CGIARACTIVITIES AN-D GOALS: TRACING THE CONNECTIONS u DONALD L. WINKELMANN 23536 December 1998 z CGIAR- CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Issutcs itl Agricultture is an evolving series of booklets on topics connected with agricultural research ancd development. I-he series is published by the Secretariat of the Consultative Grroup on International Agricultural Research (CIGIAR) as a contributioni to informed diScLIussioll on issues that affect agriculture. The opinionis expressed in this series are those of the authors andc do not necessarily rcflcct a conscensus of Views s within the CGIAR Svstem. Published by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CGIAR Secretariat The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA Tel: (1-202) 473-8951 Fax: (1-202) 473-8110 Website: http://www.cgiar.org DECEMBER 1998 CGIARACTIVITIES AND GOALS: TRACING -THE CONNECTIONS DONALD L. WINKELMANN TAC Chairman CGIAR C,ci;sant,ve Gosur) on hnlternant;ona3 4Agf.!t, ra! Rc searc. Introduction T Ihis piece describes myi viewv of the important lines of force that connect the CGIARs goals to its activities. I start wvitlh a sketch of the goals, comment on related questions, connect the goals with the worlk of the centers, introduce recent findings that empirically sup- port what wcre leaps of faith, note what is not being claimed, and finally, take up two related points before concluding. Most of the discussion deals with the way the CGIAR has decided vx hat it should do. There is little on1 how to do it, which means that there is little on recent discussions about monitoring the SysTtem's work, various forms of collaboration, the expanding potential through high science, and the structure of the System. Before *0 liiu- I want to imlake tw-o scene-settinig comments. For 25 vears, the CGIAR has invested in work in developing countries. In the . I the investment has led to notablv large returns, especially to the poor. Virtuallv no other effort in developrient assistance has clone as muclh for the poor and, arguably, for natural resources. I believe that the System has much to-offer in the luture and that transparency, of a kind I hope to portrav here, wvill encourage support for its work. Seconid, the C.GIAR lives in a constantly changing envi- roninent. Science continually offers new opportunities. Research- establishments in developing countries are changing, as are the relationships among themii. Attitudes 2 CG,APA:tivit,es uqnY Goals Ttacno the Conoueocr!ons toward the roles of the public and private sector are shifting. Concern for protecting natural resources has increased. And the perceived role in development of the : crops, livestock, forest, and fisheries (hereinafter referred to as AFF) sectdr has gained in importance. Motivated larg,ely bx these changes, the CGIAR itself has changed. Recently, and singularly important for my purposes, the System refocused its goals, asked for more transparenicy in their pursuit, and gave added emplhasis to efficiency and accountability. Cwc''suitate G ol,p oh) Mterr-ationral 'Resea,, !? The CGIAR's Goals Today The overarching goals of today's CGIAR feature'poor people and stress the efficient pursuit of three related aims for the world's poorest countries: (1) the alleviation of poverty, especially that of wvomen, (2) protection for natural resources, andc (3) sustainable food security. Several cquestions emerge from this brief statenlmlt. First, wvhIr does the CGIAR emphasizc the poorest coun- tries? An obvious response is that those countries contain the poorest people. I believe tlherc are otlher rcasons. One is that the CGIAR's energics shotuld be focusecd on constraints affecting people in those countries where resources per capita are so scarce that only limited possi- bilities exist nationallv for handling the problcmiis of poVertv and natural resource managemlent. As examplcs, Bangladesh has such linitations; clearly the Republic of Korea does niot; arguably Brazil does not A second reason is that, other things equal, the CGIAR's work will have its largest effects on poverty where mnuch of the wNTo-k force is engagecl in AFF ancl dhcre the acquisition of food absorbs much of the average familN's resources; these are the characteristics of' the poorest countries. Is the CGIAR's goal of poverty alleviation congruent with the primarv goals of the poor? All too much experience has shown thiat poverty brings. in its train lowN self-esteem, poor healtlh, and foreshortenedcl life spans. With that, I takie it as given that the poor assiggn high priority to an escape from povertvy so that the CGI\R's conccrn is notably conlsistent wx-ith the