluctuating climate


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability


U.S. Res
Priorii


Environ:
natural
Nutritio
safety, a
Processe
product,
Econom
social is
Animal
Plant sy









I:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


earch
ties


ment and *
resources
n, food
nd health
es and
s *
ic and
sues
systems *
stems





DRAFT


Chapter 3: The Resea~rch Agenda


and sustainability.
To avoid duplication of CGIAR, NARS and U.S.
university efforts, GREAN priorities could be
coordinated with the ecoregional approach thatthe
CGIAR has adopted for designing its research
programs, as outlined in the table below.




Cross-Cutting, Integrating Research
Themes

In the following pages we describe four major
areas of priority research for the GREAN initiative.
However, we have identified three cross-cutting


research themes, too important to be left out of any
one research program area, that are to be
incorporated in all research program areas:

a Sustainability In view of our lack of
understanding of what constitutes sustainability,
appropriate indicators mustbe developed to
quantify sustainability in terms of long-range trends
in productivity and profitability, impacts on soil and
water resources, and environmental quality.
Criteria need to be identified to link productivity
with sustainability, especially the relation between
land use intensity and use of science-based inputs
to improve soil, crop, livestock and natural resource


The Ecoregional Approach and GREAN

Sustainable
Resource Climate
CGIAREco-Regions Productivity Use Biodiversity Change

VWrmarid and ;
semi arid tropics *

Warm subhumid tropics

Cool tropics *

Warm and Semi-arid
subtropicswith *
summerrainfall

Warm subtropics with
summerrainfall

Warm/coolhumid
tropicswithsummer
rainfall

Cool subtropicswith *
winter rainfall

Cool subtropicswith
sunmmerrainfall

-= H, F pthzt :al CCL AR.r N.kRS Re:sr.ih F r:-r,.m
* = H'p.-theical CRE.-N Ric

Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 3: The Research Agenda


management. Policies thatwill encourage adoption
of sustainable systems are sorelyneeded but cannot
be proposed in the absence of sustainability
indicators.

a Indigenous knowledge is disappearing atan
alarming rate. Astoundinglycomplex and diverse
resource-use systems have been developed by
indigenous peoples, some of which have been
supporting populations for thousands of years.
Indigenous people are notmythically perfect
resource managers, nor should their knowledge be
appropriated; rather, their knowledge can suggest to
scientists new directions for research and policy. In
addition, the active involvement of indigenous
people in the research and development process
ensures that they become experimenters, users of
technologies and owners of the innovation process,
not just its targets.


0 Policy. reform may be more necessary in
some cases than new technological solutions.
Rather than being viewed as a separate
program, policy and institutional analysis
must become an integral part of all GREAN
research program areas. For instance, to
reduce proliferation of squatters and
uncontrolled deforestation, forest policy
reforms can be employed. Analysis can
classify property rights between individuals,
communities and the state sector. Policy makers
can change procedures for concessions to
competitive bidding in place of negotiations,
increase the duration and scope of the exploitation
leases sufficiently to encourage production of
nontimber forest products, reform tax systems to
eliminate incentives or determine whether
harvesting should be allowed in protected areas.


Fostering Adoption of |
Sustainable Practices

As many research institutes have realized, it is
Sone thing to understand the pace, incidence,
nature and causes of threats to agricultural
productivity (and threats to the environment
posed by agricultural practices or to be
acquainted with alternative prototype
solutions. It is something quite different to
foster adoption of the most suitable of these
alternatives by farmers or other stakeholders.

This phase of the strategyclearlyrequires the
ii participation of social scientists, and the training of
biophysical scientists to be more "socially oriented"
since traditionally they do not consider the client,
user or stakeholder in the research process, in
technology generation, or in its subsequent adoption.
Understanding who is the user or stakeholder is the
first step in fostering adoption. Often, a wide range i
of stakeholdersin a defined area have similar overall
objectives regarding productivityand sustainability.

::::::::: ::W~:~::::.. ..:::::::::::::::

Such examples of policy and institutional reforms
could be offered in many areas. According to
Ruttan (1994), we have been unable to design
institutional innovation or reform that can provide a
guide to the organization of sustainable societies
and assure intergenerational equity at even the most
abstract theoretical level. Hence we find the need
to proceed in something more than an ad hoc
manner to devise such institutions and reforms.



GREAN Priorities: Integrating
Productivity with Sustainability

To be effective GREAN's research programs will


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 3: The Research Agenda


require a focused effort from the most basic to
most adaptive. In addition, the research needs
to be linked with development; perhaps
through cooperation with development banks,
as will be suggested in Chapter 5. It is
imperative to address the whole research-to-
development continuum so that the adoption
of technologies will become as valued of an
output of a research program as research
results themselves (see box on previous page).

Research Program Area 1:
Enhanced Productivity, Food
Security and Nutrition
Nearly 700 million people in the developing
world are malnourished -Africa and SouthAsia
are particularly problematic areas. Vitamin and
mineral deficiencies are widespread. Malnutrition
is one of the main determinants of health, and
health is now regarded as an important end in itself.
Health and nutrition also affect physical condition,
labor productivity and earnings.
Increased food production in these areas is
critical to increase local supply reduce real prices
of food, and increase its affordability to the poor.
Yet malnutrition is unlikely to disappear through
expansion of food production and income alone,
unless steps are taken explicitly to address
problems of employment and income among those
most hungry Similarly unless production and
income programs are combined with nutrition
education, malnutrition will not disappear. Areas of
low productivity growth, such asAfrica and the
semi-arid parts of Asia, mustbe GREAN's priority
for increased food production:
A great number of research topics can be
identified under the program area of enhanced


productivity, food security, and nutrition.


m genetic improvement of crops and livestocks -
includes genetic manipulation of nutrient use
efficiency; changes in plant architecture;
developing stress tolerantvarieties; pest resistance
through interspecific gene transfers, molecular
markers and biotechnology; vaccines and
diagnostics for livestock disease control all of
which will require field testing for efficacy,
adaptability and adoption.

a improvements in management of crop and
livestock systems includes integrating crop
systems management to include improvements in
input use efficiency, integrated pest management,
and use of complementary crops; integrating crop
and livestock systems; control of livestock diseases
and improvinglivestocknutrition; analyzing
subsidy levels and property rights; and modelling
crop-livestock systems to understand the conditions
under which poor management occurs.

a improvements in post-harvest management of
agricultural products includes costs of losses
during transport, storage, distribution and
processing.



Research Program Area 2: Soils,
Water, Forest and Fisheries
Degradation of soil and continued deforestation
constitute a major brake on productivity growth in


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 3: The Research Agenda


Examples of research
programs on enhanced
productivity
Stress tolerant varieties: Development of crop
varieties that are more tolerant to different kinds of
environmental stresses is a promising tool of
agricultural research. For example, to help farmers
through dry spells, maize breeders are developing
drought-tolerant tropical maizethis work has been
greatly aided by a discovery that reduced time
between the appearance of female flowers or silks
and male flowers or tassels is a clear indicator of
tolerance to mid-season drought. Other successful
examples of stress-tolerance are drought-tolerant
maize, insect-resistant maize, and maize and wheat
varieties tolerant of acid soils and aluminum toxicity
These improved materials willhelp stabilize crop
production despite fluctuations in weather -a severe
problem in many areas and will help reduce the
need to use toxic chemicals.
Pest Resistance: Pest attacks can be disastrous to
individual farmers. Oneoftheremarkable
discoveries of past agricultural research is that host
plantresistance andpest resistance are both
geneticallycontrolled andwidespread. Geneshave
been transferred to crop plants and the resulting
varieties given protection for fungi, bacteria,
nematodes, insects, and viruses. Strategies are being
formulated to develop durable resistance using
traditionalbreeding and gene deployment
techniques, and through alternative methods of DNA
manipulation.
Improvements in input use efficiency: In the early
stages of the Green Revolutionperiod, policiesin
many countries favored the use of external inputs.
More recently, however, reduced subsidies, reduced
marginal products due to high input levels, and
increasing environmental costs have caused farmers
throughout the world to become more interested in
increasing the efficiency of their input use. Fertilizer
use efficiency often can be improved either through
changes in crop management, delayed application of
fertilizers, or through investments in crop
improvement


agriculture and major threats to food security and
sustainability. Total degraded land area is
estimated at5 billion acres in the world; with 12-
18 million acres of arable land lost every year
through soil degradation. It is not at all clear how
reliable these estimates are. It is important to
identify underutilized lands, to reduce the risks of
soil degradation on problem lands, and to develop
sustainable systems of resource managementfor
dry land and rainfed agriculture in ecologically
sensitive ecoregions characterized byimpoverished
farmers.
Agricultural systems onhillsides and mountains
illustrate the threats posed by soil degradation and
deforestation. They are an important source of
income for millions of poor farm families around
the world, from the Himalayas to theAndes.
Understandably, the main danger to these systems
is rapid soil erosion, leading to soil fertility loss
and reduced moisture-holding capacity
Water shortages will in all likelihood become
the major resource crisis in the Middle East, South
Asia andAfrica. By 2025,34 countries will face
water scarcity. One and a half billion people in
India will have less than one fifth the level of water
by 2025 relative to the U.S., i.e., less than 1400 M3
per person per year compared to 7170 in the U.S.
Insufficientwater supply is the mostimportant
single factor governing agricultural production in
semi-arid and arid climates. In irrigated areas of
Asia, 70 percent of the water is currently used in
agricultural production where salinity,
waterlogging, and water shortages have become
major problems. Water shortage is serious simply
because agricultural productivity growth has been
most rapid in irrigated areas, and much of the
future increase in food production in Asia will


