Skip to main content

Wheat area expansion faces a headwind requiring increased spending on R&D to raise yields

Written by on . Posted in Blogs.

 

Photo credit: Madan Raj Bhatta

 

Derek Byerlee is a visiting scholar at Stanford University.
Any views expressed are his own.

Over the last 50 years or so, the big increases in agricultural production have come through improved yields largely as a result of the Green Revolution.

From 1961 to 2011, per capita cereal production increased by 40 percent, while the amount of cropland per capita fell by half. In most regions, the total area of cropland has either reached a peak or declined. However, in three tropical regions, land expansion has been and still is a significant source of agricultural growth: Southeast Asia, tropical South America and sub-Saharan Africa.

Since 1990, wheat is the only major crop to experience an overall decline in area.

Looking to the future, how much land can be expected to come into production for cropping?

Currently, about 1,500 million hectares (Mha) of land is used for crops.

I project that additional demand for land will be 6 to 12 Mha each year for a total of 120 to 240 Mha increase from 2010 to 2030.

The higher projection allows a greater role for trade and thereby production by the lowest-cost producers who are often located in land-abundant countries.

These estimates are broadly in line with a synthesis by Erik Lambin & Patrick Meyfroidt who also include projections of the loss of land due to expansion of urban settlements and infrastructure as well as losses due to land degradation. Taking these losses into account, Tony Fischer provides an estimate of total additional gross cropland demand from 2010 to 2030 of 160 Mha to 340 Mha. Global models also suggest expansion of cropland to 2050 of about 300 Mha, given projected yield growth.

Is there enough land to satisfy demand? The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’s World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050 report estimates that some 1.4 billion hectares of currently uncultivated land that is not forested or in protected areas is suited to crop agriculture although they note that this is an optimistic estimate. A more conservative estimate of available land with at least moderate suitability for rainfed cultivation in low population-density areas – that is, non-forested, non-protected and with a population density of less than 25 people per square kilometer – is approximately 450 Mha.

At first glance, it would thus seem that projected demand for land (even under the scenarios of the higher demand estimates) over the next two decades can be accommodated by available uncultivated land.

However, most of this uncultivated land is concentrated in a few countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Central Asia and is often far from ports and roads.

A global analysis may also miss key constraints at the local level such as human diseases and unrecorded current land use that reduce effective land supply.

In addition, an expansion of land area of the order of 160 Mha (the lower-bound estimate of the estimated future land needs) could have significant biodiversity costs from conversion of natural ecosystems, even in the non-forested areas considered above.

Indeed, one of the sustainable development goals currently under discussion in international fora is to reduce deforestation to zero by 2030 – implying a closing of the land frontier. Finally with the exception of some areas in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, most of the available land is in the tropics and is unsuitable for wheat production.

Overall then, projections of future land availability for agriculture suggest a growing land scarcity, particularly for wheat, especially when taking into account that demand for food and feed will continue to rise with growing affluence in rapidly industrializing countries, as well as the use of land for biofuel feedstocks.

Growing scarcity together with high commodity prices have combined to stimulate global investor interest in farmland that underlies much of the recent discussion on intensification as a strategy to save land and concerns about a global ‘land grab’ by investors from land-scarce countries.

Wheat area is also being pushed out by other crops in many countries. Over the period 1993 to 2013, wheat area has fallen by 4.5 Mha, exceeded only by other winter cereals (barley, rye, and oats) that have collectively lost over 40 Mha.

During the same period, the area of oil crops (mostly soybeans, rapeseed and oil palm) has increased by an astonishing 100 Mha, maize by a hefty 53 Mha and rice by 20 Mha.

This year for example, North Dakota, a quintessential wheat-producing state in the United States, for the first time planted more soybeans than wheat.

In Argentina, soybeans rotated with maize have also displaced a significant wheat area, while in northern China, increasing maize area appears to be at the expense of spring wheat. Wheat area in the United States and China has fallen by 7 Mha and 6 Mha respectively since 1993. The major exceptions to these trends are India and Australia, where wheat area is up sharply.

All of this, of course, implies that increasing wheat yields will be especially critical to maintain its competitiveness and to save further land expansion into forests.

Norman Borlaug, the pioneer of the Green Revolution, long recognized that increased yields were not only essential to increasing global food security but also to saving forests.

