63354 Sustainable Agriculture for A Food Secure World A Vision for International Agricultural Research, July 1994 I A Statement by an External Panel Appointed by the Oversight Committee of The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (C G IAR) Gordon Conway (Chair) Uma Lele Jim Peacock Martin Pineiro Panel Secretar),: Sel~uk Ozgediz Resource Persons: Michel Griffon • Peter Hazell Co-conveners of the panel on behalf of the Oversight Committee: Henri Carsalade • Johan Holmberg The work of the panel was supported by a grant from the Swedish Agency for Research Co-operation with Developing Countries (SAREC) . The statement reflects the opinion of only the panel and not necessarily of the Oversight Committee which commissioned the effort or of the parent organizations of the panel members. A Vision I" Inlernalional Agrieullural Research . July 1 4 Preface SAREC has supported CGIAR since 1975. The support constitutes SAREC's largest programme , all categories. The work of the panel presented here has also been supported by SAREC. It is our hope that the statement of the panel shall provide a vision for international agricultural research in the years to come. Stockholm, September 1994 Anders WUkman DIRECTOR GENERAL Acknowledgelllents The members of the panel gratefully acknowledge the help­ ful comments and criticisms they have received from many individuals, in particular from members of the CGIAR's Technical Advisory Committee, from staff and directors of the CGIAR's international agricultural research centers, from staff of a number of independent institutes, in particular the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, the International Institute for Environment and Development in London, and from staff of the panel members' own institutions, CIRAD, SAREC, CSIRO and the Universities of Florida and Sussex. Visi.n lor Inlernati.nal Agricultural Research , July 1994 5 The challenge the Consultative Group of Recruitment of the expert panel and International Agricultural Research has been organization of its work was done by the facing in 1993 and 1994 was the contrast CGIAR Oversight Committee. Professor between an extended mandate and stag­ Gordon Conway, Vice-Chancellor of the nating or decreasing financial support from University of Sussex, UK, chaired the panel. its donors. In this situation the need for a Other panel members were Dr. Uma Lele, vision that is shared by its stakeholders and University of Florida, USA; Dr. W. James broadly understood was evident. Such a Peacock, Commonwealth Scientific and vision should be accessible to policy makers Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, and scientists alike . It also should guide the Australia; Dr. Martin Pineiro, independent adjustment process in the CGIAR. At its consultant living in Buenos Aires, Argentina; regular meeting in Washington DC in Octo­ Dr. Peter Hazell of IFPRI, Washington DC, ber 1993 the Group therefore decided to USA, and Mr. Michel Griffon, CIRAD, Paris, commission an expert panel to prepare a France, assisted the panel as resource per­ future vision of international agricultural sons and Dr. Se1cuk Ozgediz of the CGIAR research with a view to making a convincing Secretariat as working secretary. Henri case for increased su pport to the CGIAR. Carsalade and Johan Holmberg from the CGIAR Oversight Committee participated What was needed was a vision that was throughout in the work of the panel. imaginative, forward-looking and reflective, covering the next 20-30 years. To ascertain that it be fresh and unencumbered by internal CGIAR interests it was felt that it should be written by scientists without close personal affiliation to the CGIAR. ion lor International Agricultural Rastarch. July t99. 7 The panel held two workshops. Panel reinvigorated CGIAR. This vision statement is members interacted with TAC and with the a contribution to this goal. Oversight Committee. A final draft was compiled and presented by Professor SAREC's support in financially supporting Conway to the meeting of the CG IAR in the work of the panel and in publishing this New Delhi in late May. Final editing of the report is gratefully acknowledged. draft was done first by Professor Conway and later, in July, by Henri Carsalade and Johan Holmberg to reflect the discussion in Paul A . Egger New Delhi as well as other comments on CHAIRMAN, CGIAR OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE the draft. Preparation of this report was thus very much of a collective effort, and my sincere appreciation goes to all the individuals mentioned above who participated in the exercise. However, Professor Conway's untiring efforts were instrumental in bringing the process to a successful conclusion under a very tight time schedule. It is thus first and foremost to him that the CGIAR owes much gratitude for this report. Vision, adjustments in governance and financing and the interaction with national programs are key components for a A Vision lor Internalional Agricultural Research. July 8 Contents I. The Challenge ... ....... .. ... .... .... ... ..... .. .. ... ......... ..... ...... ... ... .... .... .... page 11 II . Food Production Prospects ..... .. ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ....... ...... ... ... .... . page 19 III. Two Scenarios ........................ .. ............... .. ........ ....... ... ..... ... ..... page 29 IV. The Way Ahead ......... ........ ............. .... ... ....... .. ..... ........ ....... ...... page 33 V. International Public Research .. .. ..... ..... .. .... ... .. ... ..... ....... .... .... .. page 44 VI. A Future for the CGIAR ... .. .. .... .... .... ....... ..... .... .. ....... ... .... ..... ... page 51 VII. Conclusions ......... .... .. .. ...... .. .......... ...... .. ..... .... .... .... ... ..... ... .. ... page 60 Bibliography ... ...... ... .... ..... .. ......... .. ....... .......... ......... ...... ... .... ..... .... page 64 Appendix I: The CGIAR and its Centers .... ..... ....... ... ..... ... ..... .... page 65 Appendix II: About the Panel .. ..... ..... .. ..... ..... ... ........ .......... ...... ... page 68 Appendix III: Technical Annex on Projection Methodology, by Peter Hazell ......... .................. .. . page 70 io. lor Inlernali"al Agr;"II"ral Research , July 1994 9 List of figures and boxes Figure 1: Population by regions, 1988 and 2025 ... ... ... ... ..... ..... .. . page 15 Figure 2a : Crop yields in Asia 1961-1991: composite of maize, rice and wheat .. ...... ...... .......... .. .. .. .............. page 25 Figure 2b: Crop yields in Africa 1961-1991: composite of maize, rice and wheat ........ .... ...................... .. ........ page 25 Figure 3: World grain production per person, 1950-1993 .. .. .. .... page 27 Figure 4: Suggested programs and their features .................. .. .... page 59 Box 1: The challenge of globalisation .. .... .. ...... .... ...... .... ...... .... ... page 18 Box 2: Global pollution caused by agriculture .... ........ :.. .......... .page 23 Box 3: Using natural enemies to kill pests .. .................. .. ............ page 37 Box 4: Farmer participation in agricultural research and development .... ... ... .. .. ....... ...... ........ ... ...... ....... ... ..... ... .. ........... page 43 Box 5: The participants in potential partnerships in international agricultural research .. .......... .... .. .... .. .. .. .......... .. ... page 52 A Vision lor Inle"Olional Agr icullural Aesearch. July 10 By the year 2025 1 there will and ensure that agricultural production be about 8.5 billion people is more effectively linked with economic on the planet, of whom some and social development? 7 billion will be living in the developing countries of Asia , Africa and Latin America 2 . In addressing all these issues , we need to The questions we have to ask ourselves consider now are: what is tbe role of agricultural researcb Can we - private and public, produce enougb food to feed - international and national, tbis population? - collaborative? in a sustainable manner, without In this p aper, we attempt to provide damaging tbe environment? answers to these questions , as far as we are able, and outline an agenda for action, and ensure tbe food is accessible to all, ,focusing primarily on the role of the so tbat evelyone receives at least an Consultative Group on International adequate diet? Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and its cen­ ters (see Appendix O. Should we, and can we, enable developing countries to meet most of their own food needs? I We ha ve chosen the year 2025 as o ur future re fe rence point for a numbe r of reasons: we know with reasonable accuracy the size o f the wo rld po pulatio n and the amo unt o f food they w ill need ; 2025 lies within the lifetime of most o f the people o n this plane t alive roday; an d . 2025 lies within the lifetime o f many, if no t most, o f those who currently make or influence na tio na l and glo bal policies, , In the pa pe r we diSting uish between the 'ind us trialised COUlltries' and the 'developi",g countries', The lan er e nco mpass a great variery o f countries w ith G NP pe r capita exceeding 52000 in the ne wly industrialised countries ro the poorest co untries in tbe world with GNP pe r capita below 52;0 The economies o f all th ese d eveloping countries can be expected to change. some markedly, b y the year 202;, but fo r ease o f compariso n we assume that countries re main in the same categories, (cf Technical annex by Pe ter Hazell . IFPRI) A Vision 101 Inlernalional Aglieu ltu,al Research, July 1 12 Our conclusion is that the world po­ Vitamin A deficiencies are widespread and pulation in 2025 can be adequately fed, growing. Malnourishment is contributing to that malnourishment can be eliminated at least one third of child deaths . and that this can be achieved in a way that prevents environmental degradation Most of the poor and malnourished live in and conserves natural resources. But we rural areas. They tend to be landless or are believe this can only be accomplished if unable, on the land available to them, to there is significant investment in public create a food-secure liveli-hood 3 . They are research, both national and international, commonly women and children, often in involving the CGIAR system in female-headed house-holds. But the poor partnership with national agricultural also live in urban areas, and their numbers research systems, on a commonly agreed are growing rapidly. set of programs . Paradoxically, hunger is common despite a period of rapidly declining world food 1. Who are the hungry? prices. Low food prices should be beneficial Globally we produce enough food for to the hungry since they mostly depend on everyone to be adequately fed, yet hunger the market for food. But they lack sufficient is common. More than 700 million people in income to purchase enough food for their the developing world do not have access to needs. In 1990, more than one billion enough food to live healthy and productive people were surviving on less than USD 1 lives; they often go hungry not knowing a day in developing countries. when they will have their next meal. More than 180 million children are underweight. .' A Iiv"'ihood is a means of living. and the capabilities. assets and activities required for it. A food secure livelihood provides access at all times to the food reqUired by a household for a healthy and productive life by all its members. Households may grow sufficient food Or may purchase the food they require by earning income through selling agricultural products or engaging in agricultural or non-agricultural employment. Vision lor Inlernalional Agricultural Re.,arcn. July 1994 13 2. hat are their W but the quality of land is generally poorer prospects? there than in Asia, with less potential for irrigation. If nothing is done, the numbers of poor and hungry will rise rapidly. While global popu­ More than half of the developing world's lation growth rates have declined from a poor is to be found in South Asia and Sub­ high of 2.1 