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 3: The Research Agenda


depend on irrigated areas.
Overuse, waste and inefficiency exist side by
side with growing resource scarcity and shortages.
Renewable water, marine and forestry resources are
being mined and put to single use when multiple
uses would generate larger social benefits. Misuse
of water resources is often an outcome of policy
and institutional failures. For instance, free or
heavily subsided irrigation water obstructs market
signals and becomes a substitute for other inputs
such as land improvement and soil conservation.
Such policies have costs ranging from an absence
of effective financial cost recovery to inadequate
maintenance of irrigation systems.
Tropical forests are diminishing at a rate which
threatens biodiversity and global climate stability,
as well as the quality of life of people, especially
the rural poor living on or near forest margins who
depend on forests for a variety of products and
services. The actual extent of deforestation in the
tropics is still subject to debate. Still unknown are
tropical forest composition and function,
productivity economic value and practical options
for their improved management and conservation,
as well as the impact of deforestation on
productivity, sustainability, and biodiversity. This
lack of knowledge inhibits the development of
sustainable technologies of use to forest resource
users and lead to conflicting views and confusion.
Holistic models of forest management that link
biophysical and socioeconomic parameters would
appear to hold particular promise.
In developing countries, up to 20 million people
are directly involved infisheries and aquaculture;
approximately 1 billion people rely on protein from
aquatic products as their main source of animal
protein. New approaches to resource management


are required, as research has shown that repeated
failure of sustainable fisheries management occurs
despite scientific advice to farmers (ICLARM,
1994). Considerable biological research on what
constitutes sustainable fisheries is still required for
tropical areas but, as importantly, the challenges
facing fisheries and aquaculture are primarily
social, economic, and political. Research in these
areas must receive greater emphasis.
The following research topics may hold special
promise in the research program area 2:

s development of methods that enhance
biological processes, accentuate and strengthen
nutrient cycling, and increase efficiency of water
use.

a farming by soilscapes or precision farming
involvinguse of inputs based onvariability in soils
and landscapes, zonal tillage, and management of
no-crop period to reduce risks of soil degradation.
a Enhancement of rainfall effectiveness by
management systems that increase infiltration,
decrease runoff and evaporation, and improve
soil-water retention in the root zone.
m Mulch farming techniques, ridge-tillage
systems, establishment of vegetative hedges,
and use of water harvesting techniques.
m Agroforestry interventions to introduce new
associations of system components and
management practices, and agroforestry research to
determine the site-specific productive and
protective functions of trees and forests.

.a community and other institutional and policy
factors that influence efficiency of resource use.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 3: The Research Agenda


An Example of a Research
Program on Sustainable
|Land Use on Hillsides

SIncreased population pressure has exacerbated land
Degradation in hillside areas, leading to reduced
fallow cycles. There is surprisingly little data on the
precise incidence andpace of this degradation, nor
Son the exact link between this degradation and
reduced agricultural system productivity. Technical
options to slow or halt erosion are not lacking. These
Include: land use changes; use of ground cover;
ii agroforestry, alley cropping, grass strips, grassland
improvement, adjustmentsin land management;
Changes in slope length, modification of soil
properties; and reductions in the slope gradient.

In order for these technical options to be attractive
to farmers, however, number of factors that
discourage farmer use of resource-conserving
practices mustbe understood and overcome.
Poverty and survival: Resource-poorfarmers
frequently continue to use practices that degrade the
resource base and reduce systemproductivity over
Sthe longer term as long as they reliably meet
Ssubsistenceneeds in the near term.
Divergence between on-site and off-site costs and
benefits: Just like in the U.S., farmers often have no
incentive to adopt environmentally-friendlypractices
because the benefits generated by these practices
flow mainly to others.
Issues of land use rights: When land use rights are
poorlydefined, farmers are often reluctant to invest
in resource-conserving technologies. However, even
well-defined rights can on occasion discourage
farmer use of conservation practices. For example,
When herders have rights to graze cattle on crop
Residues, the residues cannotbe incorporated to
enhance soil quality
iX Policy and institutional change: define changes
Needed to make suitable technologies more attractive
to farmers using hillsides.


Research Program Area 3.
Conservation of Biological Diversity
in Natural Systems and
Domesticated Plants and Animals


Developing countries of the world are biotically
rich and technology poor. Developed countries are
technology rich and biotically poorer. According to
the NRC, 70 percent of the 3000 plant species
known to have anti-cancer properties come from
the tropical rain forest. Yet there is no agreement
on the extent of biodiversitynor on the extent of
loss. Estimates of species on earth range from 5
million to 100 million, but only less than 1.4
million of these have been scientifically described.
How much biodiversity we are losing or the
possible effects of the loss are also unknown.
Clearly the aim of conservation must be to
optimize rather than to preserve everything -
although there is disagreement even on this.
Developing countries are keen to have the
technological and financial resources to protect the
value of their biodiversity There is a major
difference in the biodiversity issues related to food
crops, the production of which serves the poor
directly, as distinct from those of medicinal value.
Biodiversity for food production has been based on
unrestricted access for the CGIAR to meet its
needs. However, developing countries are
beginning to place restrictions on a free flow,
prompted by the observation, for example, that
consumers in industrial countries spend far more
for pharmaceuticals derived from tropical plants
than developing country receives in return for those
medicinal plants.
The crucial question is how to safeguard the
interest of source countries without restricting the


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 3: The Research Agenda


exchange of genetic material. CGIAR Centers and
researchers face the choice of either freely
distributing the genetic material they hold, helping
to maximize profits for developing countries by
profit-sharing upon successful commercial
exploitation, or facilitating the realization of source
rights to compensation and technology transfer
withoutjeopardizing the operations of their
collections.
The interest of the global community, and
particularly that of the poor, would be better served
with the free flow of genetic material, which leads
to increased productivity of food and energy
sources. Free flow mightnot only help exploit
extant biodiversity in food crops, but in other
species by increasing the productivity of food
crops for the benefit of humankind. It might also


help preserve biodiversityin areas otherwise likely
to be deforested or otherwise overused by
population pressure.
Research topics thathold special promise in this
category are, in particular:

a Protecting natural ecosystems national
conservation plans are in need of research data in
order to establish or strengthen current programs.
Natural diversity provides genetic resources for
future use. Conservation plans must relate to food
and energy issues affecting the poor, including the
role of wild species and indigenous knowledge.
Research is needed on the role of protected species
in agricultural productivity and environmental
sustainability.

m Ownership and intellectual property rights -


|An Example of a Research Program in Biodiversity
Biodiversity Conservation In Situ and Genetic Improvement of Major
ISubsistence Crops

Many food crops have evolved great stores of genetic variability and provide a major source of food for rural
i populations. Native genepools are maintained by local farming populations because the genetic diversitywithin
Sthe crops provide buffering against climate, pests, and diseases, and because local people have cultural
Preferences for certain varieties or types. This conservation of diversity at the local level ensures long-term
Stability of food supplies. However, theplanting of indigeneous varieties may decline as traditional food
Production and consumption systems change. The resulting loss of the native gene pool mayincrease
Vulnerability to biotic and abiotic stresses.

Research isneeded on methods of conserving local gene pools for future use and maintaining crop genetic
Resources. The argument arises as to whether the native landraces should be conserved under the cultural
conditions and locations where they evolved. Strategies for developing each set of crop species may also be
controversial. Such strategies should take into consideration the wild relatives, the gene flow between wild and
Domestic crops, and farmers' knowledge of plantuse, breeding, and management. Relative roles of in situ (in
the field) and ex situ (in the laboratory or gene bank) conservation mustbe established on a case-by-case basis.
Research will have to include anthropologic, socioeconomic, agronomic, and genetic evaluations of a wide range
ot plants that are important to the sustainabilityof human populations and their food supply. Such research has
i the added benefit of participation and education of local people who mayperpetuate the appropriate farming and
: conservation systems identified bvresearch


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 3: The Research Agenda


researchable issues include the conflicts between
claims of national heritage vs. farmers rights vs.
global needs for biodiversity conservation and open
access to germplasm.

m Biodiversity in crops research is needed on
mechanisms and research on in situ and ex situ
genetic reserves, the evaluation and
maintenance of germplasm collections, and
continued work on gene transfers and
molecular markers. (See box)

m Biodiversity in animals conservation and
restoration of habitat, utilization of Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) to monitor species and
their habitat, the use of molecular biological
methodologies to preserve germplasm, studies to
develop needed policies that govern conservation of
species on their habitat, and research on the more
effective utilization of wild species biodiversity

Research Program Area 4: Coping
With an Uncertain and Fluctuating
Climate
Agricultural activities including deforestation
have notplayed as large a role as industrial pollution
in changing atmospheric concentration of CO2,
changing the global carbon balance, and in emission
of greenhouse gases. Yet the role of agricultural
practices is significant. When forests are burned,
CO2and other gases are released, contributing to
global warming. The burning of tropical forests
releases about 1.6 billion tons of carbon per year,
one third of the fossil fuel emissions. Atmospheric
concentrations of CO, are estimated to have
increased from 200 ppm in the pre-glacial era to 350
ppm in 1990, primarily as a result of hearing
original forests.


Climate change is a serious public concern
in the North. But the developing countries are
much less interested. Although local actions
do contribute to global climate change, the
local effects of deforestation on water, soils,
biodiversity, and productivity are perhaps
more recognizable and important for resource
users than climate change. The factors which
cause local people to practice unjudicious
management of resources, and the options
existing to change those practices must be
important topics of research. By encouraging
judicious management of soils and adoption of
ecologically compatible practices, workers promote
both the prevention of significant climate change
and local environmental sustainability. Either way,
such practices provide an opportunity to sequester
or store carbon in terrestrial ecosystems, and reduce
emissions from soils and burning of biomass.
Restoration and rejuvenation of the productivity of
degraded soils is an important strategy to sequester
carbon and slow the greenhouse effect. Preventing
deforestation and burning, providing alternative
tree management practices, and developing
alternative non-timber forest products will also
reduce emissions.
Importantresearchable topics include
evaluations of the impact of:

a land use and management practices on the
magnitude of gaseous flux from soils, especially in
tropical rainforest, acid savannas, and grassland
ecosystems,

m biomass burning and deforestation on soil
properties and processes that affect greenhouse
gaseous emissions,

a tillage methods, nutrient management, and


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 3: The Research Agenda


agrforestry on ecosystem carbon balance and
gaseous fluxes,

* multiple and mixed cropping systems on
nutrient cycling and gaseous
emissions,

* new and innovative pastoral systems
including silvopastoral systems; and

* local and regional policy and institutional
incentives to promote sustainable land and
resource use practices.