This has now been enshrined in the environmental literature as the Borlaug Hypothesis. The real world is not so simple since there are situations where increasing yields may enhance crop profitability and encourage its expansion at the expense of forests. However, we found that just the CGIAR investment in germplasm is likely to have saved from 18-27 Mha of land from 1965-2000.

The bottom line is that increased spending on research and development (R&D) by national programs and CGIAR is a priority to achieving not only food security but confronting land scarcity.

None of the above considers the negative impacts of climate change, but a recent thoughtful analysis by David Lobell of Stanford University has shown that investing in R&D to adapt to climate change and maintain yields in the face of rising temperatures and increased drought is one of the most cost-effective ways to save forests and therefore mitigate climate change.

Surprisingly, wheat is the crop that faces the strongest headwind from both land scarcity and climate change. Wheat also appears to be grossly underfunded at the international level as measured by the budget provided to the WHEAT CRP – one of the lowest among the 15 CRPs. Tony Fischer, Honorary Research Fellow, at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), in a companion piece has shown that there are many promising avenues to higher R&D spending, both to raise yield potential and close large yield gaps.

 

Interested in this subject? Find out more information here:

Alexandratos, N., & Bruinsma, J. (2012). World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision (No. 12-03, p. 4). Rome, FAO: ESA Working paper.

Borlaug, N. 2007. “Feeding a Hungry World.” Science 318(5849):359–359.

Deininger, K.W., and D. Byerlee. 2011. Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits? Washington D.C.: World Bank Publications.

Fischer RA, Byerlee D, Edmeades GL. 2014. Crop Yields and Food Security: Will Yield Increase Continue to Feed the World? Canberra: Aust. Cent. Int. Agric. Res.

Lambin, E. F. 2012. Global land availability: Malthus versus Ricardo. Global Food Security. 1; 83-87.

Lobell, D.B., U.L.C. Baldos, and T.W. Hertel. 2013. “Climate Adaptation as Mitigation: the Case of Agricultural Investments.” Environmental Research Letters 8(1):015012.

Stevenson, J.R., N. Villoria, D. Byerlee, T. Kelley, and M. Maredia.  2013. “Green Revolution Research Saved an Estimated 18 to 27 Million Hectares from Being Brought into Agricultural Production.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Available at: 10.1073/pnas.1208065110 [Accessed May 13, 2013].

 

 Go back to: Wheat Matters

 

The global warming challenge for wheat

Written by on . Posted in Blogs.

David Lobell is an associate professor in environmental earth system science and deputy director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford University.

Scott Chapman is a principal research scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

Wheat likes it cool. More than any other major food staple, wheat yields suffer when weather gets warm. Although wheat has been adapted to grow in almost every country of the world through 10,000 years of farmer selection and a century of breeding, it is still most productive in the cooler places and seasons. Given this reality, it is not surprising that most projections of climate change impacts indicate decreases in wheat production, with an average of roughly 5 percent yield loss expected for each 1°C of warming.

Indeed, many studies indicate that in recent decades global yield productivity has already been hit by warmer average temperatures.

But how important will global warming really be in shaping future wheat supply? The answer is hard to pin down, partly because it will depend on where and how quickly the world heats up.

The expected average rate of warming over current wheat areas for the next few decades is a little less than 0.5 °C per decade, which implies a negative yield impact of about 2 percent per decade.

Compared to the anticipated yield growth needed to keep pace with demand for wheat – about 15 percent per decade – this is a significant but modest addition to an already hard task.

But there is no guarantee that the expected rate of warming will happen, and models suggest that warming of as much as 1.0 °C per decade is plausible over the next couple of decades. Therefore, it is reasonable to view global warming as a major risk to future wheat supply.

What can the wheat community do to reduce these risks to the wheat supply, or more specifically, what might be done differently than business-as-usual wheat breeding? We have three suggestions.

First, in a shifting environment, it is expected that crops will face different conditions in farmers’ fields than they did in breeding trials. Physiological models that can skillfully predict crop growth then become an indispensable tool, because they can help breeders better anticipate what traits will prove useful even if those traits don’t confer yield advantages in their trials. This is an extension of a long-standing challenge of understanding gene-by-environment interactions, but requires new skill in modeling mechanisms behind crop responses to heat.