percent a year during 1965-73 to Saharan Africa and the numbers are growing 1.6 percent in the 1990s, the size of the at an alarming rate. The population of South current annual increment is unprecedented. Asia will have grown to about 2 billion, but Until well into the next century, approxi­ the highest growth rates are in Sub-Saharan mately 100 million people will be added to Africa . From the current 500 million, the the world population each year. By the year African population will grow to 1.2 billion 2025 the population oj the globe will be in 2025. about 8.5 billion, oj whom 7 billion will be in the developing countries (Figure 1). Food production in Africa will be hard pressed to keep up with population Over half of this population will live in increase for a long time to come unless urban areas. But they and the rural popula­ much more is done to accelerate agricultural tion will have to depend on a declining growth. If current trends continue, by the area of cropland per person and declining year 2025 Africa could well have an annual access to forests, rangeland, fisheries and food gap of 214 million tons 4 . (This com­ other natural resources. In Asia, the pares with current imports of 11 million currently 0.15 hectares of cropland available tons.) per capita will fall to a mere 0.09 hectares in 2025. Africa will apparently fare better; " In this paper we define the f ood gap as the cereal-equivalent require ment to meet the energy need of the population less the sum of domeslic consumplion and imports, The need assumes a minimum of 3.000 cereal calories per person per day to cover food, livestock feed , seed, storage losses and processing waste (see Technical annex), AVision lor Inlernational Agricultura l Research , July 1 14 - 5 ... If .S ~ ;: ~ i oS! ~ ~ c ~ ;:t ~ c:.:: ~ ~ ! ~ ~ .... ~ i:;; " - :~ It will take a long time before African required to eradicate hunger. Total cereal countries can generate sufficient foreign production is only likely to increase to 355 exchange to purchase such large amounts of million tons by 2025 , and even less if yield food. The real prices of Africa's traditional growth rates continue to slow. 17Je potential export crops are low and declining, and the cereal need gap could, therefore, reach 255 non-agricultural sector is small. It is also million tons by 2025. unlikely that African governments will be able to count on enough food aid to make Although exports of manufactured goods up the difference. All indicators concur that are likely to rise more rapidly in South Asia poverty, malnutrition, and hunger will than in Sub-Saharan Africa, there will still increase rapidly in the coming years unless not be sufficient foreign exchange earnings action is taken to dramatically increase to purchase the needed volume of cereals , agricultural production through even if it were available on the market. technological change that also increases agricultural employment. 3. Why should we be concerned? While not as badly off as Sub-Saharan Africa , there are disquieting trends in South Over 2 billion people in the world regul arly Asia. Yields are increasing at a slower rate watch television. For the rich, the images on than they did in the past three decades. their screens provide a constant reminder of Growth in Asian rice yields, for instance, the horrors of natural disasters , civil war has slowed from an annual rate of 3 per and famine. For the poor, the screens cent in the late 1970s and early 1980s to less portray the evetyday luxuries of the affluent than 2 percent during the late 1980s. Total and well fed. Globally, the consequence is market demand for cereals is likely to a potentially explosive mix of fears , threats increase to an annual 400 million tons by and unsatisfied hopes . 2025 , with an additional 210 million tons A Vision lor Inlernational Agricultural Researc h. July 16 The end of the Cold War has not brought Reductions in aid may be justifiable in the about an increase in political stability. short-term but, we would argue, are not in While conflict between East and West has the long-, or even medium-, term interest of declined, there is a fast growing divide the industrialized countries. An increasingly between the world of the peoples, countries polarized world will result in growing and regions who "belong" in global power political unrest. Already the consequences terms and those who are excluded. of economic stagnation, population growth, Confronting the increasing globalization of environmental degradation and civil war are government, capital, technology and trade prodUcing unprecedented movements of are the surging expectations of the poor. peoples. There are currently some 14 mil­ lion refugees in need of assistance living in Yet this growing conflict receives relatively foreign countries and at least double that little attention in the industrialised number who are refugees or displaced countries. The severe economic recession persons within their own countries. and the end of the Cold War have made political agendas inward-looking. Unless the developing countries are helped Governments struggling with record-high to realise sufficient food, employment and unemployment, rising costs for welfare shelter for their growing populations or to payments, growing budget deficits and gain the means to purchase the food political polarisation are paying little internationally, the political stability of the attention to the needs of poor nations world will be further undermined with overseas. The volume of aid going to grave consequences for us all. developing countries is stagnating in real terms. And the attention the industrial world is giving to external problems is being focused increasingly on the former eastern bloc countries. ion lor Inlernational Agricultural Research, July 1994 17 justice and equity also demand that Much depends on where our priorities lie poverty be eliminated. Moreover, it is a and, in particular, whether there is goal within our capacity. Globalisation sufficient access by the poor to the while threatening, on the one hand, to economic opportunities created by the concentrate power and increase division, products of the new technologies. Here, on the other contains the economic and as we will argue, international technological potential to transform the agricultural research has a particularly lives of rich and poor alike (Box 1). crucial role to play. Box 1. The chaUenge ofglobalisation 1. Traditional patterns of Goftroauce are being eroded. The supremacy of national governments Is being challenged from within by ethnic and religious groupings and from outside by supranational institutions, such as the lMF, the World Bank, GAIT and the European Union. At the same time, non-govemment organisations (NGOs) are beginning to operate globally, pressing for citizens' rights, more developement aid and the elimination of poverty. 2. Capl1al is increasingly invested on a global scale. Multinational corporations are growing in power as capital becomes more mobile and financial markets are deregulated. In many parts of the world this opens up new economic opportunities; in others, percieved as poorly endowed with human and physical resources, there is little investment. While the economies of the newly industrialised countries (NICs) of East Asia grow apace, much of Sub-Saharan AfrIca stagnates or is in decline. 3. Modern Technology and the accompanying Re8earch aad Development is now disseminated through global communications and multinational research networks. Much Is in the hands of multinational corporations, yet many powerful advanced technologies are often small In scale, readily transferable and increasingly inexpensive with mass use. 4. Trade now operates through a great variety of global markets. While trading blocks such as the Euro­ pean Union continue to prevent easy access of goods from developing countries, current GAIT negotiations are likely to create new opportunities for manufactured goods and agricultural exports. 18 A Vision lor Inlernalional Agr icultural Research. July • W I. hat are the current America it is 15 kg and in Africa 4 kg. This trends? compares to national averages of 120-550 kgs for the industrialised countries of Western While a significant proportion of the growth Europe, Japan and China. in cereal production since the 1960s has come from an expansion of arable land, Equally significant is the potential for yields of the major cereals have more than improving the supply of water through doubled in the past three decades. On past irrigation and various means of water trends we ought to be able to continue to conservation. Between 1960 and 1990 the match the rising population with a compa­ area under irrigation in developing rable increase in food production on exis­ countries grew from 100 to 170 million ting arable land, at least to the year 2025 . hectares. It is estimated that irrigated land in these countries could be expanded by There are, in theory, no major physiologi­ nearly 60 percent, most of the potential cal, genetic or agronomic constraints to lying in India, China and other countries in achieving the necessary yield gains. Asia. But in recent years there has been a Conventional plant breeding techniques, significant decrease in the rate of expansion increasingly augmented by genetic engineer­ of irrigation as real costs of irrigation ing, should be able to produce improved projects have risen. plant types capable of significantly higher yields in all parts of the world. And there is considerable potential for increased and more efficient fertiliser use. Although application rates are relatively high in those regions where the Green Revolution has occurred, the average in Asia is still only 30 kg of nitrogen per hectare, in Latin ,r \ A Vision 101 Inlatnalional Aglieullutal Resweh , July 20 A 2. re the trends Lack of terraces, failure to replace nutrients sus tainable? and organic matter, and excessive irrigation or drainage are damaging arable land. The desire for food security has left its mark Rangeland is being degraded by on the environment, sometimes overgrazing. permanently. Hunger leads to desperate strategies for survival, and attempts to meet Whether or not agriculture is a cause, soil basic needs often take precedence, in the degradation severely limits agricultural short-term, over long-term sustainability. productivity. In some cases reclamation But the blame should not be placed on the is bio-physically impossible. In others, poor and hungry. Exploitation of resources the costs are high but reclamation can be by the rich, unsuitable agricultural achieved with labour, ingenuity and new technologies, and lack of appropriate insti­ technologies. tutions and governmental policies have combined to damage both well favoured and environmentally fragile lands. Other natural resources which contribute directly or indirectly to food security are Globally about 2 billion hectares of soils, also being lost at unprecedented rates. The of which 1.5 billion lie in developing annual rate oj destruction oj closed Jorests is countries, (17 percent of all vegetated about 16 million hectares. This represents a areas), have become degraded due to substantial loss of potential income and human action since 1945. Degradation employment from the sustainable harvest of includes water and wind erosion, loss of timber, firewood and other non-timber soil nutrients, salinization, acidification, forest products. Forest destruction is also pollution, compaction, water logging and one of the prime causes of the increasing subsidence. Most, but not all, results from loss of global biodiversity. An estimated inappropriate agricultural practices. 