goals of the poor. I add that, while the Groups emnphasis on1 t,he poor cani be seen as emerging 4 CGiAH` Activit,es and Gnals. Tracing toe Canaect:ons from altruism, it is quite consistent with arguments based on enlightened self-interest. Which natural resources? The System focuses on hio- diversity land, and watcr. It emphasizes their implications for fiture productivity and human health. Therc are other rcasons for protecting such resources and for being conccrnecd about the enviroinment in general. Not even the poorest live bv bread alone and thev, too, feel the conse- quences of changes in the global environment. Even so, as I understand it, because of its emphasis on poor people, the Systemr follows the logic of the poor and emphasizes these broader concerns for the environment after accom- modating the primary concerns of the poor. In all cases, of course, CGIAR researchers are encouraged to look for solutions that simultanieously favor both the poor and natural resources. Beyond that, the Svstems decision makers should consider research that aims at reclucing tradle-offL between the two, all the while assessing how that research itself wit] tracle off v.ith other research, particularly that which favors prodLctivitv increases of special relevance to the poor. What about sustainable food security? "Food security" rests priinarily on food availabilitv and access to it. IFor todav's poor, and probably for tomorrow's poor, it is access to food because of limitations on income, not the avail- ability of food, that is the operative limitation on food security. For the poor especiallyT food security accompa- nies the alleviation of poverty. As for "sustainable", this has to do with food security in the future, implying the neecd to conserve natural resources today, so that the resource base can support food security' in the futiure. 5. CoQas!,Ltarre Grnup on lIter)ational Agrncutoral Research My vi cxv is that, in its pursuit of the alleviation of povertvy and protection for natural resources, the CGIAR is silnul- Laneously pursuing virtually all of- what is contained in sustainable food security". O ne fuLrther observ'ation here: Researchi on AFF has a larger ancl inore dynamic role il' it is motivated by poverty alleviation and natural resource conservation than if it concerned only with the availabilit of food. (More about thi's follows in the sectioni linkling goals and activities.) Finallv, as I see it, the CGIAR's recent cmphasis on poor people has greatlv clarified the SystenVi's goal statement and, in doing so, has notab]v sharpened decision making on priorities and resource allocations. Certainly the CGIAR has been concerned ahout people from its he- ginning. People conisumiie food, they produce foocd, and they makle decisions about the relevance of techniiologies. So people have always figured,in the CGIAR's logic. Eve\n so, at the System Ievel'they did so Iess directly, I think. thani in thc currenlt formulation. Nowv, having anclhoredl the . goal statement with the poor, the (CCTIAR mustjtjclge its priorities and activities in terms of' their conisequeLnces for the poor. trom that position, the CGIAR has shaped a well-defined conce-ptual framecvork for choosing among activities, that is, other things equal, those activities that promiiise the most for present' and future poor are favored. I believe that this framework has stimulated a stronger sciise of purpose amonig all ol ' those orking xvithin the CGIAR, has fostered stronger colnruence betvwCen Sy'Steml, ceniter. and program goals. has favored mutually bence- ficial relationships xvith partner organizations, anti has reinforced the support of those who are investing in the Svstem's wvork. 6 CGIAR: Relating Work to Goals AVENUES LINES OF FORCE GOALS Sustainable m ~ ~ ~~~Fod Security cc, M.ae . n Many forces ' affect income. 1, W, La apparently the. somre the reiationships portrayed by the, arrows actually ca,y in the r-mportance. Cc'm.u!t3t,vc Gro3 . on /!ltesat 341 00 5'c'03ta! a rsh arc!a Relating Goals and Means In the poorest countries of the world, 60 to 80 percenit of the work force is engaged in AFF and roughly half of the average family's means (whatever its source) is devoted to food. Clearlv the dual importance of the AFF sector argues that increases in productivity there could do much to increase incomes and well-heing. There are txvo avenues through which those effects are realized. The most imme- diate is that the increased productivity lower-s the per unit cost of production, hence. raises returnis to the rcsources committed to production, and, thercby, raiscs the incomes of those who hold such resources. The second is