Second, these desired traits should be more reliably and quickly incorporated into elite wheat germplasm. This work will require a combination of methods to rapidly identify desirable traits among a large population (for example, rapid phenotyping) and methods (such as marker and genomic selection) to introduce and recombine new genetic variability when needed (for example, by using wild relatives).

A challenge here is that potentially adaptive traits, such as changes in flowering time, increased water-use efficiency or expression of “sunscreens” (surface waxes), might exist in current germplasm, but be genetically linked to less desirable traits. An ability to generate and test many combinations of different traits is more important, and harder, than simply having access to extreme values of a particular trait.

Interested in this subject? Find out more information here:Getting caught with our plants down: the risks of a global crop yield slowdown from climate trends in the next two decades (2014)
David B Lobell and Claudia TebaldiPhysiological Traits for Improving Heat Tolerance in Wheat (2012)
C. Mariano Cossani and Matthew P. ReynoldsPlant adaptation to climate change – opportunities and priorities in breeding (2012)
Scott C. Chapman, Sukumar Chakrabort, M. Fernanda Dreccer, and S. Mark Howden

Third, agronomy will play a key role in helping the world adapt to climate change. For example, new planting methods that allow earlier sowing can help to escape the end-of-season heat and targeted use of mulches and irrigation can help to lower canopy temperatures. Widespread testing of these techniques, ideally in combination with the testing of various genotypes, would help to ensure that promising approaches are more quickly identified and scaled up.

In a world without climate change, these issues are still relevant. But they become crucial in a world where the risks of large heat waves rise each year.

We see global warming as an important strategic issue for international groups like CIMMYT, because: (i) warming is expected to be fast enough to significantly slow global yield growth; (ii) it is difficult to predict exactly which countries will see the most severe heat waves in the next couple of decades; and (iii) it is likely that some (if not all) countries will need germplasm that is currently grown elsewhere to adapt. Thus, the global threat is serious, but individual countries have limited incentives to devote significant effort to adaptation (because they may be spared the worst of it) and limited capacity to achieve success on their own (because of the need for imported germplasm).

It will take global institutions to successfully adapt to global warming.

Will yield increases continue to feed the world? The case for wheat

Written by on . Posted in Blogs.

Tony Fisher is Plant Industry Honorary Fellow with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). Any opinions expressed are his own

The release of the bread wheat variety Borlaug100 earlier this year in the irrigated Yaqui Valley of northwest Mexico was both apt and reassuring.

The 100th anniversary of the late scientist Norman Borlaug’s birth was also celebrated in 2014. The performance of his namesake wheat variety represented a notable jump in potential yield, lifting bread wheat up to the potential of the best durum wheat variety, currently dominant in the valley.

Borlaug, who is credited with saving more than 1 billion lives, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his work at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and its predecessor organization, the Office of Special Studies, where he began breeding wheat in the 1940s. Scientist Sanjaya Rajaram took over leadership of breeding in 1972, followed by Maarten van Ginkel in 1995, and Ravi Singh as breeder for irrigated areas in 2005. Between 1950 and 2014, potential yield of the approximately 160,000 hectares (400,000 acres) of wheat in the valley increased from about 5 metric tons (5.5 tons) per hectare to 9 metric tons per hectare, while farm yield rose five-fold, from 1.3 metric tons per hectare to 6.5 metric tons per hectare as varieties and agronomic management improved hand in hand.

These technologies have also had an impact on many developing countries with similar or related wheat agro-ecologies.

Many people are quick to point out that yield is not everything in global food security, that other issues are also important, including grain nutritive value, yield stability in the face of pests and diseases, crop input requirements, and more broadly, access of the poor to food (income and price), diversion of grain to animal feed and biofuel, and losses due to wastage.

However, nutritive value of the staples has not greatly changed, nor have yields become less stable, while input use per kilogram of grain produced has decreased, so that none of those issues are as fundamental to food security as farm yield increase.

Indeed yield increase has contributed more than 80 percent of the huge global consumption increase over the last 50 years (incidentally supplying of the burgeoning world population with more calories per capita). The increase in arable land area contributed only about half of the remaining supply increase, since cropping intensity (crops per year per hectare of arable land) also increased. This yield increase has saved vast areas of land from the plow. It is for these reasons that the subtitle of my recent book, Crop yields and global food security: will yield increase continue to feed the world?, asks whether yield increase will continue to feed the world.