15 percent of the world's plant and animal isi.n lor Internalional Agricultur.1 Research . July 1994 21 species could become extinct by 2025 , The global harvest of wild fisheries is many with potential for agricultural or forest estimated to have peaked at 89 million tons explOitation. in 1989. For most wild fish stocks the harvest is stagnant or declining as a result of Competition for waterfor agriculture has overexploitation, pollution and the use of increased dramatically during the past two fishing practices that damage the decades due to the rapidly growing environment. Partial compensation is domestic and industrial demands . This coming from aquaculture, which contributes situation will worsen through much of 12 million tons a year and is growing at Africa and the Middle East by 2025. 10 percent a year, but its sustainability is Significantly, the earlier high rates of threatened by pollution and conflicts over expansion of irrigation appear to be the use of coastal ecosystems. unsustainable. Their continuation could exhaust irrigation potential in Asia well Increased agricultural production is also before 2025, would require an investment limited by pollution. Industry is often to of USD 500-1000 billion and would face blame, but agriculture may be both culprit formidable technological environmental and and victim. In the intensively farmed lands social constraints. A more feasible approach , of both the industrialised and developing especially for Sub-Saharan Africa, is through countries, heavy fertilizer applications are small-scale harneSSing of water, but this producing nitrate levels in drinking water requires appropriate incentives and institu­ that approach or exceed permitted levels , tions, coupled with new skills and techno­ increasing the likelihood of government logies. More generally, greater emphasiS will restrictions on fertiliser use. have to be given to improved management of irrigation systems. A Vision for Infernalional Agr ie ullural Research. July 22 -. Pesticides are also causing serious harm, I McdIaae& 45 percent of global emissions are . particularly in the developing countries . produced by paddy fields. the guts of livestock There is growing human morbidity and aDd the burning of vegetation. Methane con- mortality while pest populations are I tributes to increaSe In trpospheric ozone, to becoming resistant and escaping from desuucdon of ozone in the stratosphere and to natural control. I global warming. ~ omdea About 1-3 million tons produced While industry is the major source of per year from nitrOgen fertilisers, livestock waste global pollution, agriculture is a growing and bumlng of vegetation. Levels rising at about contributor, producing significant levels of I 0.2-0.3 percent per year. mostly driven by ferill!­ methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide ser use. NItrous oxide when convened to nitric (Box 2). oxide contributes to depletion of stratospheric ozone and to global warming. . CuItoo oxIder Burning of biomass on savannah lands. in swJdden agriculture and aspart of the permanent convenlion of forest to agriculture : corHributes the equivalent of a quarter to a third of carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for about half of the current and projected global warming. I ~ ArIses from nitrogen fertilJser applic:adoos and the volatilisation of livestock waste and biomass burning. Ammonia contributeS to add deposition. Box 2. Global pollution caused by agriculture ,ion 'or Inlernalional Agrie,II,ral Researc h. July 1994 23 Individually, or in combination, tbese gases A 3. re there signs of and tbeir products are contributing to global stagnation? warming, tbe depletion ofstra tospb eric As a group, the developing countries have ozone, acid deposition and tbe build up of increased per capita food production by 13 ozone levels in tbe lower atmospbere. These percent during the 1980s, but some regions will, in turn, significantly affect agricultural have performed much better than the production. Global warming, for example, average and some much worse. East Asia is will have effects that vary with latitude. the star performer, increasing per capita Heat and water stress at low latitudes, food production by 22 percent during the where most of the developing countries are 1980s. China's increase has been 35 percent. situated, will result in significant losses in But in Africa and West Asia per capita food yield . However, in the middle and high production has stagnated over the past latitudes the combined effect of temperature decade. increases and the direct physiological effect of higher levels of C02 are likely to result in In 75 of tbe world 's count1ies, less food per higher yields. Current projections thus capita was produced at the end qf tbe 1980s suggest yield increases in the temperate, than at the beginning, and in 15 countries industrialised regions of the world but per capita food production fell by 20 per­ significant reductions in tropical and cent or more . In Asia, as a whole, the subtropical developing countries, possibly annual rate of increase in rice and wheat of the order of 30-50 percent. yields in the late 1980s was considerably less than in the 1970s and early 1980s (Figure 2a). In Africa, yields are still apparently growing but with wide fluctuations (Figure 2b) . A Vision for Inlernalional Ag'icullu,al Research , July 24 .:1, ~ ~ ~ <\ ~ ~ 1 1'1'1 If{r I~r /K7 I~" 1f1l I"flJ 1'97S 1177 /"7"1 /911 1":1 19'7 1,,7 I " , /9'11 Figure 2a : Trend in yields for Asia. Composite of the three major grains. ~ I, ~ ~ ~ ~ o I~ r IK~ 1«7 I'Kf 1'171 1973 197J' 1977 If." ",II I.,w:r 1"8~ /117 I.," '"I Figure 2b: Trend in yields in Africa. Composite of the three major grains. ion tor tntemalianal Agricultural Research, July 1994 25 Particularly worrying is the evidence, as yet While per capita production of meat, milk not well documented, of stagnation in yield and other livestock products is continuing growth rates in those areas of the developing to increase in the developing countries, per countries where the Green Revolution had its capita fish production is set to decline over greatest impact. In the Indian Punjab, for the next thirty years unless aquaculture example, yield growth is being threatened by begins to grow at a much faster rate. worsening availability and poor management of water, coupled with exhaustion of micro­ nutrients, salinisation and build-up of pests and diseases. On a global scale, grain production per person bas shown signs ofstagnation if not a slight decline since 1985. (Figure 3). There have also been significant declines in non­ cereal staples. In the 1980s per capita production of roots and tubers in the developing countries fell by over 7 percent. There was a similar decline in production of plantains, and per capita banana production barely increased. A Vision lor International Agricultural Researcn. July 26 ~ ... 0'\ c ~ ... ~ 0 ~ Qj ~ t ~ ;: 0 ~ \,,) i e ~ ... ;: ~ 0() ~ ~ - ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i I - .'" 0 4. What is forecast? But if the environmental constraints turn out to be as severe as some predict, and if the Total cereal market demand in developing technologies are not available to deliver countries for food and feed is projected to continuing yield growth rates, then these double to 2 billion tons by 2025. This esti­ shortfalls could become even larger. mate, it should be stressed, does not include the hidden needs of the poor who will be priced out of the market. In a well fed world, another 400 million tons of cereals would likely be required, bringing the total cereal need in developing countries to 2.4 billion tons by 2025. If recent yield growth rates for cereals continue to 2025 , then total cereal production in the developing countries will increase to 1.7 billion. This will leave a shortfall of o. 7 billion tons, over half occurring in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. By 2025 the food need in South Asia will be 70 percent greater than food production, and in Sub-Saharan Africa two and a halftimes as much . 28 A Visio n lor Inlernalianal Agric ultural Research. Jul: If our analysis is correct, we can envisage 400 million tons would be required in 2025 two contrasting scenarios: as subsidised or free food aid. This is equivalent to over 20 times the current Scenario 1 . Some industrialised supply of direct food aid and would cost countries continue to produce food well some USD44 billion (J 988 prices). in excess of their requirements and export this excess to meet the demand Such massive food aid would place heavy of the developing countries. burdens on the developing countries , particularly on the infrastructure for the If it is assumed that the environmental receipt and distribution of the aid. It is also constraints to increased food production can likely to depress local prices and add to be overcome and if the food needs of the existing disincentives for local food poor are ignored, then there is little cause for production. concern. The food demands of the developing countries, as expressed in natio­ To meet their own market demand and that nal and international markets, will be met of the developing countries, and provide by national production in the areas of the necessary food aid, the industrialised proven potential and by trade or aid from countries would have to at least double the industrialised countries. On present food production by the year 2025 (from 860 estimates this would entail some 300 million million to 2 billion tons). This would tons of cereals being sold to the developing necessitate considerable increases in yields countries by the industrialised world in per hectare and the bringing back into 2025, at today's world prices. production of currently uncultivated land . Inevitably, the environmental costs ofsuch a If the food needs of the poor are not scenario would be high. ignored, then under this scenario, a further 30 A Vision tOI Inllln,l ion,l Agricultural Aeswch . July But a more fundamental objection to this rural-based. If they are not growing enough scenario is that a significant portion of food to meet their needs, they must have the population in the developing world the means to purchase the food they would fail to participate in global require. Hence they are dependent on rural economic growth. employ-ment and income created by agriculture and the development of natural resources. Scenario 2. The developing countries greatly increase their own food Agriculture, forestry and fisheries are production so as to largely meet their powerful engines for development. own needs, including the needs of the Increased production and employment in poor, investing in agricultural these sectors can generate considerable development as part of a larger employment, income, and growth in the rest development process. 