It is important to create awareness about the role
of agricultural practices on the greenhouse effect,
and to identify policy considerations thatwill
enhance widespread adoption of beneficial carbon-
sequestering practices.
These researchable issues have global
significance and require a multi-disciplinary team
approach, representing biophysical, socio-
economic and political scientists.
Global research issues in this area include:
global climate change indicators and results from
modeling; possible agricultural impacts; preparing
for climate change (resource conservation);
mitigating climate change (greenhouse gases,
deforestation, humaninfluences including slash-
and-bum agriculture; impact of rapid population
growth and industrialization); and development of a
global climate change models. At the local level,
air pollution, natural disasters (drought, fire, flood,
cold, hot), instability in crop yields (strategies for
reducing annual and spatial variances), and, again,
deforestation, are all topics whichwarrantfurther
investigation.
There exist a wide range of soil and crop
management practices that can enhance soil organic



'iiii
,:i
r:ii
r:i:
::::
,r
ii,
i:i:i
riii
:i:i:
~ir
:::~
:z
:::
:~~
~~
iC


:w
I












R

f


carbon content, such as water management to
decrease losses by runoff and control leaching and
erosion. Soil scientists disagree with foresters
about research findings, which is why further
investigation is needed onwhether land use
practices affect soil organic carbon content more so
than deforestation and burning. Considerable
differences exist in the store of soil carbon between
temperate and tropical forests, between forests
and pastures, and between lands managed
differently.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability


... .. ..


- - ----------- ...... i~i:i~:E


An Example of a Research
Program on Global Climate

Change
The University of FloridaAgroforestry
Development Program for Small Producers operates
in the State of Acre, Brazil in a partnership with a
local NGO, PESACRE, and with local communities
to help reduce pressures leading to deforestation in
the BrazilianAmazon. Deforestation in the
Amazon is linked to the instability of small
producer communities. Systems of diversified
forest extraction and agroforestry systems to
improve the livelihood of local communities and
reduce deforestation are being adapted to the
diverse kinds of rural populations: agricultural
colonists, extractivists, and indigenous peoples.
Research and training occur in several program
areas: socioeconomic and gender analysis;
economic analysis; ecological viability studies;
agroforestry systems; and community-scale GIS for
land useplanning. Information derived from the
research is used to inform the global climate change
program. Interestingly, PESACRE is also working
with the ICRAF-ledAltematives to Slash and Bum
project, assisting in diagnosis and characterization
of farming systems in project areas.





DRAFT


Chapter 3: The Research Agenda







The four research program areas and the three
cross-cutting, integrating themes of the GREAN
initiative provide a focused research effort to
address the triple problems of productivity
environmentalproblems and poverty These
problems dictate that both concern for the
environment and productivitybe incorporated in
agricultural research, as neither exclusive emphasis
on one or the other is enough. In addition,
GREAN priorities have been directed by the
considerations of the urgency of the problems;
by the emphasis on the focus on local concerns
and needs; and by a need to reflect U.S.
comparative advantages. In addition, the
research priorities of the GREAN initiative
need to reflect the common ground of the
priorities of the three partners, namely US.
universities, CGIARCenters, and the NARS.


In the following chapter, we will show how the
current collaborating mechanisms among the three
partners are inadquater in scope and scale for this
type of research and the kinds of partnerships that
are needed to address the 21st century problems
effectively In Chapter 5, we will demonstrate how
the GREAN initiative can bring the three partners
together to address the research priorities in an
effective manner.













Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 4


Learning from Existing

Mechanisms for Collaborative

Research

Contents


a Introduction

a Criteria for Evaluating Success in
Collaborative Research
a Existing Mechanisms for Collaborative
Research
a Inadequacies of CurrentCollaboration


-------------------
Introduction

The question may rightly be asked:whyis anew
mechanismneeded for US. university participation
in international agricultural research, when many
collaborative mechanisms alreadyexist?
Furthermore, whatwill guarantee that anew
mechanism will work better without creatingyet
another vested interest, bent on ensuring its
continuation regardless of success or failure?
To respond to such questions, the TRIPS
taskforce studied the current collaborative
mechanisms in terms of their objectives, their
results to date, and their adequacy for meeting
future challenges of global poverty,
environmental degradation, and food security.
This chapter reviews the various types of
existing collaborative programs, asking of each:
Howwellhas the mechanismfunctioned? What
has made it successful or unsuccessful, and why?


Criteria for Evaluating
Success in Collaborative
Research

One means of assessing the success of
collaborative research is to identify concrete,
quantifiable outputs. Thus, a successful program
might be one that sets and meets the following
tangible objectives:

w new technologies are developed and
adopted;
a income, productivity and employment
of targeted poor rural households are
increased on a sustainable basis; and
m improved methods for preserving natural
resources become more widely known.

Alternatively, the objectives and ultimate
success of a program may be defined in terms
of inputs into the continuous generation of
new research and technologies. For example,
collaborative efforts might achieve the
following, less tangible results:
a research programs of the participating
institutions receive a boost;
s humancapital developmentenables
graduatingscientists from the participating
developing countries to work on relevant
problems using the best methods of analysis,
and thus have a productive career at home;
a the quality of science in the participating
developing countries is improved through
synergistic collaborations as, for example,
in the quality of publications or policy
papers; and


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability


I





DRAFT


Chagssr 4: Mechanisms for Colaboration


* scientific institutions in the developing
countries receive increased political
support because of their success in
achieving these objectives.

A wide variety of collaborative structures
can be productive avenues for achieving such
goals. However, success will depend on: the
amount of funding; the consistency,
predictability, and focus of the programs; their
long-term vision; the quality of administration;
and the extent to which they are simply
transient arrangements between individual
scientists as distinct from long-term
institutional collaborations that produce the
best of science. Importantly, collaborative
mechanisms must also be judged on the
effectiveness with which they utilize the
comparative advantages of each collaborating
partner, thus avoiding duplication of effort and
matching one institution's weakness with
another's strength.
Finally, we must ask whether the sum total
of current collaborative efforts is adequate in
scale and scope. The ultimate criteria for
evaluating the existing mechanisms is the
extent to which they allow U.S. universities,
CGIAR Centers and NARS to realize their full
potential for collaboration on urgently needed
research of mutual interest.


Existing Mechanisms for
Collaborative Research

Current collaborations among U.S.
universities, CGIAR Centers, and NARS
include a wide range of activities. Their focus


varies from information and knowledge exchange
to transfer of methodologies, materials, and
resources, to training and education, or to technical
support activities. Collaborations take many
administrative forms, such as coordinated research
where common problems are identified but projects
are executed independently or research
collaborations where responsibilities are
distributed within a common program with
shared objectives. An alternative is joint
research, where project implementation is
managed together and objectives and
methodologies are shared. The collaborative
structure also varies. Possible arrangements
include collaborative research by individual
scientists on an ad hoc basis, networks for
research or for exchange of materials and
information, collaborative programs, taskforces,
research consortia, formal strategic alliances,
and professional associations.

U.S.-led Modalities for Collaborative
Research
Individual Arrangements
The best science results from research
conducted between individual scientists
collaborating under exchange arrangements of
mutual scientific interest. But if such
arrangements are short-term, small scale, and
not backed by institutional support of a long-
term nature they may not have significant overall
impact even if they are well conceived. The
following examples of U.S.-based mechanisms for
individual collaboration illustrate the point.
The "Rocky Doc" program of the Rockefeller
Foundation offers competitive grants for post-
doctoral social scientists. It has groomed some


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chppter 4: Mechainisms for Coalaboration


of the brightestyoung U.S. social scientists in
international agriculture and turned them into
well-known international agricultural
researchers. However, with just eight Rocky
Doc fellowships offered annually, this program
is dwarfed by the vast demand for well trained
social scientists internationally.
USAID's Liaison Scientist Program designates
individual scientists to establish stronger
scientific ties and increase collaborations
between U.S. universities and CGIAR Centers.
However, it is inadequately funded, under-
publicized, and is not followed up with
sufficient resources, even when opportunities
for collaboration between U.S. science and
CGIAR research programs are identified. The


program's annual budget has ranged from
$70,000 to $120,000.
Center-university joint appointments are a new
and relatively untried collaborative
mechanism. A successful example is the
Rockefeller Foundation-funded arrangement
between Cornell University and IRRI (see Box).
The rationale for center-university
arrangements originates from several
observations: that the cost of a U.S. scientist
based on a U.S. campus is only one-half to
two-thirds of that of a scientist based at a
CGIAR Center; that a U.S. scientist is backed
by a vast existing infrastructure of laboratories,
libraries, faculty, colleagues and graduate
students not available at CGIAR Centers; and


A Scientist Without Borders
An Example of a Truly Collaborative
Partnership
The IRRI-Comell Collaborative Research
Program is an example of a truly collaborative
partnership, deserving of becoming a model for
future collaborations. For the past three years,
plant breeder Susan McCouch has worked as an
IRRI-Comell Shuttle Scientist. Based at Comell,
but making frequent trips to IRRI in the
Philippines and to other Asian countries,
McCouch has developed a research program to
apply molecular techniques to rice improvement,
train students and visiting scientists in rice
genome analysis, and facilitate the transfer of
molecular technology to rice research programs
throughout the world. Over 50 agriculturally
important genes have been identified. It has also
become possible to identify chromosomal
regions carrying genes that code for polygenic
characters, such as flowering, whose complex
inheritance has made them difficult to manipulate in
classical breeding programs.
In connechn '.\ith these research intere-..
NMCouch has ininated the LiSDA-tunded Rice


Genes" database and information retrieval
system available through Internet and CD-ROM.
The system makes available rice maps and
mapping data, DNA sequence information,
bibliographic references, germ plasm and
pedigree information, and photographic images
of rice plants, pathogens, disease symptoms, and
autoradiograms to users worldwide, free of
charge. IRRI and National Program scientists in
developing countries advise on the kinds of rice-
related information that should be provided by
the database.
This Shuttle Scientist arrangement bridges the
gap between developing and developed
countries, between high-technology laboratories
and conditions where quick research results are
most needed but where conditions are
inadequate for performing the research tasks,
and between immediate practical needs and
highly focused basic science research. An
expanded program of this sort would greatly
profit a wide variety of national and
international agricultural research institutions.
Other scientists at Cornell and the University of
Florida for example. are -huttlhn to CITOR Ln a
similarr marotr


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability


. .:::.:.:..: :.. ..:.:.:.: ..:::