that the increases in output that accompanv an increase in produc- tivitv simultaneously lower the price of food. thereby raising the real incomes of food consumers, hoth urban and rural. The apparent anomaly of higher incomes for producers xNith lower prices to consumers is made pos- sible precisely hy the increase in productivity. Indeed, barring such transfers as subsidies or relief, increased productivity is the only way to increase real incomes. Historically, increases in productivitv in the AFF sector have come largely from improved technologies, more effective policy, better infrastructure, and more education. The first has been the most reliahle source of increased productivity. While each of thec four rests on research to some degree, improved technologies and policies are most demanding of its product. And it is precisely there that the.CGIAR centers focus their research and related activi- ties. How do increases in productivity, with the resulting higher incomes to producers and lower prices to consum- ers, lead to higher incomes wvithin the society as a whole? 8 CGIAR Actvwt,es ano Goals Tracrg 'he Co7nections With higher incomiies wAithin AFF, those holding resourccs, whether land, labor, or capital, are disposed to increasc their spending for consumption and production goods. This stimulates widening rounds of spending and leads to higher levels of income elsewVhere in the economy. hus, AFF plays a role as an engine of growth. As well, becausc of lower food prices and the rcsulting increase in the real incomes of food consumers (100 percent of the popula- tion), they increase expenditures, stimulating further rounds of demand and widening rounds of income growth. Increased productivity in AFF, then, leads to broadlv based growth in incomes through two avenues. An important point emerges from this relationship be- tween productivity and income and the earlier point on food security Some see the AFF sector primarily in terms of its contribution to stocks of food, that is, to availability. While perhaps important globally, this view misses crucial aspects of the sector's role in the poorest countries. In those countries, the sectors primary role is its'contribution to the real incomes (including all sources) of producers and consumers, especially the poor. Those higher- incomes widen the access to food while promoting economic growth. An income-focused view accentuates the impor- tance of the sector, adds to the significance of efforts to increase productivitv there, increases the perceived payoffs to such efforts, and justifies greater investment than would emphasis on the availability of food. One consequence of emphasizing access rather than availabilityx then, is to raise the profile of AFE Having said that, it is also true that increased productivity' will lead to increased availability of food. In a sense, then, access (through increased incomes) and availability (through increased production) both rest 9 Covr.su tat,e Group on !nternr:Qt;a!' Agprcatural RGS%marC?) on increased productivity and are two sides of the same coin in the poorest couptries, but access has broader ramifications than has availability. Returning to the main them-ne, it can he asked if other sectors would do a better job than .AFF in stimulaLting widening rounds of growth. For poorer countries, recenit studies with a macro view shoxv that increases in inlcomiec in AFF have a larger impact on countrywide income than increases in any other sector. The advantage ol investment ,in the sector can be expected.to diminish, however, as incomes increase. Especially, then, for those putrsui ng growth in national income in countries where high pro- portions of the work force are in AEF and high propor- tions of familv resources go to foodstuffs (that is, the poorest countries). the best-bet strategy is to stimulate increased productivityi in AFF Finally, to wxhat extent do higher national incomes Aillevi- ate poverty? Until recently perceptions oni this question were based largely on theory and plausible associations. Happily, the past fexv years have brought strong empirical support for the relationship in developing countries. In particular, recent work at the World Bank strongly supports the view that economic growth and higher national incomes reduce poverty. Deininger and Squire (1996) reviewed some 90 stuclies rellectitig long-termi. economic growth and income distribution in dccveloping countries. In over 80 percent of the cases, the real income of the loxvest 20 percent of the population increased wvith grovth in national income. For those concernedc with reducing poverty these appear to be notably favorable odds. And this occurred even in cases where the income 10 CGIAR Activties andd Goais Tracrng tre Connections distribution became less equal as growth progressed (as happened in roughly one-half of the cases reviewed). In a 1998 paper, aimed at a different topic, Deininger and Squire reaffirm that 'the poor benefit from measures that promote .c zl.. growth." In the case of India (where relevant data are the'most. abundant and reliable), analysis by Datt and Ravallion of the World Banlk showecd that a 10 percent increase in average consumption (which itself is highly correlated with income) resulted in a 12 to 13 percent drop in the number of peof5le below a defined poverty line. Some continue to contest this conclusion, arguing that growth, even growth in AFF. h:as little effect on poverty. Ever fewer analysts take this tack, however, and the preponderance of recen1t evidence supports the view that, .with high probability, growth in national income reduces poverty Moreover, strengtheninig the argument that growth in rural areas is the best-bet strategy' for reducing poverty; Datt and Ravallion show that in India. both rural and urban poor gained from growth in rural incomc, wlhile urban income groxvth.had little discernible effect on poverty in rural areas (at least during the period under analysis), where most of Indias poor are found. This is not to - * . * t that those concerned with poverty alleviation should focus exclusively on promoting cco- nomic growth. Other options, like better opportunities for women through education, can promote well-being. As wvell, policy may havea role in promoting patterns of growth more congruent with poverty alleviation, for example, by targeting investments in favor of rural labor- intensive activities. Neitlher should those concerned with Ccq!sL!tat've Group on /oteruabo'ra/ Agocaurtolm! Researct growth focus all of their attention on research-based. productivity increases in AFF, given the myriad forces at play in stimulating economic growth. Primary education and roads have also been good investments. Too, while increased productivity in rural sectors is probably a necessarv condition, I am not suggesting that growth there will be sufficient to raise all incomes to desired levels. In time, growth in the rcst of the economy must drawv labor and human capital out of agriculture, if poverty is to be eliminated. I am saying, howvever, that those concerned with poverty in countries characterized b)y high propor- tions of the population committed to AFF and high proportions of family resources goinlg to foodstuffs should, other things equal, see productivity increases in the sector as their best-bet strategy Briefly, then, the CGIAR's ultimate goals are to reduce poverty and protect natural resources. The Systeml pursues those aims through research and related activities aimed at increasing productivity in AFF wvhile protecting natural resources. For poorer countries, increased productivity is closely related to improved technologies and policies, themnselves based on research. These bring higher rural' incomes and lower food prices for both urban and rural consumers, wvith the two effects combining to stimulate higher national income. All lead to reduced poverty. This is not to argue that the impact of CGIAR activities on pov,crty is immediate and direct; rather the connecting lines rull through productivity, prices, multipliers, andl real incomes. Even so, a clear linc of logic, supported by empirical findings, connects the System's wvork, step by step, to its goals. Moreover, there is little in recent research to argue that, for the poorest countries, there COtIAR Act,,t)es and GoaCs Tracing the Connectorns are evidently better alternatives for attaining poverty reduction. I take it as cstablished, then, that the CGIAR's work relates notably well to its goals, and that its goals conform notably well with those of the poor. Briefly on Two Topics Before going on to the conclusions, let me comment briefly on two important topics. One relates to how to assess the CGIAR's progress towards its goals, and the second, to an ethical standard witlh potentially strong implicationis for its priorities. About the first, efforts to measurc the direct impact of, say, new t., hIl''l''..l on poverty are notoriously difficult, because of the myriad factors that affect the level of poverty in any given situation. That said, while desirable, such measures are probably not necessary in assessing CGIAR work, wAith its emphasis on.international public goocds. About the difficulty, wvith so many variables at play, sorting out the influence of a single factor, for example, agricultural technology, requires observations on a large nlumber ol cases; findings for a single country, whatever cmerges, simply cannot be convincing. However, other studies, hased on a large number of countries (for ex- ample, see Deininger and Squire), have noted an inverse relationship between changes in country-wide income and povcrty. Add to that the relationship between productivity increases and country-wide income, a central part of the earlier discussion. Then the stretch from technology directly to poverty alleviation is not necessary to claim progress towAards goals. What is needed is evidence that 13 Coflsu'S13t Ve Groo,p un Thternar'ocai gnc't.ra e GeseartC! research-based. improved technology has been adopted over a defined area, that productivity has increased in that area, that natural resource costs are limited to acceptable levels, and that real priccs of products have declined. Tf-hat kincl of evidence can be brought together. Knowing that progress toxvards goals is being made i; not, of course, enough for impact assessment nor for priority sctting. However, the preceding measures, plus others that are also available, can be the basis for approaching thosc tasks. The second topic relates to protectinlg, natural resources. Earlier, I observed that ethical considerations are at play here. Among these is that present gencrations have obliga- tions to future generations. Onc interpretationi of that obligation is that the stock of natural resources handcd forwvard must eclual or exceced that brought from the past. A broacder interpretation-and the view that I undcerstand is held by the CGIAR-is that the stock of total capital (that is,. thc sum of natural, huLman, phxsical, andl institu- tional capital) banded forvard mtust exceed that inheritedc with the restrictioni that n1o sing,le component fall below somiec minimum critical Icvel. IThe West's earlv history of- investing heavily in human capital, even at a cost to its endoxvinent of natural capital. fits xvell within the broadcer interpretation. (Could the \Vest,-it can be asked, have. done as well in health/longc\ ty, opportunity, and self- esteem for the representative citizen had its earlv stock of natural capital hcen maintained ancl investments in human capital curtailed?) As compared with the first, this broader interpretation of the covenant wvith ftutture generations increases the options for dealing ,vith poverty. Having said that, what about the claimns that natural capital has reached minimum critical levels in some places? Prudence 14 CGIAR A4cQutes and Goaes Tracing the Cconne -tOiS dictates that apparently urgent situations he analyzed. The CGIAR's poor people-centered strategy, I would argue, iffli . that the burden of proof lies Nwith those making such claims Concluding Remarks MY intent here was to lay out evidence for the strong connectiorrs between the CGIARs goals an(d the activities it finances while describing some of the important consid- erati(ins that influence resource allocations within the Systcm. A host of other, interesLing themes ivelre not. treated. Mv story was told in the context of the nowv broader viewa of agriculture's role in the devclopment * process, a \idw that rests largely on the relationships traced out here, and a perception of trade-offs betwveen and among various kinds of capital with which societies must he concernied. The CG[AR's emphasis on people-centered clecision makiing is crucial to the story as the congruence betvcen its goals and those ol poor people plays 'a pivotal role in balancing its priorities. Over the last fewN years, efforts to sharpen'CGIAR goals, to mnore systematically reconcile resource allocations with goals, and to create furthler efficiencies by a greater empha- sis oni comparative advantage have improved the quality of CGIAR decisioni making. Otheri improvements not dis- cussed here are in the offing, and the progress to date is cause for optimism about wvhiat wTill follow. In my vTiCe, 15 Consu!tat,;,e Gruou o'i Thtemato aAgr;u/urs! Resrarch these di-, tI I,pi n in wvill contribute to maintaining the System's relevance and credibilit. Finallv, for the poorest countries; is it a safe bet that inv/estment in useful research on AFF t, _hi,,- xvill lea( to reduced pov'ertv through increases in productivity and ii income? No. it is not a sale bet. Even so. the supporting eimrpirical and theoi-etical arguments arc sound. I conclude, then, that it is among the best bets available ancd that the CGIAR remains one of the worldk most effectiv-e instruments for opening options to the poor. 16 CGIARActivties 3nd Goals Trading tho :1wnCxOct!rs References Alexandratos, N., ed. (1 995). 