5 of the economy. An alternative scenario envisages a rapid Very few countries have experienced rapid and broad-based growth in the developing economic growth without preceding or world not only in food production, but in accompanying growth in agriculture. Those agricultural and natural resource production countries who have achieved the most rapid generally. This scenario explicitly agricultural growth in the past 20 years also recognizes that food security is not simply a have had rapid economic growth. Countries matter of producing enough food. It also with real declines in agriculture have had depends on employment and incomes. Most the lowest economic growth. of the world's hungry and food-insecure are ' Agriculture and natural n!source use are inextricably related. In the following. therefore. agricultural developme nt is throughOut understood to mean development of agriculture and natural resources (including forestry and fisheries); agricultural research means research in agriculture and na(ural resources. I,ion lor Inlernalional Agricultural Research. Jull 1994 31 The development of agriculture is, more­ - create employment and incomes for the over, central to the challenge posed by mass of the poor; population growth. Experience indicates that decline in birth rates is crucially - deliver food security; dependent on food and income security, coupled with education and enhanced - help to reduce birth rates through earning opportunities for women. Such increased food and income security; opportunities can be provided by the production, processing and trading activities - protect and conserve the environment; generated by broad-based agricultural and natural resource development. - stimulate development in the rest of the economy; Environmental protection and conservation is also crucially dependent on appropriate - ensure prosperity in the industrial world agricultural and natural resource through the stimulation ofglobal trade development. Sustainable approaches to and an increased likelihood ofpolitical food production and to forestlY and fishery stability. management can reverse land degradation, reduce pollution from agrochemicals, remove pressure on national parks and reserves, conserve biodiversity and, at the same time , increase food security. In summary, a major investment in agriculture and natural resources in the developing countries could: 32 A Vision lor International Agricultural Research. July 1. What is needed - attention to regions of varying for agricultural agroclimatic potential, not just the best. development? Instruments for achieving these goals There is no single recipe for successful include appropriate targeting of agricultural agricultural development, though there is a research and extension; ensuring adequate broad consensus on many of the essential access by all types of farmers to credit, ingredients. These include: an enabling inputs and marketing services; investments policy environment that does not in rural education, clean water, health , discriminate against agriculture, forestry or family planning, and nutrition programs to fisheries; liberalised markets for farm inputs improve human resources; attention to and outputs with major private sector women's needs and legal rights; and in involvement; efficient rural financial institu­ some cases, land reform or redistribution . tions; adequate rural infrastructure; and effective institutions to develop and dis­ The relative importance of these seminate appropriate agricultural requirements is complex and country technologies. specific, but recent experience is clear on two counts. Making sure that agricultural growth contributes to poverty alleviation, equity First, while economic liberalisation within and food security requires developing countries and reform of interna­ tional trading policies are necessary - the creation of employment for the prerequisites for significant agricultural land poor and landless, growth, they are not sufficient. Accelerated growth in agricultural output cannot be - increased production on small, me­ maintained without adequate investments in dium-sized and large farms , 34 A Vision lo r International Agricultural Researc'. July rural infrastructure and in agricultural 2. What are the research and extension. Indeed without such research priorities? investments the results of liberalisation High economic returns to agricultural re­ policies may well fall short of expectations search have occurred during an era when and set governments against market­ new land and water sources were still oriented approaches. being brought into production in many developing countries. But the scope for Second, investments in agricultural research bringing further land and water resources to generate new technologies and knowledge into production is now limited, and future continue to give consistently high rates of growth will depend more and more on return. This has been demonstrated time increasing the productivity of already and time again in ex post cost/benefit utilised resources. Moreover, the benefits analyses of individual research projects and from agricultural research have still to reach programs. It also emerges from time-series the large numbers of poor and hungry in the analyses of the sources of growth in factor world. productivity in agriculture for individual countries. Many of the past successes in research were due to concentration on high potential areas (usually irrigated) and generic technologies that had widespread application (e.g. the high yielding varieties of rice and wheat). Such research must continue if the food demands of the escalating urban populations are to be met. n lor Internalional Agricullural Research. July 1994 35 Yet, in the future, achieving higher yields rural poor live in areas that are resource alone will not be enough; they have to be poor, bighly heterogeneous, and risk prone. produced more cheaply and in a more Agriculture here is limited by lower rainfall sustainable manner. and less potential for irrigation, or steep slopes or poor soil structure, or lack of In summary, future research on high poten­ macro or micro nutrients, or presence of tial areas should be aimed at salts and other toxic compounds, or some combination of these. The yield response to - bigher yields per hectare research may be lower, and the costs higher because of greater site specificity of the - at less cost results, yet the benefits to the rural poor can be considerable. - with less environmental damage This second type of research will be more and coupled with research on complex, aimed at improving farming systems rather than specific commodities, - pricing, marketing, and distribution with less reliance on the exploitation of policies tbat ensure tbe poor gain. resources originating outside the farm ­ fertilisers and pesticides. Such resources are Research should also address the needs of often costly and sometimes unreliable, and the many rural poor who are landless or frequently contribute to environmental poor labourers living in the well endowed, degradation. They will continue to be high agricultural production lands, provid­ essential if even higher productivity is to be ing it produces technologies that generate attained. But, equally, more attention will greater employment. But tbe majority of the need to be paid to better use of resources 36 A Vision for Inlernalional Agricullural Research . July internal to the farm. These are the under­ Box 3. Using natural enemies to kiU pests recognized natural resources of agriculture, Research sh~ that the damaging outbreaks of forestry and fisheries: the brown pJanthopper on rice were often due to the pesticides which kiUed off the spiders and - the natural parasites and predators of other natural enemies of the planIboppers. pests (Box 3); fanners were trained to recognise and regularly morutor the pests and their natural enemies. They - algae, bacteria and green manures then used rules to determine the minimum supplying nitrogen; necessary use of pesdddes reducing the average number·of spraylngs peTseaBon from over four to - agroforestry and cropping systems one while simullaneously lnc:reasfng yields from reducing erosion; 6.1 tons to 7.4 tons per hectare. - under-exploited wild tree and fish species; Such research will also require greater - genetic systems increasing tolerance to involvement of farmers and local salts and toxins. communities in the actual research desigrt. And because of the complexity of the Inherently these are inexpensive resources , problems and the site specificity of results, yet with skill and ingenuity they can be the initial focus should be on developing used to generate higher productivity on a methods and approaches, and in sustainable basis. demonstrating successes at case study sites. on lor Inlernational Agricultural Research , July t994 37 In summary, future research on areas with 3. A Doubly-Green relatively lower potential should be aimed at or Super-Green Revolution - higher yields per hectare The agricultural research challenge for the future is complex and demanding. Research - at very low cost must continue to assist the intensification of high potential areas , albeit on a more - making maximal use of indigenous environment friendly basis. At the same resources, physical, biological and time, more research will be needed in lower human potential areas where rural poverty and associated resource degradation is and will - on a sustainable basis increasingly be concentrated. The amount of additional agricultural output required and coupled with research on will be large , more than doubling in South Asia and Africa by 2025. - improving the livelihoods of rural poor households through agriculture and In effect we require a revolution that is agriculturally related income and even more productive than the first Green employment generating activities. Revolution and even more 'Green ' in terms of conserving natural resources and the environment, a Doubly-Green or Super­ Green Revolution. 38 A Vision lor Intern ationa l Agricultural Resear ch. July - Over the next three decades it must aim to In essence the new priorities should be: - repeat the successes of the Green - food security Revolution - income and employment generation - on a global scale - conseroation of natural resources and - in many diverse localities the environment and be whose outcome is the creation of sustainable livelihoods for the poor. - equitable - sustainable - and environmentally friendly. While the first Green Revolution took as its starting point the biological challenge inhe­ rent in producing new high yielding food crops and then looked to determine how the benefits could reach the poor, this new revolution has to reverse the chain of logic, starting with the socio-economic demands of poor households and then seeking to identify the appropriate research priorities. n fOf Internalional Alfie.lI"al Research. July t994 39 4. We need to exploit Molecular biology is concerned with the sub­ new research cellular basis of life. It has been transformed paradigllls by the recent revolutionary advances in laboratOlY technologies which have greatly The successful breeding programs of the increased not only our understanding of sub­ first Green Revolution relied on close cellular and genetic processes but also collaboration between plant breeders, created opportunities for their manipulation. geneticists , agronomists, plant pathologists and entomologists. In the future, such multi­ The immediate potential of molecular disciplinary project teams will need even biology lies in the design and engineering greater integration and a wider span of of new plant and animal types required for disciplines, encompassing both the natural both high and low input systems. Plant and social sciences. breeders have been able to overcome some major limitations to yield by selecting Present day biological and agricultural needed characteristics from germplasm research institutions are in a state of change. resources . Good examples are genes provi­ They have different profiles of operation ding resistance to insect pests (brown plant than they had a decade ago. Two hopper in rice) and disease (rust in wheat), developments in science are driving these tolerance to environmental stresses (alumi­ changes: nium tolerance in wheat) , changes in plant architecture (semi dwarf wheats) and The first is the emergence of molecular alternatives in plant development (photo­ biology, a discipline, with its associated period control of flowering time in soy technologies, which is now integrated into bean) . all biological research fields. A Vision lor Inlernalional Agricullural Research. jul j 40 But there are major problems for which plant Such genetic engineering has a special breeders have not been able to identify or value for agricultural production in introduce appropriate new genetic variation. developing countries. It has the potential to The problems potentially amenable to provide built-in solutions to biotic and solutions through genetic engineering abiotic challenges, redUCing the need for include resistance to viruses, insects and chemical inputs such as fungicides and herbicides; tolerance to salt, drought and pesticides. The seed, with its enhanced heat; crop reserve improvement (carbo­ genetic instructions, is a 'farmer-friendly hydrates, proteins and oils) and nitrogen software package' compatible with low fixation. input agriculture and fitting the requirements of sustainability now placed DNA technologies are beginning to make on higher input agricultural systems. an impact in some of these cases. The key developments have been the development The second development is an ecological of gene transfer technologies for most of the approach that, in tandem with econo­ major crop and pasture species. Molecular mics, sociology and anthropology, is biologists can now design and build gene rapidly increasing our understanding of constructs which can be inserted into the the structure and dynamfcs of genetic tape of a target plant to provide the agroecosystems. 