Richard Jonasse at Food First did a reasonable job a few days ago of rehearsing the old WEMA vs LEISA (let’s call it) dichotomy in agricultural development. He’s done it before, and so have we, ((And as luck would have it, here’s another example, just out.)) and I won’t go on any more about that. But I did want to say something about one of his assertions. In talking about the policies of USAID and the Gates Foundation, Jonasse says:
What these policies do not do is directly end African hunger by strengthening Africa’s farmers where they stand. This point was underscored recently when, after the Gates Foundation donated $270m (with a promise of $1Bn over the next few years) to CGIAR, Gates’ representatives nixed CGIAR’s agricultural biodiversity mega-programme, saying it was “unfocussed.” This logic represents precisely what is wrong with the Gates/USAID approach. Only an “unfocussed” low-tech approach that honors biological and cultural diversity is likely to be successful in Africa.
Well, that may well be, but the SciDevNet piece to which he links to support that “unfocussed” comment by a “Gates’ representative” doesn’t do that at all. What “Prabhu Pingali, deputy director of agricultural policy and statistics at the Gates Foundation, told the Global Conference for Agricultural Research Development (GCARD) (28—31 March)” is that the megapgrogrammes, as then constituted, “[b]ecause they are so fuzzy … are not likely to generate enthusiasm for increased funding.” All the megaprogrammes, note, not just the agricultural biodiversity one. The agrobiodiversity megaprogramme was indeed “nixed,” but I can find no comment by a Gates Foundation rep on it, either for or against. And anyway, everything still seems to be up in the air on these megaprogrammes. You can follow the CGIAR’s change process on their website and blog.
I have not been tracking the CGIAR megaprogrammes — but on the surface they seem to be capacity rather than demand driven (with the exception of the GRiSP). ‘Agrobiodiversity’ is tricky: often used as a synonym for genetic resources or the ‘good’ bits of agricultural biodiversity (‘more is better’): more properly it includes all the nasties — pest, disease, desert locusts, the lot (‘more can be a disaster’). My own feeling — given the battles over the past 40 years over control of the CGIAR genetic resources and my one-time personal involvement in them — is that genetic resources should be as integrated as possible with the work of the Centres — screening, pathology, entomology, agronomy and finally breeding. This is the ‘stamps as allowing a postal service’ rather than the ‘stamps to stick in an album’ approach. It follows that rather than a megaprogramme on agricultural biodiversity, the topic should be closely integrated with as many other megaprogrammes as possible, to show its broad value to agriculture. It certainly makes no sense to separate the agrobiodiversity component of GRiSP into another megaprogramme. Also, damage may be being done in donors’ minds by the multiplication of agencies on agricultural biodiversity and by agency ‘mission creep’: doing things they were not set up to do (IBPGR was set up for an initial 5 years and designed then to self-destruct). I’m also thinking here of the Global Crop Diversity Trust with its self-designated mandate and funding (and, no doubt, as a ‘new boy on the block’ an attraction to donors), and also the FAO plant breeding initiative — surely better done mainly through existing CGIAR facilities and training. The major danger is that institutes will not accept the purpose of the megaprogrammes to consolidate approaches to donors and will continue individually to press for institutional funding. While this may be successful in the short-term, it will compromise the long-term future of the CGIAR.