DRAFT


Chapter 4: iMSchanismns for Collaborastion


that U.S. universities, international centers, and
developing countries can greatly profit from contact
with faculty members with dose links and active
research projects in another institution. These
arrangements are potentially one of the most
important ways to buy state-of-the-art research
technology for international research. In addition,
they are an important way to attract recently
graduated young scientists to an international
career at a time when the practical aspects of such a
career are becoming more difficult due to tenure
policies and the increase in two-spouse professional
families. The placement of scientists from CGIAR
Centers and NARS on US. campuses on a half-
time basis for one to two years could achieve
similar goals.
However, these joint appointees have to contend
with the demands and cultures of two very different
institutions. For the arrangement to work, research
objectives must be dearly defined and shared
between the two institutions. For example,
university faculty typically are not accustomed to
delivering research products in a timely fashion,
within the relatively strict confines of defined
institutional research programs. In addition, these
appointments require considerable flexibility on the
part of collaborating institutions. For example,
U.S. universities may need to emphasize
international work and applied research in their
criteria for evaluating professional contributions,
rather than emphasizing basic research and
advances in methods. The CGIAR Centers may
need to enhance their in-house scientific
managerial capacity to define and manage work
programs of researchers several thousand miles
away. Provided these obstacles are overcome, joint
appointments hold great promise because they


ensure that scientific research is undertaken where
it is most cost-effective.
The USDA-linkage program funds U.S.
scientists on a six-month to one-year basis to
undertake research in CGIAR Centers. It
provides an excellent means of exposing U.S.
scientists to international research, but with
only 8 grants of $25,000 each given in 1993 and
no additional funding planned, the program is
grossly underfunded.
Since 1987, the Sub-Saharan Africa Dissertation
Internship Awards, funded by the Rockefeller
Foundation, have annually supported Ph.D.
research inAfrica of 25 African students from U.S.
and Canadian universities. Only 30 percentof the
grants are in the agricultural sciences. However,
the programs undeniablyfilling avoid. The
awards are particularly laudable for makingAfrican
students' Ph.D. research relevant to the region's
concerns. Both the students and their North
American advisors are exposed to field research in
Africa, as the advisor's travel can be funded. A
recent evaluation of the program (Watt, 1993)
recommended that a multi-year career development
award for returning scientists and scholars be
induded in the grant to help create a more
hospitablehome-country environment, inwhich the
returning students could be more productive.
USAID's temporary grant program to graduate
students from U.S. universities to seek research
possibilities at CGIAR Centers, functioned in
conjuction with the Scientific Liaison Program had
similar aims. If continued, the grants could add to
a cadre of highly trained researchers who possess
intimate knowledge of problems and possibilities in
the field.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability


-3





DRAFT


CIiaptipr 4: Mociwanism,7s for- Colhaboration?


Institutional Collaborations
The above individual arrangements often
operate in environments where there is no
incentive at the broader level to foster such
collaborations. Therefore, administrators in
either U.S. institutions or host countries consider
suchexchanges international "junkets" undertaken
by faculty or staff for fun rather than for serious
work. The establishment of collaborations between


institutions can overcome this problem.
Unfortunately many institutional collaborations
suffer from a lack of well-defined objectives, poor
monitoring, and the absence of the best scientists;
they are therefore prone to being viewed as
products of institutionalvested interests rather than
as programs pursued for a higher purpose. The
following examples illustrate these observations:
Fifty U.S. universities participate in three
regionally-focused university consortia for
international developmentwork. An example is
MUCIA, the Midwest Universities Consortium for
InternationalActivities, Inc. (see table). Such
consortia have provided universities with the


necessary depth and breadth to compete for
international project funds, for which purpose
they have primarily been used. The long-term
impact of such consortia in international
agricultural research has been limited by their
amorphous objectives and their failure to
provide the scientific leadership necessary for
tackling complex global problems.
The Collaborative Research Support Programs
(CRSP), funded by USAID, are perhaps the
best known mechanisms for international
collaborative research among U.S. university
faculty. Nine CRSPs address the problems of
sustainable food production systems for small-scale
farmers in developing countries. Research on
impact assessmentwithin CRSPs is underway
CRSPs have trained large numbers of students from
both developing countries and the U.S., thus
developing human capacity To their credit, the
CRSPs have also developed new crop varieties,
livestock breeds, and vaccines; improved
understanding of farming systems in developing
countries; exposed U.S. scientists to developing
country problems; created networks of scientists;
and exposed developing country scientists to new
research methods. CRSPs have also generated
interest on U.S. campuses, particularly at a
time of declining financial resources, as a
source of overhead and, at times, as substitutes
for domestic programs of interest to U.S.
agriculture.
Clearly the CRSPs, by offering mutual gains
to both U.S. and developing country farmers,
have created a strong political and university
constituency in the U.S. for the support of
international research, while developing a cadre of
national researchers supportive of collaborations


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability


Consortium Name Year Member Programs Run,
Est'd Institutions by 1992

Consortia for 1972 12 Public 276
International Western
Development Universities
(CID)

Midwest 1964 9 Midwestern 100
Universities Universities
Consortium
for International
Activities (MUCIA)

Southeast 1977 29 Southern 31
Consortium for and Eastern
International Universities
Development (SECID)





DRAFT


Chapter 4: Mechlanismis for CoSslaboration


with U.S. researchers. The CRSPs, however, were
not mandated to advance institution building in
developing countries. They have notassisted in the
home-country retention of trained scientists. The
extent of adoption of the technologies they have
generated is uncertain, and perhaps limited, since
the CRSPs were not intended to be development
programs or to measure impact. Nine of the CRSPs
were recently evaluated but the results of that
evaluation have notyet been made public.
From the US. university perspective, the
instability of USAID funding has slowed program
efforts. The CRSPs have also only recently
involved CGIARCenters in collaboration. Overall,
it may be said that the CRSPs have sometimes
failed to establish a management and review system
thatavoids the appearance of patronage and pork
barrel financing, and have not always engaged the
most qualified and experienced U.S. researchers.
The University Development Linkages Program
(UDLP) was an excellent idea motivated by
many of the same objectives as TRIPS;
however, it is not currently receiving funding.
Administered by USAID's Center for
University Cooperation in Development, the
program aims to improve the capacity of
educational institutions in developing
countries while furthering the
internationalization objectives of U.S.
universities.
Each UDLP program involves the alliance of
two or more universities from the U.S. and a
developing country to work on problems of
mutual interest. The University of Florida, for
example, has a linkage program with Makerere
University in Uganda that mainly focuses on
democratization and governance.


USAID has funded these programs ata
$100,000 maximum per year for up to five years,
with a matching requirement of 100 percent. In the
first two competitive cycles, grants were awarded to
28 linkages involving33 U.S. and developing
country institutions in 23 countries for work in
fields such as health, education, agriculture, and
democracy. However, developing country
universities often have been less than full partners
in this venture. Perhaps most importantly, no
competitive cycles took place in 1994, and new
funds for 1995 are uncertain.
The BOSTID Research Grant Program,
operational between 1981 and 1992, was a
USAID-funded effort to foster science and
technology in developing countries. The
program's conceptual forerunner was the
Carter administration's proposed Institute for
Scientific and Technological Cooperation
(ISTC), a new, semi-autonomous agency, which
was intended to support science and
technology cooperation between U.S. scientists
and developing country counterparts in a
limited number of activities (Greene, 1991).
Though this effortnever received funding from the
Congress, the BOSTID programwas launched to
promote similar goals. BOSTID provided funds
only to developing country scientists, while the
cooperating U.S. scientists eitherworked on a
voluntary or consultancy basis. During the
program's 11 years of operation, 107 research
grants, totalling $163 million, were awarded in six
areas in agriculture and medicine, namely grain
amaranth, biological nitrogen fixation,
multipurpose trees, mosquito vector research, rapid
epidemiological assessment, and acute respiratory
infections.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 4: Mechanisms for Collaboration


The BOSTID Research Grant Program, though
an inspiration to GREAN, had a number of
shortcomings that are common in other
collaborations. The budgetwas extremely limited,
making long-termimpact difficult. Fundingwas
cut on short notice. Today, BOSTID operates with
an extremely small budget and staff. Moreover, as
funds were available for only developing country
scientists, their research was not linked in an
effective manner to that conducted in the US.
Finally, BOSTID's research themes were
narrow and could not incorporate the type of
research needed to address twenty-first
century problems. As proposed in Chapter 3,
the research agenda will need to be far broader,
more substantial, and longer term. The
program has, however, given a great deal of
thought to modalities of collaboration, and
BOSTID's experience and infrastructure may
be usable again.

CGIAR-led Mechanisms for
Collaborative Research
Many of the modalities for collaboration
with other institutions adopted by the CGIAR
Centers offer additional insights into what
might be tried through the GREAN initiative.
The CGIAR-led collaborations show (1) a high
degree of NARS involvement from the outset,
(2) involvement of a range of institutions in
developing countries that goes beyond the national
research institutions of the ministries of agriculture,
and (3) a highly inter-disciplinary and even
intersectoral nature of problem definition and
solution. There are numerous such collaborative
mechanisms, including several involving US.
universities. The examples below are only


illustrative of such efforts.
The West African Rice Development Association
(WARDA) has adopted a taskforce approach to
research collaboration with its national partners.
The approach allocates responsibilities to
participants on the basis of comparative advantage
to achieve research efficiency A taskforce
approach, proponents argue, creates a stronger
sense of ownership by the national program
partners and a more favorable environment for
WARDAto gain increased moral, material, and
financial support from the member states. The
taskforce approach is designed to foster an "Open
Center" characterwhere a core group of WARDA
scientists conducts research ina range of
disciplines, while partners from other institutions
complementand supplementWARDA's resources.
Eight thematic taskforces bring together
disciplinary specialists from the region to develop a
research master plan for meeting the priority
regional constraints to rice cultivation.
For example, the innovative multisectoral and
multidisciplinary taskforce called "Human Health
in Lowland and Irrigated Ecosystems" is examining
the variety of epidemiological, agroecological, and
socioeconomic factors that determine the impact of
rice cultivation on the incidence of malaria and
schistosomiasis. In cooperation with WHO,
WARDAis coordinating the taskforce with the
participation of two national research centers in
C6te d'Ivoire and three in Mali. The involvement
of US. universities in such taskforces would be
helpful, although currentlyno US. universities are
participating. However, the NARS in the regions
are strongly interested in collaborations with US.
colleagues.
WARDA's taskforce approach to program


