Creating an Effective Process to Define, Approve, and Review the Research Agenda of Institutions in The Developing World

  • Rodomiro Ortiz
  • Jonathan Crouch

Agricultural research should be equally driven by society’s interests and researcher’s opportunity-creating capabilities, because economic, social, political, cultural, and environmental needs, especially in poor rural areas, should be addressed by the ingenuity of scientists orientated within integrated, problemfocused interdisciplinary research initiatives. Problem-solving research requires inputs from different parties across the entire value-chain that brings their perspectives, and maybe changes their views during a participatory consultative process in which stakeholders (including scientists) engage in practices of joint inquiry, collaborative and active learning, and adaptive management. Stakeholders of a research agenda are drawn from government (national, regional, and local), civil society (including farmers’ organizations, nongovernmental organizations [NGOs], and public concern groups), and the private sector (particularly small to medium sized enterprises). Collectively they should own the process for establishing the complex and evolving research agendas required for today’s agriculture. Transparency for priority setting and accountability through monitoring and evaluation are required to ensure an effective research undertaking whether international, regional, national, or local.

Keywords

Maize Europe Income Marketing Coherence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alston, J.M., Norton, G.W., and Pardey, P.G. 1994. Science under Scarcity: Principles and Practice of Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  2. CGIAR. 2005a. System Priorities for CGIAR Research 2005-2015. Science Council Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  3. CGIAR. 2005b. Guidelines for External Program and Management Reviews (EPMR) of the CGIAR Centers. Science Council Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  4. CGIAR. 2005c. Report of the Fifth External Programme and Management Review of the Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT). Science Council Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  5. CGIAR TAC. 1998. CGIAR in Latin America and the Caribbean: Interactions, Achievements and Prospects. Technical Advisory Committee, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  6. CGIAR TAC. 2001 Report of the Fifth External Programme and Management Review of the Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). Technical Advisory Committee, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, p. 56, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  7. CIMMYT. 2003. Seeds of Innovation. Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo, El Batan, Mexico.Google Scholar
  8. CIMMYT. 2005. CIMMYT Business Plan 2006-2010 - Translating the Vision of Seeds of Innovation into a Vibrant Work Plan. Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo, El Batan, Mexico. Google Scholar
  9. Collinson, M., and Tollens, E. 1994. The impact of the international agricultural research centers: measurement, quantification and interpretation. Issues in Agriculture 6. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Cooke, P., Kaufmann, D., Levin, C., and Wilson, R. 2006. The biosciences knowledge value chain and comparative incubator models. Journal of Technology Transfer 31:115-129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Janvry, A., and Kassam, A.H. 2004. Towards a regional approach to research for the CGIAR and it partners. Experimental Agriculture 40:159-178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixon, A.G.O., Bandyopadhyay, R., Coyne, D., Ferguson, M., Ferris, R.S.B., Hanna, R., Hughes, J., Ingelbrecht, I., Legg, J., Mahungu, N., Manyong, V., Mowbray, D., Neuenschwander, P., Whyte, J., Hartmann, P., and Ortiz, R. 2003. Cassava: from poor farmer’s crop to pacesetter of African rural development. Chronica Horticulturae 43:8-15.Google Scholar
  13. Douthwaite B., and Ortiz, R. 2001. Technology exchange. Electronic J. Biotechnology, 4(2) http://ejb. ucv.cl/content/issues/02/index.html
  14. FAO. 2004. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  15. FARA. 2004. Annual Report 2003. Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, Accra.Google Scholar
  16. FONTAGRO. 2004. Plan de Mediano Plazo 2005-2010. Fondo Regional de Tecnología Agroperuaria, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  17. Fowler, C., and Lower, R.L. 2005. Politics of plant breeding. Plant Breed. Rev., 25:21-88.Google Scholar
  18. GFAR (2001) GFAR Contribution to the EFARD proposal for the elaboration of the 6th Framework Programme of the European Union. In Annex II 2nd EFARD General Meeting on ‘‘Strengthening the European Contribution.” European Forum on Agricultural Research for Development, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  19. GFAR. 2004. Annual Report 2003. Global Forum on Agricultural Research, Rome.Google Scholar
  20. Hartmann, P. 2004. An Approach to Hunger and Poverty Reduction for Sub-Saharan Africa. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
  21. Hartwich, F. 1998. A cumulative indicator for measuring agricultural research performance: accumulating performance measures of agricultural research operations in a developing country. ISNAR Discussion Paper 98-1. International Service for National Agricultural Research. The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  22. Hartwich, F., and van den Akker, E. 2000. Priority setting in agricultural research project planning. In: Graef, F., Lawrence P., and von Oppen, M. (eds.) Adapted Farming in West Africa: Issues, Potentials and Perspectives. pp. 391-398.Google Scholar
  23. Verlag Ulrich E., Grauer, Stuttgart, Germany. Innes, N.L. 1990. Plant breeding and intellectual property rights. In: Müller, R.A.E. (compiler) Workshop on Consequences of Intellectual Property Rights for the International Agricultural Research Centers. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Hyderabad, India, 19-21 November 1990.Google Scholar
  24. Christian Albrechts Universität zu Kiel, Germany. http://www.agric-econ.uni-kiel.de/Abteilungen/ll/forschung/file5.pdf
  25. Kassam, A.H., Gregersen, H.M., Ferreres, E., Javier, E.Q., Harwood, R.R., de Janvry, A., and Cernea, M.M. 2004. A framework for enhancing and guarding the relevance and quality of science: the case of the CGIAR. Experimental Agriculture 40:1-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maredia, M.K., and Raitzer, D.A. 2006. CGIAR and NARS Partners Research in Africa: Evidence of Impact to Date. Science Council Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  27. Mills, B. 1998. Agricultural Research Priority Setting: Information Investments for the Improved Use of Research Resources. International Service for National Agricultural Research. The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  28. Nameroff, T. 1997. Setting the agenda for U.S. science and technology policy. CSA Today 7:11-12. Google Scholar
  29. Neuenschwander, P. 2004. Harnessing nature in Africa: biological pest control can benefit the pocket, health and the environment. Nature 432:801-802.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ortiz, R. 2005. IITA 40 Years After. Board of Trustees Docket. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
  31. Ortiz, R., Bramel-Cox, P.J., Hash, C.T., Mallikarjuna, N., Reddy, D.V.R., Seetharama, N., Sharma, H.C., Sharma, K.K., Sivaramakrishnan, S., Thakur, R.P., and Winslow, M.D. 1999. Potential for Improving Agricultural Production through Biotechnology in the Semi-Arid Tropics. Water Commission on Dams Thematic Reviews IV. 2 - Assessment of Irrigation Options. http://www.dams.org/docs/kbase/contrib/env092.pdf
  32. Ortiz, R., and Crouch, J.H. 2004. The CGIAR at 33: An Urgent Call for Change to a Renewed Relevance. Kampala, Uganda. (mimeo).Google Scholar
  33. Ortiz, R., and Hartmann, P. 2003. Beyond crop technology: The challenge for African rural development. In Vol. 2. Reference Material of the Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program “Building Livelihoods through Integrated Agricultural Research for Development - Securing the Future for Africa’s Children”. pp. 39-72. Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), Accra, Ghana.Google Scholar
  34. Ortiz, R., Mowbray, D., Dowswell, C., and Rajaram, S. 2007. Dedication Norman E. Borlaug: The humanitarian plant scientist who changed the world. Plant Breeding Reviews 28: 1-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryan, J. 2006. International Public Goods and the CGIAR Niche in the R for D Continuum: Operationalising Concepts. Science Council Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. http://www.sciencecouncil.cgiar.org/meetings/meeting/SC5/Item_13_IPGs_&_R-D_Continuum.pdf
  36. Shah, M., and Strong, M. 1999. Food in the 21st Century: From Science to Sustainable Agriculture. CGIAR System Review Secretariat, The World Bank, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  37. Simmonds, N.W. 1990. The social context of plant breeding. Plant Breeding Abstracts 60:337-341.Google Scholar
  38. Singh, B.B., Hartmann, P., Fatokun, C., Tamo, M., Tarawali, S., and Ortiz, R. 2003. Recent progress on cowpea improvement. Chronica Horticulturae 43 (2): 8-12.Google Scholar
  39. Sumberg, J. and Reece D. 2004. Agricultural research through a “new product development” lens. Experimental Agriculture 40:295-314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Von Oppen M. and Ryan J.G. 1985. Research resource allocation: determining regional priorities. Food Policy 10:253-264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodomiro Ortiz
    • 1
  • Jonathan Crouch
    • 1
  1. 1.CIMMYTMexico

Personalised recommendations