While the book looked at past and prospective farm yield change across many crops, here space permits only a brief look at the global wheat yield situation.

The importance of wheat as a food calorie and protein source has already been pointed out in this “Wheat Matters” series of blogs: suffice to say wheat, being produced equally in developing and developed countries, is the top global source of calories (rice is actually the top source for poor consumers) and the top traded food grain, a position it is unlikely to lose.

Estimates of wheat-demand increase from 2010 to 2050 vary considerably: if prices are to be kept no greater than 2010 average real prices, I estimate a supply increase of about 50 percent is needed. Thus production needs to grow at 1.25 percent a year linear relative to the 2010 yield in order to meet estimated demand growth, but currently world wheat yield is growing at only 1 percent a year (relative to the 2010 trend yield of 3.0 metric tons per hectare).

While the potential yield of wheat has been lifted remarkably by breeding, as was seen in the example above, current rates of potential yield progress have slowed, averaging only 0.6 percent a year (range 0.3 to 1.1 percent) across 12 case studies around the world.

Experience suggests that the newest varieties are adopted relatively quickly by farmers and should as a consequence lift farm yield by about the same relative amount (i.e. 0.6 percent a year).

A separate source of progress in farm yield comes from farmers adopting new management practices, which close the gap between farm and potential yield. Actually, the current gap averaged only 48 percent (of farm yield itself), ranging from 23 percent to 69 percent across the case studies, with little difference between developing and developed countries, or irrigated and rainfed environments.

Interested in this subject? Find out more information here:

Fischer R.A., Byerlee D. and Edmeades G.O. 2014. Crop yields and global food security: will yield increase continue to feed the world? ACIAR Monograph No. 158. The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra. Access at http://aciar.gov.au/publication/mn158

Since the minimum yield gap, due to considerations of costs and risk, is around 30 percent (of farm yield), the scope for further yield gap closing is more limited in wheat than in the other major cereals, which, in contrast to wheat, showed many larger yield gaps, especially in developing countries.

Besides, the gap-causing constraints in the cases of wheat are generally multiple, related to small deficiencies in soil fertility, weeds and disease management and in the timing of operations. This puts special pressure in the case of wheat on lifting potential yield progress, and justifies substantial increases in research in this area. There is certainly no sign that a biological limit in wheat potential yield has been reached, and several new tools and strategies of sufficient promise are available to justify such investment.

Finally, although increasing carbon dioxide is probably lifting both potential and farm yields of wheat about 0.2 percent a year, it is suggested that out to 2050, this will be cancelled by the negative effect of mean temperature increase, which is now becoming more evident.

 

Wheat is not a “rich man’s crop”

Written by on . Posted in Blogs.

There is wide-spread misperception that wheat is mainly produced in rich countries, exported to developing countries and then consumed by those societies’ wealthiest. In fact, for hundreds of millions of poor people their main staple is not maize, rice or cassava – they grow and eat wheat.

Wheat provides around one-fifth of all calories and protein for people globally. More food products are made from wheat than from any other cereal. In developing countries, wheat feeds around 1.2 billion people who live on less than US$ 2 a day. For every three poor rice consumers, there are two poor wheat consumers.

The global wheat trade is bigger than all other staples combined. Of the 150 million tons of wheat exported annually, 125 million tons go to developing countries, where nearly all wheat is consumed as food. Half of the wheat traded globally is exported to Africa and western Asia. Sixty million tons (40 percent) are imported by countries in North Africa and Central and West Asia. Sub-Saharan Africa, which is not considered a traditional wheat-eating region, buys 15 million tons (10 percent of the total).

In Sub-Saharan Africa, demand for wheat is growing faster than for any other commodity. Main drivers include population growth (need for more food), urbanization (wheat is a convenient food for migrating males) and the demand for wheat products by the increasing female work force. Female workers prefer wheat products because of they are fast and easy to prepare, freeing time the women otherwise would spend on traditional food processing and preparation.

Though trade statistics indicate developing countries depend on wheat imported from developed countries, of the 700 million tons wheat harvested globally, around 60 percent of that tonnage is produced and around 70 percent is consumed in developing countries. China, the world’s biggest producer, harvests twice as much wheat as the United States.