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 4.- Meahanhi for Collaboration


administration is based on NARS' intimate
knowledge of rice production constraints and
other problems in their countries, on their
abilityto conductadaptive research, and on the
CGIAR Centers' access to facilities that enable
strategic research. International collaborators with
in-depth expertise in a certain field, such as WHO,
are being drawn into collaboration for certain
projects.
The African Network forAgroforestry Education
(ANAFE) is an example of a research network.
Since 1993 it has connected a great number of
universities and technical colleges in developing
countries,African NARS, ICRAF, and universities
in industrialized countries in fourAfrican locations.
The program goals are to strengthen research
linkages between universities and those NARS
which participate in Agroforestry Research
Networks for Africa (AFRENA), to expand the
pool of trained personnel, and to establish
degree programs at university and certificate/
diploma levels in agroforestry. The network
aims to promote activities including research,
curriculum development, training of faculty
and staff, and development of teaching
materials. Regrettably, rigid institutional
structures are proving to be an obstacle for
ANAFE's intended multidisciplinary work.
Similarly, a lack of trained staff, teaching
materials, and financial resources have
impeded the Network's progress.
The Consortium for Sustainable Development of
the Andes (CONDESAN) aims at maintaining
biodiversity and collecting germplasm, along with
identifying appropriate technology and policies for
sustainable development, in sixbenchmark
agroecologies and four countries in theAndes


region. With an annual budget of approximately
$2.5 million, its membership includes more than 40
institutions, including CGIAR Centers, universities,
NARS, NGOs, and private firms. The consortium's
activities range from information and materials
transfer, training, and outreach to biotechnology
research and on-farm adaptive research.
The consortium has benefited from an open,
participatory approach, a firm regional identity and
agreement on the part of the collaborating partners
about the seriousness of regional problems.
However, there have been difficulties related to
sharing financial resources, determining research
priorities, NARS restructuring, lack of training,
governance procedures, and national jealousies.
Collaborating partners realize more emphasis is
needed on increased governance by local leaders,
better information support, and sharing of data
bases.



Inadequacies of Current
Collaboration

Many of the programs just reviewed form an
excellent foundation for a visionary approach such
as the GREAN initiative. However, as is cear from
the discussion above, current collaborations suffer
from limited scope and grossly inadequate scale,
hindered as they are by unpredictable, short-term
funding and uncertain political backing. In the
1980s and 1990s in the U.S., arguments for
university involvementhave either received little
political support (as in the case of ULDP), or the or
the kind of political support (as in the case of
CRSPs) that deviated from essential objectives.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 4: Mechanissms for Collaboration


Analysis of current collaborative mechanisms
supports the position thatprograms with an impact
on a broader scale are urgentlyneeded. The few
existing well-funded and focused efforts with a
dear impact offer examples of what can and should
be done, and in some cases, what should not be
done. One of the greatest challenges is to ensure
individual excellence backed by institutional
support of the right type. Our review of current
mechanisms highlights the importance of defining
mutuallyagreed upon goals reflecting mutual
interests. Further, it suggests that the ingredients
for successful collaboration include:

* applying the best of science to achieve
well-defined, concrete objectives so as to
realize mutual benefits;
a providing the necessary long-term
financial support on a predictable,
consistent basis; and


problems in developing countries, the existing
collaborative mechanisms place relatively little
emphasis on building NARS scientific capacity.
Unfortunately, far too often collaborative
research does not include developing country
scientists at an early stage of problem
definition; they are brought in merely to bless
the collaboration, once project objectives and
methodologies have been decided. The
GREAN proposal, as outlined in Chapter 5,
promotes NARS initiative in formulating
collaborative research objectives. Recognizing
the great diversity among NARS, the GREAN
plan proposes to increase their capacity to
identify the research issues facing their clients
and thus to give them a more equal voice in
setting the global research agenda which
affects them.


n instituting administrative mechanisms to
ensure that scientific excellence and the
objectives are not compromised.

Past experience also suggests the need to
ensure adequate NARS leadership in
collaborative research. Based on the principle
of subsidiarity, research should be carried out
at the level at which it can be conducted
efficiently. Yet it is clear from the above
examples that, although improving NARS
capacities is fundamental to addressing the










Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 5


The Proposed GREAN Initiative

Contents


The GREAN Initiative:
Mission Statement

a Operating Principles


a Organizational Structure


The Two-Stage Application Process


a Funding Allocation


a Launching the GREAN Initiative


a Implications for Other Actors and Donors


Introduction


In previous chapters of this report, we
have outlined the triple global challenge of
poverty, environmental degradation, and food
insecurity posed by a world population that
will at least double over the next half century,
with almost all population increases to occur in
developing countries. We have outlined a
compelling agenda of research for the 21st
century and have identified priority areas for
collaborative research. For this research
agenda to be fully addressed, the US. mustresume
the leadership role it once provided in these areas
on a long-term, predictable basis of the sort that
helped generate the first Green Revolution.
New scientific advances in the industrial world
and vastimprovements in communications


technology make that leadership both
necessary and possible. The demand for
resources for international environmentally
sustainable agricultural research is great. But
there is an enormous disparity between the
resources needed to meet this demand and
those currently available. Four elements
essential for achieving substantial and
sustained progress are missing at present:

1 the political will, in developed and
developing countries alike, to ensure that
adequate attention is paid, and sufficient
resources applied, to global research on
reconciling sustainability with
productivity growth;
* sufficient funding on a long-term
predictable basis;
* a mechanism to enable the three sets of
partner institutions to set research
priorities through a participatory process
and to conduct the research in a manner
that emphasizes comparative
advantages and reduces transaction costs;
s making information freely and readily
available to enable a collaborative global
research system to work effectively and
efficiently.

Putting these elements in place will greatly
increase returns from the three-way
partnership, thatnow operates on an ad hoc,
individual basis.
Ideally, U.S. universities should make
changes in their incentive structure, priorities,
and research programs to participate in a
worthy, broad-based, and collaborative global
research endeavor. In practice, this will not


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability


I





DRAFT


Chapter 5: The Proposed Grean initiative


happen without a major initiative either by
private foundations and/or the U.S. federal
government. Such an initiative must include a
level of funding sufficient to prompt these
changes. Indeed, as noted in the recent USDA
proposal for a $500 million National Research
Initiative (NRI, 1989), attracting top-quality
scientific talent requires grants which are
adequate in size and duration to conduct
effective research, such as those awarded by
the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the
National Institutes of Health (NIH), the two
institutions in the United States with the
largest and most successful grants program.
Viewed from this perspective, GREAN's
proposed eventual funding level of $100 million is
not overly large. Moreover, this scale of funding
just begins to be commensurate with the size of
the global problems to be addressed. This
chapter outlines the specifics of an initiative
for just such an engagement of U.S.
universities.



The GREAN Initiative: Mission
Statement

The GREAN initiative is a proposed
program of competitive research grants. Its
purpose is to bring the best scientific
knowledge and methods to bear in
collaborative, disciplinary, and interdisciplinary
research to address the crucial problems of poverty
alleviation, agricultural productivity and
environmental sustainability.
All funded researchwould promote
collaboration between U.S. universities, the
international agricultural research centers of the


CGIAR system, and relevant national
institutions in developing countries. A
fundamental premise of the GREAN initiative
is that a collaborative approach to research that
draws on the comparative advantage of each
partner institution will enhance the efficiency
and effectiveness of research and thus have a
substantial impact on the productivity of low-
income farming populations.
Funds would initially be granted for work in
four priority research areas:
m enhanced productivity, food security, and
nutrition;
a soils, water, forest and fisheries;
a conservation of biological diversity in
natural systems and domesticated plants
and animals; and
s coping with an uncertain and fluctuating
climate.

This competitive grants program would
operate for at least 20 to 30 years and be
administered in an apolitical manner,
preferably under the auspices of the National
Research Council, National Science Foundation, or
another designated lead agency. The GREAN
initiative would carry out the following
administrative functions:
a establish global research priorities through a
continuous, dynamic process of consultation
and review;
s circulate these priorities among eligible
institutions and individuals;
Receive and evaluate grants through a
competitive process conducted with peer
panels;
a fund high-quality, innovative research


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 5: The Proposed Grean initiative


program proposals;
0 provide a monitoring and periodic evalu-
ation process for ongoing grants to ensure
quality, productivity, and relevancy; and
m insure transparency of the entire process.

Solutions to the problems identified in this
report are vital to the future well-being of the
planet. The proposal for a GREAN initiative
calls for a response on the part of U.S.
foundations and the government
commensurate with the magnitude of the
problems. The initiative envisions $10 million
to $15 million in seed money to be contributed on
a pilot basis by foundations interested in issues
related to population, agriculture, environment,
povertyand gender, biotechnology, health, and
human capital. These include the Ford, Kellogg,
MacArthur and Rockefeller Foundations, the
Carnegie Corporation, and the Pew Charitable
Trusts. The initial contributions for a period of
5 years will assist in helping perfect the
program design, while allowing the time
needed to undertake the necessary education
to secure a federal appropriation of up to $100
million annually from the U.S. Congress.



Operating Principles

The GREAN initiative envisions a program
of research funding predicated on a set of basic
principles covering (1) the effective use of
financial resources, (2) the desired collaborative
nature of the formal research, and (3) the desired
content and scope of that research.