'Wot ld Agricnltzore: ToWvcOrds 201 0, Ani FA() Stud. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Chen, S.. Datt, G. and Ravallion, M. (1994). Is Poverty Increasing in the Developning World? ReviCe of ,ilcomle anld Wctdtli. Sehes 40. #4. Deininger, 1K. and Squire, L. (1990). A New Data Set Measur- ing Inicoine Inequality. Thec World Batnik Econtionic Rev ielv. 10, 565-591. Deininger, 1K. and Squire, L. (1998). New Ways of Look-ing at Old Issues: Inequality and Growth. Fort] ' otti Jolnel of Dcevelopnient Econ1om07ics. Delgado, C. (1996). B-illngilng Pr-C Vio(sIy Disadviantagcd Riil-cal Pcople inito the Economic Maiftstrecam: The Role of l ill , Ag-'icIt(iter' Pn-od[ctioni inl Snb-Sahlaran Afr-ica. Washington, DC: IFPRI. Gaiha, R. (1995). Does Agricultural Growth Matter to Poverty Alleviation? Dcvelopmient cand Chanlg. 26, 285-304. Lipton, M. and Ravallion, M. (1995). Poverty aiid Policv. Handbook ofDcvelopinent Economics NVol. 3, ed. J. Behrman anad T.N. Srinivasan. Amsterdam: North Holland Press. Ravallion, M. (1996). Poverty and Growth: Lessons from 40 Years of Data on Indias Poor. TJhe WMorld Bani)k Devlclopmetc Econonmics V'ice Prcsidcc,cv, DEC Notes #20. Washington. DC: , Thie WVorld Banik. Ravallion. M. and Datt. G. (1996). How lmnportant to IndiaIs Poor is the Seetoral Composition of Growth? The World Bank Economnic Rc,sicnw. .1 0: 1-26. 17 Co su lattve Groc)o.y7 R,'t,'oO8a' g ;uJtvX! ;esearc?9 DONAID WINKILLANN has chaired the CGIAR's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) since 1995. The TAC advises the CGIAR on the quality ancd relevance of the scicIICC of its 16 agricultural research centers, makes recommendca- lions on priorities and.resource allocations, and assesses strategic issues and their implicationis for the Svstemll. He vvas Professor of economics at lowsa State Universitv hcfore joining the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT, Mexico City) in 1972. He headed the Centers economllics program from 197) to 1985, emphasizing the adoption of improved technol- ogies and methiods for effective on-farmni researclh. He was Director General of the Ceniter from 1 985-10(4. Mvr. \Vinkelhnannl has devotedl his career to advancing agrictulture and its research around the wvorld. Hie holds a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Minnesota (1964), an honorarv'clegrec from Punjab Agrictulttural ULniversity (1992). and the Conclecoracion. dcl Aguila Azteca fromithc Government of Mexico (1994).. le cur- renitly serv es on the board of thc North American Institute an NGO focusing on strategic issues and relationships affecting Canada, Mexico, andl the iUnited States. 18 CG1ARAcv,t'ss ad( Goas,1s Trn 0the Co/iect,nons The CGIAR The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAT) mobilizes the best in agricultural science on behalf of the worlds poor and hungry. Through its research, the CGIAR prorhotes sustainable agriculture for food security in developing countries. The CGIAR supports a network of 16 international agricul- tural research centers, which implement an agreed-upon agcnda in partnership with naltional governmental and norn-governmental organizations. universities, and private industry The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the United Nations Development Prog,ramme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programmt (UINEP), ancl the World Bank cosponsor the CGIAR. For than a quarter century, the CGIAR has brought together the wvorld's leading scientists and agricultural researchers in a unique South-North commitment to reduce poverty and hunger in developing countries. This is important because 95 percenit of the 90 million peopie born every year live in the poorest cottntries. Whiether researchinlg tood crops. forestry, livestock, irrigation management, aquatic resources, or policy, the CGIAR focuses on productivity and natural resources management-which arc eimphasized in its services to agricul- tural research systems in developinig countries. CGIAR activi- ties have contributed to global lood security, helping to keep the environment healthy and farming sustainable. The 58 members that support the CGIAR include developing ancd developed co untries. economies in transition, private foundations, and international and regional organizations. Dcveloping-country participation has doubled in recent years. All 22 members of- the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation ancd Developmenlt) Development Assistance Comiimittee belong to the CGIAR. Ismail Serageldin, Vicc President for Special PrograLmls at thy World Bank. serves as the.CGIAR Chairman. 19 Printed on recyckd paper CGIAR