In North Africa and Central and West Asia, wheat is more critical for food security than in any other region worldwide, since it provides 35 to 50 percent of all calories and protein. Increases in wheat and bread prices have and will continue to lead to social unrest.

So is wheat a rich man’s crop? These statistics prove otherwise. With increasing income, diets change; they become more diverse and shift to wheat and eventually meat products. But in spite of progress in reducing poverty, challenges remain. The number of people living on less than US$ 1.25 a day declined from 1.9 billion in 1990 to 1.2 billion in 2010, mainly due to a reduction in East Asia. Less progress was made in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, where today as many people live in extreme poverty as in 1980. If the absolute number of people living with an income of less than US$ 2 a day is considered, the progress is much smaller – 2.4 billion in 2010 vs. 2.59 billion in 1981.

Mahatma Gandhi best described what wheat means for these people: “There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.” To end this unacceptable situation, increased wheat production is vital.

In the next 35 years, production of wheat needs to increase by at least 60 percent to meet the increased demand. In other words, the global average yield will need to increase from 3 metric tons per hectare (mt/ha) to 5 mt/ha, in spite of global warming, eroded soils, land scarcity and competition for fertile land and water from higher-valued crops. Considering current production constraints and market realities, the world’s primary wheat-exporting countries are unlikely to provide the extra wheat needed to feed the 2050 global population of 9.6 billion.

Wheat productivity must first increase in developing countries, where yield gaps continue to be unacceptably high. Through increased adoption of improved wheat varieties, better agronomic practices and effective post-harvest storage, developing countries could develop sustainable food systems, become less dependent on imports and stay more resilient against food price increases. These huge challenges can be met, provided investments in breeding and agronomy increase significantly and quickly. Policy-makers must recognize that increasing investments in agriculture is not a problem – it is the basis and solution to improve the livelihoods of the poor.

 

Why wheat matters

Written by on . Posted in Blogs.

Photo credit: Ranak Martin
Photo credit: Ranak Martin

Thomas Lumpkin served as director general at CIMMYT from 2008 to 2015.

The history of wheat is the history of civilization. Over 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent our ancestors ascended from an existence as hunter-gatherers and began tending and domesticating crops. Thus began wheat’s symbiotic relationship with the history of civilization and humankind’s responsibility as stewards of planet Earth.

Wheat is not only a major diet component but wheat-based products are the personification of cultural heritage and pride. Imagine Italians without pasta, North Africans without couscous, Indians without Chapattis or Chinese without noodles or steamed bread. It is time to pay homage to this grass, which was the basis for the development of modern civilizations and has done so much for the human race.

Wheat is the staple food of humankind, and its history is that of civilization. Yet today wheat is losing its crown. Many perceive wheat to be a food eaten and produced only by rich countries. Atkins, Davis (wheat belly) and other diets have convinced even more that wheat is bad for you and less wholesome than other crops. Although wheat remains an important crop, funding for wheat research has decreased significantly in recent years.

In spite of all these challenges, the demand for wheat is not dropping. Wheat is the staff of life for 1.2 billion poor people who live on less than US$ 2 a day; providing 20 to 50 percent of daily calories and 20 percent of protein. From South Asia through to Central Asia across the Middle East and on to North Africa, wheat is a staple food. Demand for wheat is not isolated to these traditional wheat-eating regions. Today African countries spend about US$ 12 billion annually to import some 40 million tons of wheat. What was once considered a minor crop for consumers in Sub-Saharan Africa, demand for wheat is now growing faster than for any other commodity and is now considered a strategic crop for food security by African leaders.

Perhaps what is most concerning are the predictions for the near future. Demand for wheat in the developing world is projected to increase 60 percent by 2050. India, the largest wheat-consuming country after China, has 17.5 percent of total world’s population and 20.6 percent of the world’s poor. If you look at a map showing the locations of recent food riots, it is almost identical to one showing where wheat provides more than one-third of a person’s daily calories. Households in developed countries spend less than 10 percent of their income on food supplies, in many countries, that percentage is much more. For example, in Pakistan and Egypt this figure is around 40 percent.

An Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report published earlier this year predicts that wheat will be the first of the main staple crops to be significantly affected by climate change, because of its sensitivity to heat and the fact that it is grown all over the world. Current projections predict that with every Celsius degree increase in temperature, wheat yields in semi-tropical areas could drop by 10 percent. Changes in weather may also lead to an increased risk in the severity of wheat diseases, which may cause severe losses in areas that were previously thought of as unimportant.

Recurrent food crises combined with climate change, depletion of natural resources and rising food prices are threatening the lives of millions of poor people who depend on wheat for both diet and livelihood. Demographers predict that by 2050 the earth’s population will peak at 9.6 billion. Developing countries, especially those in Africa and South Asia, are experiencing tremendous population growth. Based on current crop yields and food distribution methods, feeding nearly 10 billion people will not be trivial. Sustainably increasing wheat production will have a crucial impact on food security.

Wheat’s significant contribution to humankind is not yet over.

International Women’s Day 2014: “Equality for women is progress for all”

Written by on . Posted in Blogs.

From the CIMMYT archives

Nearly 40 years after the United Nations established March 8 as International Women’s Day, we have seen great progress in achieving equality for women – there is greater parity in primary education between boys and girls, maternal mortality has declined by around two-thirds and 4 of every 10 jobs in the non-agricultural sector are held by a woman. However, despite a push through the Millennium Development Goals, gender equality and the empowerment of women still have not been achieved. Women continue to face discrimination in access to economic assets, work, education, health care and political participation. As a result, women are more likely to live in poverty, have less access to finance and information and fewer opportunities to break free from this cycle, especially in agricultural sectors.

From the CIMMYT archives

At CIMMYT, we are working hard to close the gender gap and generate gains in agricultural output, food security, economic growth and social welfare. Across our projects in Africa, Asia and Latin America, CIMMYT actively seeks women’s participation in breeding and seed sector development, the value chain and agricultural mechanization. CIMMYT is working to integrate gender into the project design cycle and into project implementation. Both the CGIAR Research Programs on MAIZE and WHEAT have an approved gender integration strategy and in 2014 and 2015 all CRPs will jointly conduct a cross-gender study.

From the CIMMYT archives
From the CIMMYT archives

Women are the backbone of the rural economy in the developing world; they constitute much of the agricultural labor force but receive only a fraction of the land, financial credit and training compared to men. The gender gap in agriculture imposes costs not only on women themselves, but on their families, society and the sector as a whole. The FAO estimates that if women had access to the same resources as men they could increase yield on their farms by 20 to 30 percent and would spend this additional income on improving the health, nutrition and education outcomes of their children. If women had equal access to resources, agricultural production in developing countries would be 2.5 to 4 percent greater, feeding up to 150 million more people.

These are important achievements, but the job is not yet done and CIMMYT must place even more emphasis on gender and diversity. Promoting equal access to resources, improving gender awareness in CIMMYT projects and involving women in decision-making at all levels can help to close the gender gap in agriculture. This March, let us look for new avenues to empower women and think about how our interventions empower men and women alike.

 

International Women’s Day:
How it all Started
In 1908, 15,000 women took to the streets demanding better working conditions, shorter working hours and better pay as part of a garment workers’ strike in New York City. Inspired by these events, International Women’s Day was first celebrated in 1911 with more than 1 million men and women attending rallies across Europe. By World War I, International Women’s Day became a tool for protest. In 1917, Russian women began a strike for “bread and peace,” demanding an end to food shortages and an end to the war. They initiated the February Revolution, the first of two Russian revolutions. The women’s protest started on March 8. Since it was born out of the socialist movement, International Women’s Day was subsequently celebrated chiefly in communist and socialist countries. However, in 1977 the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring March 8 a United Nations Day for Women’s Rights and International Peace.

 

For more information:

http://www.internationalwomensday.com/

http://www.un.org/en/events/womensday/history.shtml

http://www.genderinag.org/content/gender-agriculture-sourcebook

Student reflection: my visit to CIMMYT-Hyderabad, India

Written by on . Posted in Blogs.

Alex-RenaudAlex Renaud is a third-year graduate student pursuing a doctorate degree in plant breeding and genetics from Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.

When given the opportunity to travel to India to work on heat tolerance in maize, I leaped at the prospect. I was excited by the potential for professional development and the chance to experience a different culture. My visit was part of the Heat Tolerant Maize for Asia (HTMA) collaborative project, funded by the United States Agency for International Development Feed the Future Initiative. The project supports graduate students in plant breeding to learn about and contribute to completing initiative objectives. HTMA is a public-private partnership (PPP) led by CIMMYT-Asia. Partners include Purdue University, Pioneer Hi-Bred and other seed companies and public sector maize programs in South Asia.