Financial Effectiveness
Aiming both to mobilize and utilize
financial resources with maximum
effectiveness, the GREAN initiative seeks to:

a stimulate the appropriation of new
money and not simply the reallocation of
U.S. funds already committed to U.S.
universities, the CGIAR, or bilateral
programs. Existing research programs are
already so seriously underfunded that
reallocating funds to establish GREAN
would defeat its purpose of substantially
enhancing and strengthening existing
collaborative research efforts.
w establish strategic linkages with
institutional donors, including the World
Bank, the regional development banks,
and bilateral donors, so as to avoid
duplication of effort and to leverage their
resources for maximum impact of GREAN
research. The impact of this initiative will
be strategically enhanced through synergy
with other funding programs, such as the
World Bank's proposed five-year, $2.5
billion investment in the NARS. Close
links with the development banks will
help to maximize the impacts of research.
a reduce the transaction costs for
conducting research on the tripartite global
food security, environmental, and
agricultural productivity agenda. This
process contains two elements:
(1) facilitating the flow of information so
that each research partner is aware of the
scope and quality of what others are
doing, and (2) utilizing the comparative
advantage of each partner and


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 5: The Proposed Grean Initiative


determining its participation in the
research agenda based on what it can do
most effectively and efficiently.


m minimize overhead costs to ensure that
the bulk of GREAN funding goes to the
direct costs of research programs, and to
avoid charges of pork barrel politics.
Research projects would be required to
adhere to financial conditions of no salary
recovery (for principal investigators),
salary supplements for NARS only,
indirect cost recovery allowed at a modest
level, and all direct costs allowed.
Developing country scientists would,
however, be provided the needed
supplementary resources for e.g.,
equipment and transportation to enable
them to participate fully in research.

Collaborative Structure of Research
A research proposal, to be funded, must
adhere to the following principles:

* Each funded research program must
involve scientists and institutions from
all three groups--U.S. universities, CGIAR
Centers, and NARS. A full tripartite
collaborative involvement would be
required both in the setting of research
priorities and in the actual conduct of
research.
* The principle of subsidiarity should
govern the organization of the research
program so that the comparative
advantages of each partner are
maximized. Thus, a program's
research activities are to be carried out at


the lowest level at which they can be
conducted most efficiently and effectively;
e.g., in a U.S. laboratory versus in a
farmer's field in a developing country.

* A "NARS initiative" approach should be
adopted, in which high priority is assigned
to those problems perceived by NARS to
be in need of immediate attention. NARS
institutions would be especially
encouraged to initiate research proposals,
and to solicit the participation of U.S.
universities and CGIAR Centers.
* Programs must explicitly include measures
to strengthen the NARS capacities to
design and implement their own agendas
of research and research application. (see
box.)
* Each of the collaborating institutions will
be held to high standards of scientific and
financial accountability.
a Effective tools and modalities for
collaboration should be employed, taking
advantage of advanced information
technology and innovating collaborative
mechanisms as appropriate.

Composition and Scope of Research
Programs
The GREAN initiative would fund
innovative multi-component research
programs whose goals and methods are
consistent with the GREAN research agenda
outlined in Chapter 3. Each program would,
as a whole, need to address the entire
continuum of research, from basic to adaptive
(see figure on p. 5-6).
The research program would be made up of


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


The NARS-lnitiated Approach to Setting Research Priorities

Research should be carried out at the level at which it can be conducted efficiently. In this connection,
improving the capacities of NARS, including the national university system, is fundamental to
addressing the problems in developing countries. The GREAN initiative proposes that an explicit effort
be made to take that objective further. Recognizing the great diversity among NARS, this plan proposes
to increase their capacity to identify the research issues facing their clients and thus to give them a more
equal voice in setting the global research agenda which affects them. This would have the advantage of
ensuring that NARS research programs are increasingly demand-driven and program-based. Such
empowerment of NARS should increase the value of their cooperation with U.S. universities and IARCs,
permitting universities and Centers gradually to shift more of their research to global and strategic
issues.
New mechanisms to enable NARS to conduct integrated regional research planning would be a useful
first step and have already been implemented in West Africa by WARDA and the Special Program for
African Agricultural Research (SPAAR). NARS could realize economies of scale by sharing tasks on the
basis of comparative advantage, thereby increasing their ability to define areas of dependence on
international centers. Some regional institutions already exist, such as the Institut du Sahel (INSAH)
and the Southern Africa Center for Agricultural Research (SACCAR).They can provide international
bases for regional priority-setting and the development of complementary national research plans. The
Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) is the
most recent example.

I I.* ...
.....***..*..^. ..: **.**.**.. .* ... .S..** ..*a*.... ... .: .*.s. ... ...


several well-integrated projects with shared
general goals. Each of these component
projects would be led by a principal
investigator or investigators working
collaboratively with other scientists. A
research component may work toward a
narrow, single-disciplinary goal, or have a
wide focus and involve several disciplines and
levels of research.
Application for fundingwould be through a
two-stage, competitive grants processwhich is a
well-proven means to stimulate high quality
research in areas of urgent priority It has the
merits of flexibility and adaptability, of attracting
the attention and interest of a broad range of
scientists, and of providing balance to ongoing,
established avenues of scientific inquiry Above all,


the competitive grants process helps move
scientific research in new directions.
The proposed funding mechanism would
award grants according to the following
principles:


w Proposals must demonstrate clearly how
they address in an integrated fashion the
triple concerns of environmental
sustainability, agricultural productivity
growth, and poverty alleviation.

SProposals must show their potential
impact on the lives of poor households at
the local level. The proof of scientific
excellence will be the effectiveness of the
research in having a measurable impact on


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 5: The Proposed Grean Initiative


people's lives and on resources. The research
programs mustbe multidisci-plinary in overall
scope, though several of the component
projects might be limited to a single discipline.
* Advanced technologies mustbe shared among
all the partner institutions to ensure they are
enhanced in this regard.

a Institutional and human resource
strengtheningbe explicitly addressed in each
research program. For example, each
program should include training and research
opportunities for both U.S. and developing
country graduate students and post-doctoral
fellows.
* The program duration should be sufficient
(3-10 or even 15 years where appropriate) to
allow long-term research and assessment of
results, and yet be sufficiently time-bound to


ensure accountability. This suggests
several phases for long-term projects.

s Finally, each program mustpublish
research results forwide dissemination.



Organizational Structure

The proposed organizational hierarchy of the
GREAN initiative is indicated in the accompanying
figure.

Lead Agency
Management of the GREAN initiative would be
as apolitical as possible. GREAN would be housed
within an independent scientific organization such
as the National Research Council (NRC) of the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which has


STaskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability


Collaborative Relations Along the Research-Development
Continuum in a GREAN Program

G
G Farmers and Extension
R

E/_ __ /_ /_
A NARS
N /

SCGIAR CGIAR


r
a U.S. Universities



I I I I I
Basic Strategic Applied Adaptive Development
Research Research Research Research


I












DRAFT


Organizational Structure of GREAN Initiative


Z
.V

`=

2


=
a
-
-
~

Z


O







"
9
~
~I .=


'=S

" E
s





DRAFT


Chapter 5: The Proposed Grean Initiative


had considerable experience in administering
competitive grant programs, or in the NAS itself.
All GREAN fundingwould flow through this lead
agency. The agencywould award grants to
successful applicants based on recommendations of
the GREAN Governing Board.

Governing Board
A Governing Board would be composed
principally of distinguished representatives
from U.S. universities, the CGIAR, and NARS,
with additional members representing NGOs,
foundations, the U.S. government, and the private
sector. The Governing Board's primary
responsibilities will be to guide the establishment
of research priorities and provide overall direction
and leadership to the GREAN initiative. As part
of this process it will draw on the expertise of the
individual ScientificAdvisory Panels for each of
the four Research Program Areas. The Board will
determine the membership of the panels. In
addition, it will select and supervise the
GREAN Director, coordinate with other
internationally relevant organizations and
program areas, act upon recommendations of
the Director with regard to funding and/or
termination of grants, and make other critical
decisions as necessary

Director's Office
The Director should be a respected international
scientist broadly experienced in interdisciplinary
research and research management. The Director
would be an employee of the lead agency or
institution and would report to the Governing
Board. He or she would oversee a staff of
administrative and scientific specialists, including


Associate Directors for each of the four initial
Research ProgramAreas. The size of the director's
office must be sufficiently balanced between
ensuring effective and efficient use of research
dollars and avoiding a top-heavy administration.
The Director's primary functionwould be to
administer the competitive grants program
under the policy guidelines established by the
Governing Board and to be accountable, along
with the Governing Board, to the lead agency
for administrative and fiscal matters associated
with GREAN. More specifically, the Director
and his/her staff would publicize the program,
publish requests for proposals based on
priorities established by the Governing Board,
assist the Board in identifying experts to
evaluate proposals, provide recommendations
to the Governing Board on proposals to be
funded, oversee the progress, and ensure the
effective management of funded projects and,
if necessary, recommend projects to the
Governing Board for termination.
The Director's office will also coordinate
and enhance information flow between the
research partners. Effective collaboration
requires greatly enhanced sharing of information
among scientists and administrators at U.S.
universities, IARCs, and developing country
institutions. With information on one another's
priorities and research activities NARS, U.S.
universities, and CGIAR Centers can better
identifypotential partners with particular expertise.
NARS institutions stand to benefit most by such
information exchange, which provides them with
the opportunity to become actively involved in
cutting-edge research.
An important function, then, of the GREAN


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 5: The Proposed Grean initfftive


Director's office would be to create and maintain a
number of systematized databases. These could
include:

* an inventory of university faculty and their
expertise, as well as special physical and
material resources for international work.
The latter would include special
laboratory testing and diagnostic facilities,
and areas of concentration of specific
universities;

* a comprehensive, CGIAR Center-wide
database of opportunities for program
participation, post-doctoral positions, and
thesis research opportunities; and


* a database on ecoregional and thematic
research programs, consortia, and
networks to enable universities, CGIAR
Centers, and NARS to match researchers,
resources, and sites.

Management of Research Program
Areas
Four associate directors would be appointed
to administer the four major GREAN Research
Program Areas, abbreviated in the chart as
productivity; soil, water, and forests; biodiversity;
and climate change.
A scientific advisory panel would be established
for each research program area. The panels will be
selected by the Governing Board, in consultation
with the Director, to establish and regularly review
research priorities, and to evaluate and recommend
proposals for funding in accordance with these
priorities. Panelists should possess a broad
knowledge of both the frontiers of basic science
and the realities in developing countries, have a


multidisciplinaryapproach to problem solving, and
be able to define a researchable agenda ranging
from basic to adaptive research within the
framework of Research ProgramAreas (as outlined
in Chapter 3).
The scientific advisory panels would be
broadly interdisciplinary in nature and would
include representatives from the relevant
research specializations or disciplinary areas,
as well as systems and socioeconomic
scientists. Members would be selected from
the international community, with
representation from both developed and
developing countries.
External Evaluation Panels would also be
organized for each of the Research Program
Areas to evaluate ongoing projects, provide
technical backstopping where necessary, and
enhance overall accountability. Chaired by the
Associate Director, the panels would consist
primarily of younger scientists with strong
scholarlycredentials and some international
experience. Again, panelists would be broadly
representative of both the appropriate disciplinary
areas and of the wider international community of
scholars. Participation in the work of these panels
will also help recruit promising scientists, acquaint
them with global research issues, and encourage
them to work directly on such topics.