6 transgenic plant with a new trait (e.g. pest resistance). As a result, the plant breeder is no longer restricted to the genetic variation that arises in traditional breeding programs. (, In this paper we define an agrO<'cosystem as "an "cological and socio-economic system, comprising domesticated plants andl or animals and the people who husband them , intended for the purpose of producing food, fibre or other 3griculrural products." lor Inlornational Agricultura l Research, July 1994 41 Ecology is concerned with the interactions Ecological thinking has also begun to among organisms and between organisms inform understanding of the livelihoods of and their environment. In recent years it has poor households, particularly in their been transformed by sophisticated field patterns of response to environmental experimentation based on quantitative and stresses and shocks. Such knowledge qualitative system models. contributes to better practical appreciation of the ways small farmers and poor Recent advances in population, community households can utilise specific agricultural and ecosystem research are proViding a technologies to enhance their livelihoods better understanding of the complex and render them more sustainable. dynamics that arise within crop populations, in multiple cropping and agroforestry But perhaps the most important outcome of systems. Practical applications include the this partnership between ecology and the development of integrated pest management social sciences has been the development of systems, where the use of natural parasites new methods, and more importantly, new and predators can be substituted for approaches and attitudes to the involvement pesticide applications, often involving of farmers themselves in the analysis of savings in costs and reductions in their farming systems and livelihoods. environmental damage. Simple, yet powerful, methods have been developed that encourage farmer analysis, design and management of agricultural and natural resource systems in partnership with research scientists and extension specialists. A Vision for Inlernalional Agrieullural Research . Julj 42 -- These are now showing practical results in These developments, in molecular biology their application to varietal selection, the and ecology, at the core of the new development of integrated pest management interdisciplinarity of biological research, are systems, the construction and management having considerable impact on laboratory of small scale irrigation, reforestation and and field research. More importantly, they the conservation of watersheds (Box 4). provide novel ways of thinking and enquiring about biological, agricultural and socio-economic phenomena, bringing new system perspectives, and enhancing our capacity to define critical answerable CL\T has established 'innovators' in whicb questions. Carmers design and evaluate experiments. One ~ tadded the problem or lack of stakes They are not alternatives. Indeed they are for climbing snap beans. The farmers susaested complementary, providing the means growing the beans after tomaroes, so exploiting whereby farmers, field and laboratory the tomato stakes and the residual ferti.lizer. Using scientists can collaborate in identifying and various criteria of success that they devised, the answering the research questions posed by fatmets agreed on two snap bean varietiea as the socio-economic needs ofpoor households. outstanding for tbfs system Collaborative research between lIMl and the Nepal Department of irrigation has developed better methods for Identifying bill irrigation systems with unreaUsed potendal and partcipIU)rY mechanisms in whieh farmers plan, design and mobilise resoutces for improvement of even quite Jarse systems. The result Is greater efBcIency and Box 4 . Farmer participation in agricultural sustalnabWty of operation. research and development n lor Int.malional Agllcullural Research. July t994 43 - 1. Why do we need - the beneficiaries have little capacity to public research? pay for the researcb; In the industrialised countries the - the products cannot be restricted to production of new varieties and agronomic those who pay, if they can; technologies has increasingly been assigned to the private sector. Better-off farmers, - intellectual property rights can rarely be often heavily subsidised, are able to afford protected. the products of expensive research. Private companies can patent and protect their Thus while private research carried out by discoveries for sufficient time to realise an national and multinational companies has acceptable profit. much to contribute for the well endowed lands and for the better-off farmers, most of IneVitably, private research focuses on the the needs of the poor will have to be met major high value crops, on labour saving by public research agencies. technologies and on the needs of capital intensive farming. By contrast research to Public research also has a crucial role to feed the poor is less attractive to private play in ensuring that technologies are interests, because sustainable. Inevitably - it frequently involves long lead times, - the ben~ficiaries of enVironmentally for example in developing new plant types appropriate technologies are often not the of minor staples; users, or at least not the users alone. - it is risky, particularly when focused on heterogeneous environments that are subject to high climatic and/or other variability; IJion lor Inlernalional Aglieullural Research, July 1994 45 In contrast to private research, where the 2. hy do we need W benefits are captured by private companies a continuing effort and a limited group of users, public re­ in international search aimed at low cost, sustainable food research? production has benefits that spread to The major problems of food security, farmers, large and small, to other rural poverty alleviation and conservation of the dwellers and, most important, to poor environment that we have described above consumers. Public agricultural research aims are not restricted to one country or region to exploit the potential for positive externa­ of the world. They affect, and will continue lities, especially as they benefit the poor. to affect, a major proportion of the world's population in many regions of Africa, Asia and South America. As yet, many of the countries worst affected still lack sufficient agricultural research capacities to deal with their problems. The required research typically draws on many disciplines and production specialities, often lacking even in well developed national agricultural systems. An inter­ national research effort, involving partnerships between national and interna­ tional centers can help to remedy these deficiencies and provide outputs which have impacts that cross national boundaries. Often the problems are common and so are the solutions. 46 A Vision lor International Agricullural Research. July ~- Thus, research activities that have which protect biodiversity, or prevent soil significant economics ofscale or scope are erosion into international waterways, strong candidates for international agri­ because they do not capture all the benefits cultural research. In these cases, it is more from the research. cost-effective for individual countries to pool their resources and to conduct re­ Similarly, countries are likely to over-invest search on an international basis. This is in research activities that indirectly promote especially true for small countries. deforestation, or water pollution, if the environmental costs are borne by other Second, research activities that involve countries. International agricultural research important international externalities (such can help correct for under-investment in as spillover benefits, or environmental costs globally appropriate research activities and and benefits) also have a strong justification for national over-investment in research for international research. Since the costs activities that have negative environmental and benefits of international externalities are effects. not fully borne by the country undertaking the research, there will be incentives to Third, international research can help under- or over- invest in research when strengthen national agricultural research judged from the perspective of global systems (NARS) in the early stages of welfare. For example, individual countries development and, in general, help improve are unlikely to invest enough in research the access of NARS to new knowledge and activities that have spillover benefits for other technology. This will ensure that NARS at all countries (e.g., germplasm that can be used levels of development can benefit from the in other countries), or that lead to reduced most recent advances in science and carbon emissions (e.g., sustainable forestry), technology. Ion lor Internation.1 Agricullural Res.arch. July 1994 47 The national agricultural research systems Despite the financial stringencies they face, of the developing countries encompass a industrialised countries have continued to wide range of institutions, varying in size provide support to NARS through and capability. From 1970 to 1990 many collaborative links involving their own new public agricultural research institutes universities and research centers. A few and universities were created. But in the European countries have maintained public late 1980s public deficits gradually led organizations for international agricultural governments to reduce research investment research and have recently set up the Euro­ and operating expenses; as a consequence, pean Consortium for Agricultural Research many NARS have suffered major crises, the in the Tropics (ECART). The United States most severe in Africa. has comparable programs, often involving the Land Grant universities, and funded by One advocated solution has been priva­ USAID, Ford, Rockefeller and other private tisation. But in practice this has proved foundations . Japan, Canada and Australia difficult to achieve. There has also been have also set up institutions specialising in slow progress in setting up farmer­ scientific co-operation. But these efforts are supported research organizations. Producer not well co-ordinated. Information circulates co-operatives, in various guises, have pro­ poorly and there is little interaction between ved successful at organization of inputs and the different protagonists. marketing, but few have extended their remit to research. Success has been more apparent in the research programs funded and supported by national and international non-government organisations (NGOs) . AVision lor Infernalional Agricultural Research , Jul 48 3. What is the role of the networks, consortia, and other means, CGIAR systelll in the leading to greater South-South co-operation international effort? in research. Investments in the CGIAR constitute only The CGIAR is an informal consortium of 3 percent of the annual public spending on donors, encompassing national governments agricultural research globally. Despite this and international agencies, linked by the small share, the CGIAR plays a key role in common purpose of eradicating hunger and fostering the effectiveness and further poverty through research . To achieve this development of the global agricultural task it has created a family of 17 research research system. centers (Appendix 1). While each center has its own board and largely sets its own For over 20 years the CGIAR has played a agendas, these conform to priorities and leadership role which stems from its scienti­ objectives determined by an independent fic credibility and widely