6 July 2012 | EN
Science and technology are at the root of agricultural transformation, says Rijsberman
Flickr/CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture
It is something of a homecoming for Frank Rijsberman, the 55-year-old Dutch national who was recently appointed chief executive officer of the newly-formed CGIAR Consortium — formerly known as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.
Rijsberman was until 2007 head of the CGIAR's International Water Management Institute, a post that he left in 2007 to become programme director on the philanthropic team of Google.org, and subsequently director of water, sanitation and hygiene strategy at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Now he is returning to head the leadership team of the body that is responsible for integrating and co-ordinating the work of 15 separate agricultural research centres — known as the CGIAR Consortium on International Agricultural Research — as it goes through the final steps of a major reform.
These reforms began in 2009, with the announcement that the 15 research centres would be brought together to work on a series of research programmes, financed from a central donor fund, to address agricultural issues more holistically.
But this challenge is one for which Rijsberman — who trained in civil engineering and brings to the job 30 years' experience in development and environmental issues — appears to be ready.
"I am privileged to have a chance to work on such an important mission, at a time when the world really recognises that food security is the top challenge facing humanity, as we need to provide 70 per cent more food between now and 2050, without destroying the environment," Rijsberman told SciDev.Net.
His immediate plan is to enhance performance management at the consortium, increase public and private sector investment in agricultural research, and help smallholder farmers put more food on the table through using environmentally-sound practices.
"Many of our research programmes are much more focused [than before] on climate change and agriculture, and we believe we can help make agriculture more climate-resistant," says Rijsberman.
"This might mean anything from conservation agriculture [practices] to growing drought-tolerant maize."
A new Green Revolution
Established in 1971, the CGIAR was, Rijsberman says, "too successful" during the early years, when it spearheaded the 'Green Revolution' of the 1970s, with its panoply of research, development and technology initiatives.
This helped transform agricultural production, leading to wide-scale adoption of high yielding crop varieties, a growing abundance of food, and low food prices.
"Clearly, Africa did not experience similar levels of success, but the world as a whole had enough food and low food prices, and became complacent," Rijsberman said.
The new green revolution must boost agriculture and food security in Africa, says Rijsberman
He adds that, as a result, investments in agriculture declined to precipitously low levels.
"The Green Revolution's success almost made the world fall asleep and think that we had solved the agriculture crisis and did not need to invest anymore", he says. "Now we need to come up with a new Green Revolution, one that is effective for Africa and one that works not against but with the environment, and is clearly focused on smallholder farmers."
Science and technology, Rijsberman says, are at the root of this.
Focus on water
In 2011, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave him responsibility for developing grant-making for a new sanitation strategy focusing on impoverished communities worldwide, which led to the development of a science and technology initiative.
Rijsberman sees his new appointment as a natural transition, due to his extensive experience working on water issues. He was awarded a multidisciplinary PhD — by Colorado State University — in water resources planning and management and civil engineering. Rijsberman also conceived and led the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food.
Rijsberman has a reputation for successfully reeling in project funding. During his tenure as director-general of the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) between 2000 and 2007, Rijsberman grew the organisation from a budget of US$9 million, with operations confined to South Asia, to an organisational budget of US$23 million, with 12 offices across Asia and Africa.
"I will be building on a lot of work that donors, the centres and everyone has done in putting in place major foundations and building blocks for reforms," said Rijsberman, explaining that the reform of CGIAR — which he has described as a multi-headed beast — should be finalised to help secure investments and to build strong relationships with partners.
Forging the future
Asked about where the consortium will be in ten years' time, Rijsberman said that by 2022, it should have a strong and streamlined portfolio of research programmes, with investments of around US$1.6 billion. With the introduction of improved maize, wheat and rice varieties, the CGIAR should have made an impact on food security and poverty for hundreds of millions of poor people, he said.
Rijsberman added that an analysis of returns on investment had shown that the CGIAR had one of the highest returns of investment in development. Some studies have indicated that every dollar invested in the CGIAR brings backs US$9 in benefits, mainly for smallholder farmers.
In 2011, the total CGIAR budget was US$700 million and is projected to grow to US$900 million in 2012. Rijsberman is optimistic that the consortium will reach its US$1 billion target by 2015.
Hartmann ( United States of America )
10 July 2012
If food security will once again be the CGIAR’s priority, as Rijsberman suggests, it is reason for optimism for the poor. Many studies have suggested this following the reduced impact since the group moved away from its comparative advantage, which is food research. This does not imply neglecting natural resources. As he notes it will done ‘without harming the environment’. Also agriculture is the biggest contributor to deforestation and use of marginal lands thus it is a potent tool in reducing such destruction. Boost its productivity and encroachment drops.
Rijsberman’s notes that the 2009 reform is incomplete. We applaud him. Other CGIAR officialdom have been silent. His refers to it being a ‘beast’. This is on target and the beast needs taming. The reform has doubled bureaucracy. It punishes 'Doers' with excessive reporting demands. It isolates Funders who now only get overly sanitized reports. Though Africa has not benefitted as much from the groups research, the CGIAR Consortium denied Africa food crop research leadership. It assigned all its new crop research programs to the Americas and Asia, though Africa is its second priority continent, after Asia. Yet research leadership is vital to success. It determines priorities, methodologies, relevance, and resource allocation. Research done in the Americas and Asia is excellent, but their needs are different from those of Africa. Maintaining Africa’s dependence on the Americas and Asia for food crop research is not good. Lastly, there are too many research centers, currently fifteen. The centers had proposed, in 2007, that seven would suffice. We hope that in completing the reform the above weaknesses will be addressed. If they are, the New CGIAR will once again shine and give hope to the poor. Interested readers may write firstname.lastname@example.org for an informal assessment of the new CGIAR.
Yves Savidan ( South Africa )
26 July 2012
Is the growing budget of the CGIAR good news? The CGIAR and its centres were created… to disappear and be replaced by strong national institutions. Instead it perpetuated itself again and again, opened new centres, and multiplied mostly crop-based programmes supposed to have worldwide impact on both food security and poverty alleviation throughout a diversity of agricultural systems. It also attracted, and continues to swallow up an increasing amount of money that might be far better spent strengthening national or regional sustainable institutions and research. The CGIAR claims it is just doing that but is it really? Or is it rather slowing down the necessary transition process by increasingly diverting funds that should go to African institutions and scientists instead? The time for imported science for Africa is over. Well-trained African scientists that can collaborate as equal partners with colleagues from Brazil, China or Germany are available in fast growing numbers. Furthermore, several African governments started investing seriously in their national science and technology and they should be encouraged by international funding agencies to do even more instead of relying on external institutions and scientists to produce what their countries and people need.
condorisito ( Global Mountain Action | Switzerland )
3 September 2012
Sorry, but it sounds like more of the same rhetoric heard from the CGIAR leaders in the past.
jmuoma ( Masinde Muliro University | Kenya )
2 October 2012
The CGIAR centers in Africa are tightly enclosed in what they are doing. They should open up and work with scientists within the national research institutes they are found. This will be in the interest of the end user instead of working soley with equal partners in developing countries.
All SciDev.Net material is free to reproduce providing that the source and author are appropriately credited. For further details see Creative Commons.