Internal Management of Research
Programs
In addition to adhering to the set of
principles undergirding the GREAN initiative
as outlined above, funded research programs
must clearly define the role of each party
through a management plan which shows how


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 5: The Proposed Grean initiative


the program will be coordinated among all
participants at all levels, how the individual
research projects will be interrelated, and how
each will contribute to the overall objectives.
The programs management must demonstrate
accountability and include time lines for
planning and review, with monitoring,
evaluation, and joint reviews by all parties.
The research programs will be headed by
the principal investigators, who would have
legal responsibility, would oversee both
substantive and administrative functions, and
would add, delete, or modify component research
projects to ensure the program achieves its
objectives.
An internal technical advisory committee
composed of the principal researchers from
participating U.S. universities, CGIAR Centers, and
NARS and would provide backstopping,


short-term training, and other research support
functions. A steering committee with
membership from all the collaborating
institutions would serve in an advisory
capacity to the principal investigators and
would also receive and review all evaluations,
both external and internal.


The Two-Stage Application
Process

As mentioned previously, the envisioned
competitive grants program would involve a
two-stage application and review process. The
evaluation of all research proposals at both stages
would be on the basis of carefully formulated,
widely circulated criteriawhichwould be applied
in a fully transparent process.
Stage Onewould consist of a number of small
planning grants averaging $50,000 and designed
to facilitate the preparation of full-scale, detailed
proposals. The planning grants would enable
principal investigators to explore possibilities for
collaboration and develop linkages with potential
research partners. Stage One grantswould also
allowinvestigators to respond to the critiques and
suggestions of the first stage review panels, and


thus to prepare the type of substantial proposals
appropriate for the second stage of competition.
Stage Two would award a smaller number of
research program grants. The research program
grants would range from $750,000 to $1.4
million per year for periods of generally three
to five years.
Funding for research programs would be


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability


WHAT A GREAN COMPETITIVE GRANT CAN BUY
(in dollars per year)
Total Grant Personnel Equipment Supplies Travel Publication Misc. Indirect Costs
*1,000,000 450,000 120,000 170,000 40,000 5,000 15,000 200,000
750,000 240,000 30,000 50,000 25,000 1,000 5,000 80,000
1,400,000 810,000 300,000 300,000 75,000 7,500 35,000 275,000
Average gant size.





DRAFT


Chapter 5: The Proposed Grean Initiative


terminated at the end of their original grant periods
to prevent programs from evolvinginto
entitlements. Under special circumstances, and
upon the recommendation of an external review
panel, a research program grant could be extended
for up to two additional years with additional
funding as justified. Collaborators in a funded
program could submit a proposal for a subsequent
phase of that program or for an entirely new
program. Such applications, however, would not be
given preferential treatment.



Funding Allocation

The total annual appropriation for the
GREAN initiative would be allocated to three
functions: conducting research programs (the
main objective), planning of research
programs, and administration. Funds for
grants would be allocated as follows:


" One of the partner institutions would be
designated as the conduit or convening
center. Funds would be distributed among
the partners commensurate with the
planned research activities of each.


" Depending on the size of the initial
contributions and their subsequent
growth, some 80 to 85 percent of funds should
go to research program grants. Funds would
support 16 to 17 research programs (at least
per Research ProgramArea) at an average of
$1 million each for 5 years. Aprofile of a
typical grant is provided inTable 5.1.


grants should be awarded at a ratio of
approximately 6 proposals for every 1
funded research program. Five percent of
the total budget annually would be
awarded for up to 100 planning grants, or
25 grants in each program area.


w Consistent with the administrative costs of
the various foundations, between 10
percent and 15 percent of GREAN's
resources would be allocated to the
overhead costs of administration. Adequate
funding is required for the Director and his
or her staff and their operations, for the
functioning of the advisory and review
panels, and for the processing and
auditing of grants.


Launching the GREAN
Initiative

It will take several years of educational
effort to generate congressional support to
authorize and fund the GREAN initiative.
Therefore, this initiative will depend on
private U.S. foundations, which have
traditionally been a major force in international
development, to establish an initial $10 million
to $15 million annual fund for a three to five year
launching period. As noted in Chapter 2, many
foundations have not only allocated substantial
resources to projects on agriculture and rural issues,
the environment, population, and health in
developing countries but have also introduced some
of the most innovative concepts and programs.
The $10 million to $15 million fund would
launch the GREAN initiative on a limited basis


a First-stage competitive proposal planning.

Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT


Chapter 5: The Proposed Grean Initiative


with the objectives of:
* beginning research programs on pressing
global issues as promptly as possible;
* demonstrating GREAN's feasibility,
viability, and value; and
* supporting the educative process needed
to establish GREAN on a long-term basis.

Just one of the four proposed major
Research Program Areas would be selected for
GREAN's pilot phase. An annual $15 million
fund would be allocated as follows:

0 $13 million to underwrite 3 research
programs at a level of $750,000 to $1.4
million per year for approximately 5 years
each;
a $1.0 million to fund approximately 20
stage-one planning grants averaging
$50,000 each; and
a $1.0 million for administration, including
the educative process.

An interim Governing Board will be needed
during GREAN's formative pilot stage. One
possibility for setting up such a board would
be for U.S. universities and IARCs to provide
members, as they did with the TRIPS taskforce.
Several members would also come from NARS,
with additional limited representation from NGOs,
foundations, the U.S. government, and the private
sector. The interim board would fulfill the
Governing Board's duties as outlined above. It
would also take responsibility for promoting the
GREAN initiative to the U.S. university
community, Congress, relevantFederal agencies,
multilateral donors, the international agricultural
and environmental research communities, and the


public at large.
Means for minimizing the cost of
administering the pilot program require
careful consideration. Transaction costs could
be minimized, for example, by temporarily
housing the program at the NRC, where the
BOSTID Research Program of competitive
grants still maintains a skeletal staff.
Alternatively or concurrently, member
universities of the TRIPS taskforce could
volunteer faculty time until the initiative is
well established.



Implications for Other Actors
and Donors

Implementing these recommendations
would send a strong, positive signal to private
foundations and other donor agencies that
have been critical of, or concerned about, the
lack of significant recent U.S. university
involvementwith less-developed countries.
Institutions and agencies elsewhere in the
industrialized world, as well as the donor
community, would be encouraged to make
greater contributions they saw the increased
involvement and leadership of U.S. universities.
TRIPS has purposefully focused its attention on
stimulating far greater U.S. engagement in
addressing global challenges. Implicit in this
undertaking, however, is an invitation to the
institutions and scientists of the other
developed countries to join with their U.S.
counterparts in a closer alliance with the
CGIAR system and NARS.
Such an alliance, over time, would


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability





DRAFT
Chapter 5: The Proposed Grean Initiative








constitute a major step toward greatly strengthening
the CGIAR system and, especially, the scientists
and institutions of developing countries in their
ability to deal more effectively the local and
regional problems of food security, productivity
and sustainability of natural resources use.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability






DRAFT


REFERENCES

Cohn E., S.L.W. Rhine, and M.C. Santers. "Institutions of higher education as multi-product firms:
Economies of scale and scope." The Review of Econ. and Stat.

De Groot, H., W.W. MeMahon, and J.F. Wolkwein. "The cost structure of American research and
universities." The Review of Econ. and Stat.

Evenson, R.E.: "IARC, NARC and extension investment, and field crop productivity: An international assessment."
Research and Productivity inAsianAgriculture. Eds. R.E. Evenson and C. R. Proy, Ithaca and London: Cornell
University Press; 1991.

Food and Agriculture Organization. Agrostat PC 2.0. 1993.

Gavira, J., V. Bindlish and U. Lele: "The rural road question and Nigeria's Agricultural development.
MADIA Discussion Paper, No. 10; Washington D.C.: World Bank, 1989.

Greene, Michael P Research for Development: A Grants Program for the Third World. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press, 1991.

Huffman, WE. and R.E. Evenson. Science for Agriculture. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1993.

ISNAR. Summary of agricultural research policy, international and quantitative perspectives. The Hague:
International Service for National Agricultural Research, 1992.

Kennedy, Donald. "Making choices in the research university." Daedalus. September 22, 1993.

Lele, U. and S. Stone. "Population pressure, the environment and agricultural intensification: Variations on the
Boserup hypothesis." MADIADiscussion Paper, No. 4; Washington D.C.: World Bank 1989.

Lawrence W Libby."Conflict on the Commons: Natural Resource Entitlements, The Public Interest, andAgricultural
Economics". PresidentialAddress toAmericanAgricultural Economists
Association annual meeting,August 1994.

Lele, U. andA. Goldsmith. "The development of national agricultural research capacity: India's experience with the
the Rockefeller Foundation and its significance forAfrica." Economic Development and Cultural Change, 37(anuary,
1989)


Montes, Gabriel, "Las Prioridades y laAsignacionAgricola: Ura Evaluacion Critica." inTemas Prioritarias y
Mecanismos de Cooperasion on InvestigacionAgropeavaria enAmerica Latina y el Caribe. Cali:CIAT,1986.

National Research Council. Investing in research: A proposal to strengthen the agricultural, food. and
environmental system. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1989.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability







DRAFT











Panayotou, Theodore. Green markets: The economics of sustainable development. San Francisco: ICS Press, 1993.

Pray, Carle E.. "The Development ofAsian research Institutions:Underinvestment,Allocation of Resourcesand
Productivity." in Research and Productivity in AsianAgriculture.Eds R.E. Evenson &C.R.Pray, Ithaca and London,
Comell University Press;1991.


Rutton, Vernon. "Constraints on the design of sustainable systems." Ecological Economics 10,1994,209-219.

Serageldin, I., speech given at CGIAR Directors Meeting, New Delhi, 1994.


Speth, G. Transcript of speech, UNDP, notdated.