acknowledged Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). achievements. The CGIAR is the only truly international, non-political agricultural research entity. The essence of the CGIAR is independence, accountability and research excellence, . monitored and evaluated by external The CGIAR has also served as a bridge mechanisms. This provides a quality between institutions, most notably between guarantee for donors who can make developing country research systems and funding decisions within an analytical advanced institutions in industrialised and framework provided by a body that is developing countries. Their knowledge of independent of the ultimate recipients of the conditions of NARS at various levels of support. Few institutions receiving aid development has enabled CGIAR institutes funding can match this feature. to demonstrate best practices through Ion lor Internltional Agricultural Research, July 1994 49 These characteristics have contributed to a In summary, the scientific and technological remarkable record of research achievements infrastructure of the CGIAR provides a over the past thirty years, especially in unique capacity for focused research with germplasm characterization, plant breeding, world wide application. From the donor and pathology, pest control, crop-livestock and developing country perspectives the CGIAR agroforestry system and the field application provides public research ofguaranteed high of new technologies of tillage and soil value, at relatively low cost. conservation. A Vision lor Inlernalional Agricultural Research. Jul, 50 1. The need for change require long term support and may well to a prograIll based operate on a center base, but the CGIAR approach will need to increasingly focus on new and different partnerships that work toward well The problems of providing sustainable defined outcomes (Box 5). food security for all in a world of rapid population growth are daunting in their Box 5. The participants in potential complexity. They cannot be solved by partnerships in international agricultural the simple transfer of technologies, but research require genuine partnerships operating at both global and regional levels. The IndustrlaUsed countries research institutes of the industrialised Research institutes countries, both public and private, and Universities the national agricultural research Private companies institutes of the developing countries Consonia need to be linked in new ways that CGIAR reflect the opportunities created by the The international agricultural research centers revolution in modern biology. Devel.opina Countries Regional research institutes In the future, although the CGIAR's overall National research institutes 7 purpose will remain the same , its Universities modalities of operation will need to change Private companies considerably if it is to meet these new Non-govemment organisations challenges. Some of its key roles will Fanners '-----­ , Through international agricultural 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 developing countries in ways that enhance nutrition and well-being, especially of low income people. A Vision for Inlernational Agricultural A",arch. July 52 This will require changes in the strategic - the increasing focus on a wide range and operational planning and funding of of agroecosystems necessitating greater the CGIAR system. A portfolio of pro­ in-country expertise and farmer grams, rather than reliance only on a set participation in research; of centers, should constitute the business prospectus of the system and ultimately and be the basis for fund allocation. - the need to work to agendas of widely The justification for this program based agreed research outcomes and outputs. approach is: To operate in this context, the CGIAR will - the complexity of the challenge need broader based advice on such issues (realising high, sustainable productivity as demography, natural resources and food at a cost that provides affordable food for security, and to be able to keep abreast of the poor); the developments and changing capabilities of modern biological science. So equipped - the need to foster research partnerships it can then formulate its agenda of that go beyond a simple transfer of collaborative programs within an overall technology; agreed international agricultural research effort. One consequence will be that - the opportunity to exploit the new programs will commonly receive funds from paradigms (molecular biology and a number of different sources, within and ecology) requiring interdisciplinary outside the CGIAR, and will be limited in partnerships and links to advanced their duration. expertise; on for fftlern.'iona' Agrieullural Research. July 1994 53 The underlying 2. country NARS justifies placing priority on principles for the their involvement in international research future efforts. Three principles should apply in defining the CGIAR's specific responsibilities and 3 . The nature of the roles within the international research effort. prograIlls Applying these principles, we can enVisage Subsidiarity. As a general principle, the the CGIAR as contributing to international primary responsibility for a research activity research activities through two types of should be devolved to the lowest level in programs: the hierarchy, from global to regional to national, that can carry out the activity most Global programs appropriately and efficiently. Regional action programs Partnership. In carrying out a research activity, partnerships with agencies with Global programs would be geared towards complementary skills and experience should strategic research problems of international always be considered as an alternative to significance. Regional action programs would adding capacities to the CGIAR research address specific sustainable production prob­ centers. lems faced in significant geogra phic regions. It is important to differentiate these two types Transfer. Even if there is no clear gain in of programs because of differences in the efficiency or expertise from the involvement scope of the problems to be addressed and of developing country research institutions, the range of actors likely to be involved, both the objective of strengthening developing in funding and executing the research effort. 54 A Vision 10' Internalional Ag'icullural Research , July The CGIAR would progressively channel all L 4. ong-term., center­ of its funding to a set of well-defined re­ based program.s search programs . This is a departure from the The CGIAR would provide funding to these present practice of funding of international programs on a continuous and stable basis. centers. In the future, institutes should be The centers would be fewer in number than receiving funding from the CGIAR, but only at present. As a group, they would focus on for their involvement in one or more specific the heartland of the CGIAR mandate and programs of interest to the CGIAR. carry out programs which have a long-term perspective. The CGIAR would approve We suggest three types of global programs: programs, and the allocation of resources to centers for carrying out these programs - long-term, center-based programs; would be as at present. Existing CGIAR mechanisms would be used in monitoring - multi-center programs; and evaluation of their implementation. - collaborative strategic research These center-based programs should be programs. tailored toward resolving problems - in regions where increased production is needed most urgently (such as in Sub­ Saharan Africa and South ASia), and - in situations where public research is most required because of market failures, and where sustainability concerns are most pressing. n lor Inlernational Ag"cuUura l Research. July 1994 55 Such programs would focus primarily on 5. ulti-center M the development of genetic materials for prograIlls selected crop, livestock, forestry, and fish Some of the programs supported by the species that are recognised as providing CGIAR would be carried out by all or a keys to the solutions of these problems. subset of the centers. These programs would be continuous or long-term in In their funding and execution these long­ duration. They would be managed through term programs would be designed to pre­ an inter-center mechanism and would serve and enhance the intellectual capital require funding from the CGIAR, except for and the intellectual heartland of the CGIAR services which should be financed by their centers. users . Illustrative examples of multi-center programs include - the conservation, characterisation and evaluation ofselected germplasm; - the provision of information, materials and training in research methods and approaches; - analyses of institutional strengthening and offood production, distribution and pricing policies for sustainable food security. 56 AVision lor 'n'.rn.,io n.' Agricullural Research, Jui Collaborative strategic 6. Illustrative examples of research themes that research programs fall in this category: Such programs would focus on research - decline in yields of major cereals in problems which are global in nature and intensively cropped, cereal-based systems; which cut across the core themes covered by the centers. The programs would be of a - development ofsmall scale irrigation finite duration, usually of a 5-10 year and water conservation systems; period. The problems covered would represent a "good investment risk" for the - improved understanding of key CGIAR and other partners funding them. biological, physical, social, and economic The research would be carried out by a set dynamics ofselected critical of collaborating institutes, including CGIAR agroecosystems, such as coastal zones; centers. One of these would assume leadership of the effort. The funding for the - reduced production ofglobal pollutants programs would come from the CGIAR as (especially nitrous oxide and methane) well as other sources. The effort would be from agricultural practice~; evaluated by existing CGIAR mechanisms. - development and understanding of user participatory approaches in the design and management of irrigation, forestry, and fisheries systems. n tor International Agricultural Research , Juty 1994 57 7. egional action R The following illustrate outputs of possible prograllls regional action programs : These would be problem-specific research - better yielding crop varieties and programs, of a shorter duration than global agroeconomic systems appropriate to strategic research programs. Agendas would specific acid and mineral deficient soils be set by NARS , regional organizations, and in the savannas ofLatin America; interested donors, in partnership. Funding would come mainly from other sources than - synergetic cropping and crop-livestock the CGIAR, although the CGIAR could also systems providing higher, more stable contribute to the funding. Leadership of the yields in the highlands of West Asia; programs would be normally assumed by NARS or other agencies, but in some cases - more productive cereal based farming the CGIAR centers could be asked to play systems in Eastern and Southern Africa; the leading role. Monitoring and evaluation of the effort would be executed by a special - sustainable coffee and cocoa based mechanism agreed by the participants. The farming systems in West Africa; CGIAR could use its own internal mechanism to monitor/ evaluate the aspects - integrated aquaculture systemsfor of the programme involving CGIAR funding. coastal South and Southeast Asia. 58 A Vision lor Inlernalional Agricultural Research . Jul In summary, we envisage a CGIAR which is - fostering partnerships, and a more open and collaborative system than at present, a CGIAR which leads the global - providing independent advice and international agricultural research effort by evaluation to achieve solutions to the problems. - analysing problems, The CGIAR of tomorrow should use a wider - developing agendas, range of institutional modalities in fulfilling its mandate than at present (Figure 4). Features Global programs Regional action programs Long-term Multi-center Collaborative center-based strategic research How long? Continuous Continuous or Finite (e.g.S-lO years) Finite (e.g.S years) long-term Who decides? CGIAR CGIAR - CGIAR Partnership of donors - Partners and countries Who funds? CGIAR - CGIAR - CGIAR - CGIAR - Users of services - Other sources - Other sources - Other sources Who leads? Center Inter-center One of the collaborating Ad hoc arrangement mechanism institutes (including (e.g. NARS or other CGIAR Center) organisations) Who evaluates? Existing CGIAR Existing CGIAR Existing CGIAR - Special mechanisms mechanisms mechanisms mechanisms agreed by participants - Existing CGIAR mechanisms for the CGIAR component Figure 4: Suggested programs and their features on 10. Inlernalional Ag.icullural Research. July 1991 59 Q') = These are challenges for the world Over the next 30 years the community as a whole, not just the challenge we face is to: countries where the poor live. It is not simply a matter of justice and equity . The - meet the food needs of the more than world is more interdependent than ever 700 million who go hungry today; before . The growing globalisation of institu­ tions, ideas, capital, technology and trade - provide food at affordable prices for and the opportunities created by the almost 100 million more people every year advances in information technology are (the largest annual population increase creating a world in which events in one in history); country or region affect us all . Unless addressed smartly and in advance, poverty - increase production through greater and hunger could lead to political productivity per unit of land (expansion destabilisation and environmental destruc­ in area is no longer feasible in most of tion, with world-wide implications. the world); We have a collective responsibility to - and, do this in such a way as to con­ eradicate hunger from the face of the earth serve and not degrade natural resources in ways that protect our common and the environment. environment. It is not simply a matter of meeting the market demand for food . The new mandate is to assure food security for all the world's population, through agricultural research that not only adds to food production but generates employment and income that, in turn, increases the market demand for food. n lor Inlernalional Ag ricultural Research. July 1994 61 The panel believes we should turn to sci­ As the only truly global , apolitical public ence for help - help in creating a new international agricultural research system agricultural revolution, one that is global, today, the CGIAR has a special role to play equitable, sustainable, and environmentally in the evolution of such a system. It should friendly. Science can meet this challenge, lead in the identification of research because new paradigms in science, problems of international significance , in particularly in molecular biology and the design of research programs, and in the ecology, are providing a better understan­ assessment of the impact of the overall ding of the complex interactions between global effort . physical , biological and social systems, and helping to create the tools and technologies To do these things, the CGIAR will need needed to address the problems we face . some adjustments, both in the problems it directly addresses and in the modalities it Mobilising science in this way means uses to implement research programs. It significant investments in public research , should focus primarily on strategic research both national and international. Because problerps of global significance, through many of the problems that need to be long-term, institute based programs, multi­ researched are common across countries institute programs and collaborative strate­ and regions, an international research effort gic research programs. is likely to be more efficient and productive. We advocate the creation of a global agricultural research system that links a range of institutions with one another in new partnership modes. 62 .lernalio.al Agricullural Research . Ju A Vision lor 1 At the same time, the CGIAR should also If these recommendations are adopted, we participate in regional action programs, to a believe that, with adequate support from lesser or greater extent, depending on the the donor community, the CGIAR can strengths and needs of its developing coun­ spearhead a new global movement to try partners. Here the CGIAR would playa ensure SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE FOR A FOOD bridging and catalytic role, but the SECURE WORLD. leadership should rest with national or regional institutions. The current emphasis on funding of core programs of an exclusive set of research centers should give way to funding of programs, carried out in collaboration with developed and developing country institutions. n for Inlernalional Agricultural Research, July 1994 63 Bibliography Blake, Robert O. et aI, 1994. Feeding 10 Billion NRI. 1994 . Food Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa: A New People in 2050: 'flJe Key Role of the CGIAR's Agenda for Research and Donor Assistance International Agricultural Research Centers, National Resources Institute , Chatham. a report by the Action Group on Food Security, Ozgediz, Selcuk, 1993. The CGIAR Model: Principles, Washington DC. Cbal/enges, Prospects, discussion draft, Bongaans, John , 1994. CGIAR Secretariat, Washington DC. 'Can the growing human population feed Pinstrup-Andersen, Per, 1993. World Food Trends and itself?' in Scientific American, March. Future Food Security, IFPRI , Washington DC. CGIAR, 1992a. Review ofCGIAR Pretty, Jules N. and Chambers, Robert, 1993 . Towards Priorities and Stmtegies, Parts I and II, a Learning Paradigm: New Pmfessionalism CGIAR Secretariat, Washington DC, April. and Institutions for Agriculture, IDS Discussion CGIAR, 1992b. Expansion of the CGIAR System, Paper 334 , Brighton, December. Technical AdviSOry Committee, FAa, Rome. Rosenzweig, Cynthia and Parry, Martin L. , 1994. CGIAR, 1993a. Review and Approval of 'Potential impact of climate change on world Center Medium- Term Plans 1994-98, food supply', in Nature, vol. 367, January. Technical AdviSOry Committee, FAa, Rome. World Bank, 1993a. Agricultural Sector Review, CGIAR, 1993b. CGIAR Priorities and Strategies: World Bank, Washington DC. TAC Revision ofChapter 13, World Bank, 1993b. Implementing the World Bank 's Technical Advisory Committee, FAa, Rome. Strategy to Reduce Poverty: Pmgress and Chambers, Robert and Conway, Gordon R., 1992. Challenges, World Bank, Washington DC. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical World Bank , 1994. World Development Rep0111994, Concepts for tbe 21st Century, World Bank, Washington DC. IDS Discussion Paper 296, Brighton, February. World Resources Institute, 1992. World Resources Conway, Gordon R. and Pretty, Jules, N. 1991. 1992-1993: A Guide to tbe Global Environ­ Unwelcome Harvest: agriculture and pollution. ment, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London. World Resources Institute, 1994. World Resow'ces Conway, Gordon R., 1993. 'Sustainable agriculture : 1994-1995: A Guide to the Global Environ­ the trade-offs with productivity, stability and ment, Oxford University Press, Oxford. equitability' , in Edward B. Barbier ed. , Econo­ Yudelman, M., 1993. Demand and Supply of Foodstuffs mics and Ecology: New Frontiers and Sustain­ up to 2050 with Special Reference to Irrigation, able Development, Chapman & Hall, London. IMMI, Colombo . Hazell , Peter, Agcaoili , Mercedita and Rosegrant, Mark, 1994. Some Useful Results about the \'(/orld Food Situation in 2025from IFPRl's World Cereal Model, IFPRI , Washington DC. A VISion lor Inlernalional Agricullural Research. Ju 64 ~- Appendix I: The CGIAR and its Centers CGIAR MeIllbers Australia , Austria , Belgium, Brazil , Canada , China, Denmark, Finland, France , Germany , India, Indonesia , Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembou1"g, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America. African Development Bank, Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, Asian Development Bank, Commission of the European Communities, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Food Foundation, Inter-American Development Bank, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), International Development Research Center, International Fund for Agricultural Development, Kellogg Foundation, OPEC Fund for International Development, Rockefeller Foundation, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme , plus 10 representatives of developing countries selected through FAO's regional conferences . The Centers: Date of Core budget foundation Headquarters 1993 Center (and joining) location (USD millions) Main areas of focus Original members of the system, founded before the CGIAR: IRRI 1960 Los Banos, 25.8 Rice (global);rice-based ecosystems (International Rice (971) Philippines (Asia) Research Institute) CIMMYT 1966 Mexico City, 24.1 Wheat, maize, triticale (global) (Centro Internacional de Mexico Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo rnA 1967 Ibadan, 21.9 Sustainable production systems for the (International Institute of (971) Nigeria the humid lowland tropics; soybean, Tropical Agriculture) maize, cassava, cowpea , banana, plantain, yams (sub-Saharan Africa) CIAT 1967 Cali, 25.5 Sustainable land use in tropical (Centro Internacional de (1971) Colombia America; beans, cassava, forages and Agricultura Tropical) pastures (global), rice (Latin America and the Caribbean) on lor Inlernalional Agrieullural Research. July 1991 65 - The Centers, continued: Date of Core budget foundation Headquarters 1993 Center (and joining) location (USD millions) Main areas of focus Founded or adopted by tbe CGIAR, to broaden the system, after 1971: (CRISAT 1972 Hyderabad, 26.9 Sustainable production systems for (International Crops (1972) India the semi-arid tropics; sorghum, pearl Research Institute for the millet, finger millet, chickpea, Semi-Arid Tropics) pigeonpea , and groundnut (Asia, sub-Saharan Africa) CIPI 1970 Lima, 15.1 Potato (global), sweet potato (Centro Internacional de la (1973) Peru (Latin America , Asia) Papa) ILRAD~ 1973 Nairobi, 10.9 Livestock disease (global), tickborne (International Laboratory for (1973) Kenya diseases, trypanosomiasis Research on Animal Diseases) (sub-Saharan Africa) n.CA~ 1974 Addis Ababa, 13.5 Animal feed and production systems; (International Livestock (1974) Ethiopia cattle, sheep, goats (sub-Saharan Centre for Africa) Africa) IPGRI 4 1974 Rome, 9.0 Plant genetic resources of current and (International Plant Genetic (1974 Italy potential crops and forages, collection Resources Institute) as IBPGRI) and gene pool conservation (global) WARDA l 1970 Bouake, 5.2 Rice (West Africa) (West Africa Rice Development (1975) Cote d'Ivoire Development Association) (CARDA 1975 Aleppo, 16.2 Wheat, barley, chickpea, lentil, pasture (International Center for (1975) Syria and forage legumes, small ruminants (Agricultural Research (West Asia-North Africa) in the Dry Areas) (SNAR 1980 The Hague, 6.6 Strengthening national agricultural (International Service for (1980) Netherlands research systems (global) National Agricultural Research) IFPRI I 1975 Washington, D.C.,8.3 Food policy, socioeconomic research (International Food Policy (1980) United States of related to agricultural development Research Institute) America (global) A Vision lor International Agricultural Research, Ju 66 The Centers~ continued: Date of Core budget foundation Headquarters 1993 Center (and joining) location (USD millions) Main areas of focus Founded or adopted by tbe CGIAR to strengtben in mission, after 1990: ICRAF 1 1977 Nairobi, 11.9 Agroforestry; multi-purpose trees (global) (International Centre for (991) Kenya Research in Agroforestry) llMIl 1984 Colombo, 6.8 Irrigation management (global) (International Irrigation (991) Sri Lanka Management Institute) ICLARM 1 1977 Manila, 4.2 Sustainable aquatic resource (International Center for (992) Philippines management (Asia) Living Aquatic Research Management) INIBAPi,Z 1984 Montpellier, 2.1 Plantain and banana (global) (International Network for (1992) France the Improvement of Banana and Plantain) CIFOR 1993 Bogor, 3.4 Sustainable forestry management (Center for International (993) Indonesia (global) Forestry Research) 1. Adopted by the Group (i.e. not founded by the CGIAR). 