Therefore, investments in agricultural and rural development should be prime candidates for poverty reduction initiatives. Leading experts are convinced by the evidence to date that agricultural development can be a powerful tool for poverty reduction if it is carefully designed to especially reach the most needy (Fan et al. 2000a, b; Hazell and Haddad 2001; Lipton 2002; Lewis 2003; Meinzen-Dick et al. 2003). NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa's Development), Sub-Saharan Africa's self-developed plan for renewal, concurs with this view. Two of its four primary objectives are to eradicate poverty and to place Africa on a path of sustainable growth and development. Agriculture is a priority for policy reforms and increased investment in NEPAD's Program of Action.

Despite this consensus of the global and the African communities, international aid to agricultural development had fallen from approximately 30% of total development assistance in the 1970s to about 10% by the turn of the century (Lipton 2002). The result is that the rural poor are left further behind in the development process. This increases their vulnerability to natural disasters as well as sows the seeds of future violence resulting from frustration and hopelessness.

To most effectively help the poor, agricultural development must be backed by a solid understanding of their livelihood systems, needs and values, the functioning of markets, climatic constraints and potentials, cropping systems and natural resources, ecological parameters of sustainability, government policies and institutions, and a myriad of other factors that influence the functioning of the agricultural economy. From this understanding, new innovations emerge in the fields of policy, technology, capacity-building and institutional improvement. This is the role of `research-for-development' (R4D).

R4D can produce high returns on investment because it can transform agricultural systems in fundamental ways (Sachs 2002). Public-sector R4D is particularly important because it focuses on the poor who are a low priority for the private sector. When pursued on an international scale, the results can be impressive.

The achievements of the 15 International Agricultural Research Centers supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and their partners over the past three decades form a prime example. The System's three-decade (1971-2001) investment of US$7.1 billion was plausibly estimated to have returned approximately $65 billion in benefits from just three easily-documented research areas—an extraordinary 34% annual return on investment (Raitzer 2003). A large proportion of these benefits are believed to have reached the poor, mostly through lower food prices and increased small-farm incomes.

Furthermore, this estimate is believed to be quite conservative, because (i) it considers only a subset of all impacts (attributed against total System cost), (ii) it does not include `multiplier effects,' e.g. how these impacts stimulated additional growth in the non-farm economy (Hazell and Haddad 2001); and (iii) it does not include a wide array of qualitative impacts, such as human capacity building, adding to the scientific knowledge base, building more effective national institutions etc. The estimate also does not take into account spillover benefits captured by the developed countries, which far exceeds their investment cost in the CGIAR Centers (Brennan et al. 2003).

There is yet another dimension of the CGIAR's work, that of rebuilding agriculture in countries affected by conflict and natural disasters. Over the past three decades, the CGIAR Centers have made major contributions to rebuilding agriculture in at least 47 developing countries affected by conficts and natural disasters across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The value of financial investments in this work cannot be assessed using the currency market rates, because the CGIAR Center scientists and staff have often carried out these activities at the risk of their personal security and in difficult working conditions. This dimension of the CGIAR's role has remained less known and unrecognized. This volume attempts to document that role, based on case studies for 31 countries provided by 12 of 15 Centers of the CGIAR.

Despite this impressive track record, the CGIAR's core budget for assisting the entire developing world is just half that of a single private sector company, Monsanto (Sachs 2002). Increased investment would accelerate progress towards global food security, poverty reduction, and peace.

The returns to investment in R4D can be especially large when helping to rebuild countries ravaged by conflict or natural disasters. In a crisis, aid agencies are pressured to act quickly. When the knowledge base is deficient, aid is often less effective than the donors intended. It is at these times when prior investments in R4D pay off handsomely, steering relief aid on a course to do the most good. Research, in other words, provides a bridge that connects emergency actions with longer term development—reducing future vulnerability to these hazards.

This study assesses how R4D conducted by CGIAR Centers is helping reduce human suffering from conflicts and natural disasters by:
1. Alleviating immediate hunger and setting food production systems back on track;
2. Protecting and restoring damaged agricultural biodiversity;
3. Rebuilding human capacities and agricultural institutions;
4. Reducing vulnerability of the poor to future conflicts and disasters; and
5. Helping development agencies work more effectively and cost-efficiently.