TAC (TechnicalAdvisory Committee of the CGIAR.) Report on CGIAR Priorities and Strategies. Davis, California,
1992.

U.S. News and World Report, September 12, 1994, pp. 57-62.

Watts, Michael. "Capacity through competition: an evaluation of the Rockefeller Foundation African
dissertation internship awards (ADIA) program 1987-92." A report submitted to the Rockefeller
Foundation, New York, 1993.

World Bank. The World Development Report 1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

World Resources Institute (in collaboration with UNEP and UNDP). World Resources: A Report. New York:
1992.

Williams,Meryl. "Transitions in the Contribution of Living Aquatic Resources to Sustainable Food
Security."ICLARM Presentation to TAC 65,1994.







Biographical Sketches


Inder P. Abrol
Inder P. Abrol, an Indian national, is Deputy Director General responsible for Natural Resource
Management Research in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research at New Delhi, a position he
has held since 1986. Prior to this he was Director of the Central Soil Salinity Research Institute at
Karnal. He is a fellow of the Indian National Science Academy and a member of the scientific
committee of the International Geosphere-Biosphere (IGBP) program. Currently he is President of
the International Soil Conservation Organization. He obtained his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Soil
Science from the Indian Agricultural Research Institute.

Ronnie Coffman
Ronnie Coffman, of the United States, serves as Associate Dean for Research, College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences, and Director, Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell
University. He has extensive experience in developing countries as a plant breeder for 10 years
with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines, and as a visiting scientist
for 2 years at CIMMYT, the International Corn and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico. He
has served as a member or leader of several project evaluation teams in Asia, Africa, and Latin
America. For 6 years Coffman was Chairman of the Department of Plant Breeding and Biometry
at Cornell. Coffman helped establish and coordinate the Biotechnology Policy Committee of the
Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD), which attracted
to Cornell the international headquarters of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
Biotech Applications (ISAAA).

Mike Collinson
Mike Collinson, of the United Kingdom, is Science Advisor in the CGIAR Secretariat in
Washington, D.C. He was recruited there in 1987 from the Eastern and Southern African Regional
Office of CIMMYT, which he set up in 1975. Prior to this he had worked in London for the
Commonwealth Development Corporation and in the Colonial Agricultural Research Service in
Tanzania. He obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Reading in England and B.A. in Politics
and Economics from the University of Durham, also in England.

R. Hunt Davis, Jr.
R. Hunt Davis, Jr., of the United States, is Professor of History and African Studies at the
University of Florida, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1967. He is also currently
Interim Director of International Studies and Programs, having previously served as Director,
Center for African Studies, 1979-83. From 1980 to 1988, he was Editor of The African Studies
Review. An evolving area of research and teaching is that of the history of African agriculture.
Hunt Davis obtained his Ph.D. and M.A. in History from the University of Wisconsin and his B.A.
in History from Grinnell College.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability













Larry Harrington
Larry Harrington, of the United States, works at the International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in two capacities-as Manager of the Natural Resources
Management Research (NRMR) Group and as Acting Director of the Economics Program. Before
taking up these two positions at CIMMYT's headquarters in Mexico, he was CIMMYT's Regional
Economist in Asia, and briefly worked for USDA. He obtained his Ph.D. degree in Agricultural
Economics from Michigan State University.

Rattan Lal
Rattan Lal, an Indian national, is a Professor of Soil Science in the School of Natural Resources
at the Ohio State University. Prior to joining Ohio State in 1987, he served as a soil scientist at the
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria, for about 18 years. He is a
scientific liaison officer to USAID in natural resource management to ICARDA, ICRISAT, CIAT,
and IITA. Rattan Lal is a fellow of the Soil Science Society of America, American Society of
Agronomy, and the Third World Academy of Sciences. He is a recipient of both the International
Soil Science Award and the Soil Science Applied Research Award of the Soil Science Society of
America. He received the 1994 Distinguished Scholar Award of the Ohio State University. Rattan
Lal has a Ph.D. in Soil Physics from the Ohio State University and an M.Sc. in Soil Science from
the Indian Agricultural Research Institute.

Uma Lele
Uma Lele, an Indian national, is a Graduate Research Professor of Food and Resource
Economics at the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville;
she also serves as Director of the Global Development Initiative of the Carnegie Corporation and
the Carter Center. She serves on CGIAR's Technical Advisory Committee as well as the Vision and
Stakeholder Panel. Prior to her move to Florida in 1991, she held various positions at the World
Bank in Washington, D.C. (which she joined in 1971), most recently in areas of policy and
development strategy. Uma Lele has a Ph.D. and an M.S. in Economics from Cornell University.

Roberto Martinez Nogueira
Roberto Martinez Nogueira, of Argentina, is an independent consultant and Dean of the School
of Economics at the University of Buenos Aires. He has served as Undersecretary of Planning in
his country, and worked as a consultant for several international organizations such as the World
Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation.
He was Senior Research Officer of the International Service for National Agricultural Research
(ISNAR). He has specialized in institutional aspects of agricultural research and development.
He obtained his Ph.D. in Public Administration from Comell University.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability













Fowden G. Maxwell


Fowden G. Maxwell, of the United States, is a Professor of Entomology and Director of the
Center for Biointensive Integrated Pest Management at Texas A&M University. He is also the
coordinator for agricultural sustainability for the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. He has
served as Department Head of Entomology at Texas A&M, Chairman of Entomology and
Nematology at the University of Florida, Coordinator for Environmental Affairs, Office of the
Secretary, USDA, Head of the Department of Entomology, Mississippi State University, and
research team leader for plant resistance to cotton insects at the USDA Boll Weevil Research
Laboratory at Starkville, Mississippi. He has been a Distinguished Alumni Visiting Professor at
the University of Queensland and Chairman of the FAO/UNEP Panel of Integrated Pest
Management Experts. He currently serves as USAID Liaison Officer to ICIPE in Nairobi, Kenya.
He completed his undergraduate degree at Texas Tech University and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in
Entomology at Kansas State University.

Calvin O. Qualset
Calvin O. Qualset, of the United States, is Professor Emeritus at the University of California,
Davis, and Director of the Genetic Resources Conservation Program of the Division of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, University of California. Previously, he was Chair of the Department of
Agronomy and Range Science and Associate Dean for Plant Sciences and Pest Management at UC
Davis. He is coordinator for the International Triticeae Mapping Initiative. He recently completed
a 9-year term as Scientific Liaison Officer for USAID to the International Center for Maize and
Wheat Improvement in Mexico. He has served on numerous reviews, including several for the
Consultative Group for International Sciences. He has held Fulbright Fellowships to Australia
and Yugoslavia, is past President of the Crop Science Society of America and is currently
President of the American Society of Agronomy. He received his B.S. in Agriculture from the
University of Nebraska and M.S. and Ph.D. from UC Davis in Agronomy and Genetics,
respectively.

Thomas A. Reardon
Thomas Reardon, of the United States, is Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics at
Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. Prior to his move to MSU in January 1992,
he was Research Fellow at IFPRI (1986-1991), Rockefeller Foundation Post-doctoral Fellow (1984-
86) attached to IFPRI and working with ICRISAT and University of Ouagadougou in Burkina
Faso, and Research Associate at the Central Bank of Peru and the Catholic University of Peru
(1982-1984). He obtained his Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics from the University of California at
Berkeley, his Masters in International Affairs from Columbia, a graduate diploma in International
Relations from the University of Nice, and his B.A. in Political Science and French from Clarement
Men's College.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability













Sandra L. Russo
Sandra L. Russo, of the United States, serves as Assistant Director for the Office of International
Studies and Programs and Co-Director of the Women in Agricultural Development Program,
University of Florida. She obtained her B.S. degree in Animal Science from Purdue University,
her M.S. degree in Agronomy from the Pennsylvania State University, and her Ph.D. degree in
Agronomy at the University of Florida. Prior to returning to UF, she worked as an agronomist in
Kenya and The Gambia for five years. She has worked in a number of African countries on issues
relating to crop-livestock systems, farming systems, and gender policy and recently served as a
consultant to the CGIAR Gender Program.

M.S. Sompo-Ceesay
M.S. Sompo-Ceesay, a Gambian national, is a graduate of the University of Reading in the
United Kingdom and Silsoe College. He is currently Director General of the Sahel Institute
(INSAH) based in Bamako, Mali. Prior to his move to INSAH he was Director of Agricultural
Research in his native Gambia. Sompo-Ceesay has served on several scientific committees of
regional organizations and was a member of the board of trustees of WARDA. He is currently
active in the World Bank's Special Program for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR) initiative.

Eugene R. Terry
Eugene Terry was bor in Sierra Leone, where he received his primary and secondary
education. He gained his B.Sc.Agric. and M.Sc. degrees at McGill University, Montreal, Canada,
and his Ph.D. degree at the University of Illinois Champaign/Urbana in the United States. His
area of scientific specialization is plant pathology with special expertise in vector transmission of
virus diseases. After 4 years teaching at the University of Sierra Leonehe joined the international
Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Ibadan in 1973, where he served first as Plant
Pathologist and then Director of International Cooperation and Training. He is currently the
Director General of the West Africa Rice Development Association, a position that he assumed in
1987.

Hubert Zandstra
Hubert Zandstra, a Canadian national, is Director General of the International Potato Center in
Lima, Peru, a post he has held since May 1991. He previously served as Deputy Director General
for Research at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). In the early 1970s, he led the
"Caqueza" project in Colombia and made pioneering contributions to farming systems research
for smallholder agriculture in Colombia and at IRRI. Zandstra is also a former Director of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Sciences of the International Development Research Centre
(IDRC). He received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from McGill University and his Ph.D. from
Cornell University.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability













Larry Zuidema


Larry Zuidema, of the United States, is Associate Director of the Cornell International Institute
for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD) and Associate Director of the International
Agriculture Program at Cornell University, with which he has been affiliated for more than 25
years. Zuidema has also served as Senior Research Associate with the International Service for
National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) and as Senior Program Officer in the East-West Center.
He has been a professional consultant in agricultural and rural development to national
agricultural research systems in developing countries worldwide. Recent activities also include
institutional development in Hungary and Slovakia. His M.S. from Cornell University is in
Agricultural Policy and Economic Development.


Taskforce on Research Innovations for Productivity and Sustainability




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs