IWMI is one of the members of the CGIAR, the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, was my employer for seven years. The CGIAR was founded in 1971, and four research centers formed the core of it. Since then the members increased to nineteen and now to fifteen. One of its founder institute, IRRI and its researchers in late 1970s inspired my education and career. I always considered that it would be a privilege to work for CGIAR. My ambition came to fruition when I joined IWMI in late 1996 for a four year period, and then returned to IWMI in 2011 for another three years. During the seven year period, I held senior management positions, lived as IWMI employee in three South Asian countries, and conducted research in all South Asian countries, except in Afghanistan and Bhutan. It is imperative that a Senior Officer of CGIAR to engage with National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) in host countries, so, I was able to witness the progress the National Systems have made between 1990s and 2010s.
During the 1970s CGIAR Centers were largely concerned about food security of the world, and it’s poor in particular. Ambitious breeding programs, spearheaded by IRRI increased rice production rapidly across South Asia. IRRI directly engaged with every NARS in Asia and improved their capacity. It trained more than 20,000 researchers over the years. By 2000, Asian rice productivity tripled per unit of land, and doubled for unit of water evaporated. Other commodity centers have similar success stories to convey with pride.
These centers were home for many eminent scientists from the west who willingly gave up their comforts to serve the poor in exotic lands. Now, the supply of experts to contribute to CGIAR centers from the west has dwindled over the years. Higher education in Agriculture, especially to produce primary commodities is no longer a priority in Universities in the west. In most developed countries less than 5% of the population is in agriculture, and the food is produced by major corporations. This production model has no resemblance to the subsistence level of production in poorest parts of Asia, where CGIAR wishes to serve. In the absence of appropriately trained experts from the west, CGIAR Centers now draw their cadre either from those who are redundant in the west, or from those who are extremely successful in Asian NARS. Taking an Asian from a NARS and appointing him or her as an expert in his home country adds very little to the intellectual pool or injection of new ideas. It just depletes their National capacity. Having said this, I am aware that there are exceptions. There are cases where, professional jealousies, bureaucracy, red-tape and lethargy zap energy from many bright minds in South Asia and make them under productive. For them, the CGIAR Centers are very attractive, not just to increase their income, but for their self-esteem as well.
Over the years, CGIAR’s mission has broadened from food security to food security and poverty alleviation within sustainable ecosystems. These three goals, food security, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability are noble ones, but not simultaneously attainable within socio-economic constraints in South Asia. For example, land fragmentation and tenure deter farmers from investing their time or money in the Eastern Gangetic Plains of South Asia. Almost 80% of the farmers have less than 1 ha of land. These farmers are well aware that no matter how much time and money they invest in such a small piece of land, they will remain poor and will not meet the needs of their families. In Bihar, where village after village live below poverty line, only about 2/3rd the population has anything to do with Agriculture, and even for them, Agriculture provides about 1/3rd of their family income. Men are in cities in India and in Arabian Gulf, toiling to raise their kids living in a village in Bihar. I believe these socio-economic constraints such as land fragmentation or caste are the invisible elephants, and are beyond CGIAR’s ability to tame.
So, what should CGIAR Centres do in South Asia? It could declare victory over food insecurity in Asia and get out. OR, it has to redefine its agenda.
The new role could be focused on job creation in rural parts of poor-Asia to prevent urban migration and adequate income generation. The current generation of farmers may not shift away from their lands, but their children want to. I have never met a child of a farmer in Asia, who wants to be in farming. If they abandon their inheritance of even smaller parcels of land, there will be a lot of abandoned small parcels of land, threatening the victory over food insecurity.
I feel it’s time that CGIAR plans this transition. In the interim, the CGIAR could formulate think-tanks to facilitate evaluation of market-oriented institutions, which are capable of breaking social (caste), economic (economy of scale), supply chain (diesel supplies), and structural constraints (small land parcels).
Well, looks like I have spent my two-cents already!
During the 1970s CGIAR Centers were largely concerned about food security of the world, and it’s poor in particular. Ambitious breeding programs, spearheaded by IRRI increased rice production rapidly across South Asia. IRRI directly engaged with every NARS in Asia and improved their capacity. It trained more than 20,000 researchers over the years. By 2000, Asian rice productivity tripled per unit of land, and doubled for unit of water evaporated. Other commodity centers have similar success stories to convey with pride.
These centers were home for many eminent scientists from the west who willingly gave up their comforts to serve the poor in exotic lands. Now, the supply of experts to contribute to CGIAR centers from the west has dwindled over the years. Higher education in Agriculture, especially to produce primary commodities is no longer a priority in Universities in the west. In most developed countries less than 5% of the population is in agriculture, and the food is produced by major corporations. This production model has no resemblance to the subsistence level of production in poorest parts of Asia, where CGIAR wishes to serve. In the absence of appropriately trained experts from the west, CGIAR Centers now draw their cadre either from those who are redundant in the west, or from those who are extremely successful in Asian NARS. Taking an Asian from a NARS and appointing him or her as an expert in his home country adds very little to the intellectual pool or injection of new ideas. It just depletes their National capacity. Having said this, I am aware that there are exceptions. There are cases where, professional jealousies, bureaucracy, red-tape and lethargy zap energy from many bright minds in South Asia and make them under productive. For them, the CGIAR Centers are very attractive, not just to increase their income, but for their self-esteem as well.
Over the years, CGIAR’s mission has broadened from food security to food security and poverty alleviation within sustainable ecosystems. These three goals, food security, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability are noble ones, but not simultaneously attainable within socio-economic constraints in South Asia. For example, land fragmentation and tenure deter farmers from investing their time or money in the Eastern Gangetic Plains of South Asia. Almost 80% of the farmers have less than 1 ha of land. These farmers are well aware that no matter how much time and money they invest in such a small piece of land, they will remain poor and will not meet the needs of their families. In Bihar, where village after village live below poverty line, only about 2/3rd the population has anything to do with Agriculture, and even for them, Agriculture provides about 1/3rd of their family income. Men are in cities in India and in Arabian Gulf, toiling to raise their kids living in a village in Bihar. I believe these socio-economic constraints such as land fragmentation or caste are the invisible elephants, and are beyond CGIAR’s ability to tame.
So, what should CGIAR Centres do in South Asia? It could declare victory over food insecurity in Asia and get out. OR, it has to redefine its agenda.
The new role could be focused on job creation in rural parts of poor-Asia to prevent urban migration and adequate income generation. The current generation of farmers may not shift away from their lands, but their children want to. I have never met a child of a farmer in Asia, who wants to be in farming. If they abandon their inheritance of even smaller parcels of land, there will be a lot of abandoned small parcels of land, threatening the victory over food insecurity.
I feel it’s time that CGIAR plans this transition. In the interim, the CGIAR could formulate think-tanks to facilitate evaluation of market-oriented institutions, which are capable of breaking social (caste), economic (economy of scale), supply chain (diesel supplies), and structural constraints (small land parcels).
Well, looks like I have spent my two-cents already!
No comments:
Post a Comment