2. IPGRI will assume responsibilities for INIBAP programs. 3. All Or part will be incorporated into a new International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) with a global mandate. 4. Formerly 0979-93) IBPGR, the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. Source: CGIAR, 1994. Challenging Hunger: The Role of the CGIAR, Washington D.C. n for Inlernalional Agricullural Research, July 1994 67 Appendix II: About the Panel Gordon Conway (Chair) Corporation and the Carter Center. Prior to her move Gordon Conway, of the UK, is Vice-Chancellor of the to Florida in 1991, she held various positions at the University of Sussex (since 1992), Chair of the Board World Bank in Washington, D.C. (which she joined in of the Institute of Development Studies and a Member 1971), most recently in areas of policy and of the Global Environmental Change Committee of the development strategy. Uma Lele has a PhD and MS Economic and Social Science Research CounciL Prior from Cornell University in Economics . to his current appointment, he was Ford Foundation Representative for India, Nepal and Sri Lanka, based W_ James Peacock in new Delhi and, earlier, was Professor of Jim Peacock, an Australian, is Chief of the Division of Environmental Technology in the University of Plant Industry of the Commonwealth Scientific and London, and Visiting Professor at the University of Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) , in Can­ Chiang Mai, Thailand. Gordon Conway has a PhD in berra, a p osition he has held since 1978. During his Systems Ecology from the University of California, research career in CSIRO (which began in 1965), he Davis, Diplomas in Agricultural Science (University of has held a number of visiting professorships in Cambridge) and Tropical Agriculture (University of biology, biochemistry and molecular biology, West Indies , Trinidad), and BSc in Zoology from including those at Stanford UniversiEy, University of University College of North Wales, Bangor, U.K . California Los Angeles and University of Oregon. Jim Peacock is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of UmaLele Science and the Royal Society of London. He obtained Uma Lele, an Indian national, is a Graduate Research his BSc and PhD from the University of Sydney in Professor of Food and Resource Economics at the Botany and Genetics. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville; she also serves as Director of the Global Development Initiative of the Carnegie A Vision lor Inlernalional Agricultural Research , Ju 68 - Martin Piiieiro an agricultural engineer and economist, and studied Martin Pinero, of Argentina, is an independent Research and Development Economics at the Univer­ consultant who recently completed two terms as sity of Paris (DEA Degree Program). Director General of the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), from 1986-93. Peter Hazell, UK, is Director of the Environment and Prior to that appointment, he was Research Coordina­ Production Technology Division, IFPRI. He is an tor at the Center for Social Research on State and agricultural economist, with MS and PhD degrees Management, Argentina and, earlier, Under Secretary from Cornell University, and College Diplomas in (Vice Minister) of the Secretariat for Agriculture and Agriculture and in Farm Management from Seale­ Livestock in Argentina. Martin Pineiro received his Hayne Agricultural College, Devon. PhD in Agricultural Economics from the University of California at Davis, MS in Agronomy from Iowa State Co-conveners on behalf of the University, and completed his undergraduate studies CGIAR Oversight COIllIllittee in Agronomy at the University of Buenos Aires. Henri Carsalade, of France, is currently on detach­ ment from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Centre Panel Secretary for International Cooperation in Development­ Sel~uk Ozgediz, a Turkish national, is Management Oriented Agricultural Research (CIRAD), France, Adviser at the CGIAR Secretariat. He received his BS where he recently served as General Director (1990­ in economics and statistics from Middle East Technical 1993). He is a Forestry Engineer and Agricultural University (Ankara) , MS in mathematical statistics, and Engineer, graduating from the Institut National MA and PhD in Political Science from Michigan State Agronomique, France. University. Johan Holmberg, of Sweden, is Director of Program­ mes of the Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation Resource Persons with Developing Countries (SAREC). He received his Michel Griffon, of France, is Director of the Agri- BA in Russian and English Languages and MBA in cultural Policies and Forecasts Research Unit, and Marketing Economics from Gothenburg School of Chief Economist (since 1986), CIRAD, France. He is Economics. n lor Inlarnalional Agrieuliural Research, Jul, 1994 69 Appendix III: Technical Annex on Projection Methodology Peter Hazell Imernational Food Policy Research Institute The projections of food production, demand and production plus imports less exports. At the global imports for year 2000 given in this paper were level, cereal demand equals production. There is no derived from a global trade model developed by global cereal gap between market demand and supply IFPRI, the Imernational Food Policy and Trade because the endogenous price clears the market. The Simulation Model (IFPTSIM). The model is fully hungry are simply priced out of the market, as in the documented in Agcaoili, Oga and Rosegram (1993). real world. IFPTSIM is a market equilibrium model of foodgrains Because the paper is concerned about the prospects and grain-fed livestock products that solves for prices, for a well-fed world, the model projections have been demand, production, and trade by major counlfies/ supplememed by side calculations of the additional regions and for the world (Table 1). Population cereals that would be needed in 2025 to meet the growth, income growth, and yield growth are all "hidden" food needs of the poor. The hidden need is exogenous (Table 2). However, growth in cereal calculated as follows. For each region, the amount of production is endogenous because the cropped area cereals required to supply 3,000 calories/person/ day is responsive to price. The model includes major was calculated using the population projections for livestock activities and hence all cereal production, 2025. This level of calorie availability is assumed to demand and trade figures are aggregates of human be an acceptable minimum for meeting human food food and livestock feed. needs while allowing for livestock feed, seed, storage losses and processing waste. The total amoum of Cereal demand is endogenous and is driven by prices, cereals required in a region to meet this minimum income growth, and changes in the livestock sector. need is then compared with the projected market By definition, cereal demand for each region equals A Vision lor Inlernalional Agricullural Research, J, 70 demand from the IFPTSIM model, and the difference Reference: Agcaoili, M.,K. Oga and M.W. Rosegrant, is taken to be the "hidden" cereals need. For regions 1993. Structure and Operation of the International with a positive hidden need, the total cereals gap is Food Policy and Trade Simulation Model (IFPTSIM), taken as the difference between total food need and Paper presented in the Second Workshop of the Rice projected production. In all other cases, the projected Supply and Demand Project, IRRI, Manila . cereals gap is taken as the difference between projected market demand and production, which equals projected imports in the IFPTSIM results. These calculations of hidden food needs hinge critically on the required calorie level assumed. Our assumption of 3,000 cals/ person/ day for cereals supply is hardly generous for a well-fed world but it still leads to food gaps of 214 million tons for Sub­ Saharan Africa and 255 million tons for South Asia in 2025 . Table 3 shows how these gaps change under different assumptions about the minimum calorie need. The gaps escalate enormously as the calorie requirement is increased. In 1988, average calorie availability from cereals in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia was only 1,290 and 1,638 cals/person/day, but this was associated with considerable malnutrition and hunger. Even when hidden foods needs are calculated using 1,500 cals/ person/day, this still leads to food gaps in 2025 of 34 million tons for Africa and 46 million tons for South Asia. n for Inlernalional Agric ultural Research. July 1994 71 Table 1. Classification Country/ region Country/region Developed countries U.S.A. EC 12 and commodity Japan Coverage in the Other Western Europe Canada IFPRlmodel Australia New Zealand Other Developed Countries Other Eastern Europe Former Soviet Union Developing Latin America Mexico Countries Brazil Argentina Other Latin America Africa Nigeria Other Africa Middle East Egypt Other Near East Asian LDCs India Pakistan Bangladesh Indonesia Thailand Malaysia Philippines Singapore South Korea China Other Southeast Asia Other South Asia Other East Asia Other Other developing countries Rest of the World Commodities Crops Wheat, rice, maize, other coarse grains. soybean Animal products Beef, pork, poultry, mutton and lamb, fluid milk, eggs 72 A Vi. ion I.. Inlor ..lion.1 Agrie.llural Research, J.I ~- Sub- Saharan I South Asia Other Asia I WANA I LAC Deve- loping Deve- loped I World Africa Annual Growth Rates (%) Population 2.8 1.9 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.6 0.5 I 1.4 GDP 3.2 3.8 4.8 3.2 2.8 3.8 2.8 Yield: Wheat 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.6 Maize 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.6 Other coarse grains 2.4 2.0 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.8 1.2 Rice 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.3 Soybeans 0.7 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.0 Beef 2.1 1.6 2.4 3.0 1.5 1.9 1.1 Pigmeat 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.3 1.0 Sheepmeat 1.3 2.4 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.0 Poultry 3.4 1.5 2.2 2.8 1.8 2.2 1.2 Eggs 4.0 2.0 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.7 1.7 Table 2. Key Exogenous Parameters in the IFPRI Model (percent) I lor Internalional Agrrcultural Research, July 1994 73 Africa South Asia I Other Asia I WANA LAC All deve­ loping countries Model Projections Production 144.7 355.9 801 .4 148.6 237.2 1,687.8 Market demand 173.6 401.6 882.5 262 .3 273.6 1,993.6 Commercial imports 28.9 45.7 81.1 113.7 36.4 305.8 Hidden need (additional demand above market demand) 1,500 cals/ day 5.5 5.5 2,000 65.3 5.8 71.1 2,500 124.9 107.6 232.5 3,000 184.7 209.4 394 .1 4,000 304.1 413.1 105.1 13.3 49.3 884.9 Total Gap (imports plus hidden need) 1,500 cals/ day 34.4 45 .7 81.1 113.7 36.4 311.3 2,000 94.2 51.5 81.1 113.7 36.4 376.9 2,500 153.8 153.3 81.1 113.7 36.4 538.3 3,000 213.6 255.1 81.1 113.7 36.4 699.9 4,000 333.0 458.8 186.2 127 .0 85.7 1,190.7 Table 3. Projectedfoodgaps in 2025for different assumptions about bidden needs (million tons) AVi,ion 10' Inlern.lional Ag'iculiUlal Research, J 74 '­ ISBN 91-86- 82623-9 PRODUCTION: Ellridd l/Wordaid GK"."\PHIC DESIGN / ILLUSTRA.TIONS: Lars Ransheim DTP: Anders Dahlstrom CoVER PHOTO: Ron Gilling / Bazaar PRINTING: G~TA8 1994 . United States ~CGIAR saree SWEDISH AGENCY FOR RESEARCH COOPERATION CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL WITH DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AGRICULTURAL RESEAR C H POBox 161 40, 10323 Stockholm, Sweden CGIAR Secretariat Visiting address: Klarabergsgatan 23., Stockholm ·1818 H Street, N,W. Telephone: +468 7912100. Telefax: +46 8 791 21 99 Washington, D.C. 20433 Telex: 19111 SAREC S