CIMMYT-Asia in Hyderabad, India, provides an ideal environment to evaluate or phenotype maize genotypes for heat stress tolerance. Temperatures regularly reach 40°C or higher and the relative humidity is usually below 30 percent during the reproductive development of maize planted during spring season. Additionally, the CIMMYT facilities in Hyderabad provided an excellent laboratory environment for testing hypotheses concerning the basis of heat stress tolerance in maize.

Having never been to India, I really enjoyed my stay in Hyderabad, from both research and cultural standpoints. I enjoyed getting to know the research scientists and technicians involved in the research project and had ample opportunities to learn in workshops, trainings, field visits and over dinner. My stay, which was longer than two months, provided me with the opportunity to build both personal and professional relationships. Anyone who has visited Hyderabad in May will understand just how hot it can be. It took time for me to adapt to the heat. As I was leaving the U.S. for India, my hometown received 300 millimeters of snow in 24 hours. During my first week in Hyderabad, the temperatures exceeded 40°C. It was quite a change.

Alex Renaud (middle) with CIMMYT-Hyderabad field staff. Photo: By Alex Renaud
Alex Renaud (middle) with CIMMYT-Hyderabad field staff. Photo: By Alex Renaud

In addition to taking advantage of research opportunities, I visited several interesting cultural sites, including the Taj Mahal. My favorite memories include sampling many different types of food, from Hyderabadi biryani to India’s version of Kentucky Fried Chicken; I never tried anything I did not like! As an aspiring plant breeder, this was a great experience, and I hope to continue my involvement with the PPP as it develops heat-stress-tolerant maize for South Asia.

I would like to sincerely thank Mitch Tuinstra, professor of plant breeding at Purdue University for providing me with this opportunity as well as P.H. Zaidi, senior maize physiologist at CIMMYT-Hyderabad and project leader of HTMA, and his wonderful team for everything that made my two-month stay professionally productive and personally memorable.

Message from Masa: 2006 King Baudouin Award for CIMMYT work in sub-Saharan Africa

Written by on . Posted in Blogs.

I am very happy to tell you that today is a very good day for all of us at CIMMYT. We have just been presented with the CGIAR’s highest recognition for science for development—the King Baudouin Award—here at the CGIAR AGM in Washington DC. The award has been given to us for our work on stress-tolerant maize in eastern and southern Africa. This is research that has a 20 year history at CIMMYT, starting with the selection of potential germplasm from the gene bank in the late 1980s and continuing through today with the very successful participatory selection work with farmers through the mother-baby trial system and the dissemination of stress-tolerant maize seed on a large sale by national programs, small-scale seed companies, and community-based organizations. The work is a fine example of how research-led development can enhance the livelihoods of the rural poor.

I want to use this message to congratulate Marianne BĂ€nziger and the rest of the CIMMYT team who have worked so hard over the years to make a difference in Africa and also to recognize the amazing partnership of researchers, farmers, national agricultural research systems, and donors that led to the success of the project. Finally, I want to reinforce the fact that Marianne and I received the award not just on behalf of CIMMYT but on behalf of everyone who contributed to this successful work, which is based on long-term scientific efforts and effective partnerships with many collaborators. The work, of course, is not finished. It never is. But the recognition by the CGIAR is an important milestone of which we can be very proud.

The King Baudouin Award is presented every second year by the CGIAR and this is the second time in a row it has been given to the CIMMYT family (in 2004 the Rice Wheat Consortium, in which CIMMYT is a leading participant, was recognized). In the years between King Baudouin Awards, the highest science prize in the CGIAR is the one that recognizes the outstanding scientist in the system. In 2003 it went to Abdul Mujeeb Kazi and in 2005 to Ravi Singh. The quality of CIMMYT science has been recognized as best in the CGIAR for four consecutive years.

Once again let me offer, on behalf of the whole CIMMYT family, congratulations for the outstanding work and effective partnerships!

Message from Masa: CIMMYT’s research

Written by on . Posted in Blogs.

CIMMYT has a science-based humanitarian mission. One of the main reasons why we work for CIMMYT is that we want to apply our particular areas of technical expertise (for example as geneticist, economist, soil scientist etc.) to make a difference in the lives of millions of the resource poor. This differentiates CIMMYT as workplace from purely academic organizations (e.g. universities) or technology transfer organizations (e.g. development agencies) and was probably part of your motivation for having applied for a CIMMYT job.

CIMMYT’s main output is new knowledge relevant to achieving our mission. Journal publication is a very important instrument to disseminate new knowledge and scientific achievements. Science publication is often cited as an example of International Public Goods. I am very pleased that CIMMYT’s journal publication number per IRS has doubled during the last three years compared to the period 1997-2002. In 2005 we recorded 1.6 journal publications per IRS (the highest number in CIMMYT 40 years of history, although still slightly less than the overall CGIAR average).

While I believe that our research agenda and our activities should not be driven by the opportunity to publish, I also believe that we as scientists should have a good record of journal publication. I started my career with the CGIAR as pre-Doc and went through all rank and file positions. Before I moved to a senior management position (DDG-R), I as a CG scientist, had published reasonably well and regarded it as part of my job.

I would like to make few points on the importance of journal publication and how we can achieve it based on my observations and experience over the last 25 years or so within the CG system.

CIMMYT should be influential globally. That influence comes mainly from respect we have earned from others. Good publication is one mechanism to attract respect from our partners. A good publication record gives us our peer’s respect, professional credentials and enhances our marketability. Manuscript writing gives us the opportunity to analyze our own/team achievements and see the scientific challenges still pending.

We too often argue why we are not able to publish. Three main inter-linked arguments people make are: (1) Our main job objective is to produce products (relevant to our target beneficiaries), not to publish. (2) Our specific job responsibility (e.g. regional office, fieldoriented breeding, coordination role, serviceoriented function) does not present publication opportunities. (3) We are all too busy to find time to write manuscripts.

I do not think that any of above arguments really works. We just have to look at some of the CIMMYT staff with a good publishing record. I examined the list of journal publications by CIMMYT staff in 2005. The following names show up frequently (of course this is not an exhaustive list): Zhonghu. He, Richard Trethowan, Manilal Williams, Hugo De Groote, Etienne Duveiller, Ravi Sign, Javier Pena, Ivan Ortiz- Monasterio, Matthew Reynolds, Marilyn Warburton, and Jose Crossa. If they had wanted to use any of above arguments to avoid publishing, they could have easily done so. But they did not, and they command natural respect internally and externally.

During the annual evaluation process, you and your Director discuss publication so that your leader (science mentor) and CIMMYT as workplace can explicitly assist you in that area. I was pleased to note that as a result of last year’s evaluation/ discussion some staff proposed taking time explicitly for publication or proposed ministudy leaves. CIMMYT is very keen to support your professional development including science credential development through journal publication.

Message from Masa: Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia

Written by on . Posted in Blogs. 1 Comment on Message from Masa: Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia

I visited Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia this week. In Kenya I attended the IRMA Project Executive Committee (ExCo) meeting. We had interesting and critical negotiations to gain access to a new Bt event from a private company and thus enable the development of a robust insect management strategy for poor farmers based on a humanitarian use exception.

I visited the DGs of the three national agriculture research systems, Executive Secretary of ASARECA, and the Minister of Agriculture of Ethiopia. In addition to appreciating our past and on-going partnerships, I discussed with them ways we could work together on two specific projects—the Global Rust Initiative and Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa. Two multi-million dollar proposals have been requested by donor agencies and if they are accepted, swift implementation based on partnership will be extremely important.

These discussions demonstrated again that CIMMYT’s style of partnership is highly appreciated by our NARS partners. We are their preferred partner because:

  • We consult with them (as opposed to deciding unilaterally).
  • We give them due credit after working together (as opposed to over-claiming credit).
  • We deliver on the ground (as opposed to just talk and meetings).
  • We support their capacity building (as opposed to our taking over their role).
  • We engage in a continuous professional relationship as colleagues with former trainees (as opposed to one-shot training course).

Those elements are building blocks for long-term relationships based on trust and respect. We will continue to build our future and deliver our mission as the preferred partner. With this trip I was also able to complete my promised series of visits to all CIMMYT’s regional locations.