Part 1 - cimmyt

CIMMYT is an internationally funded, nonprofit scientific research and training organization. Headquartered in Mexico, the Centeris engaged in a research program for maize, wheat, and triticale, with emphasis on improving the productivity of agriculturalresources in developing countries. It is one of 17 nonprofit international agricultural research and training centers supported by theConsultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), which is sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) of the United Nations, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), and the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP). The CGIAR consists of some 40 donor countries, international and regional organizations, andprivate foundations.CIMMYT receives core support through the CGIAR from a number of sources, including the international aid agencies of Australia,Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, France, India, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands,Norway, the Philippines, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the USA, and from the European Economic Commission,Ford Foundation, Inter-American Development Bank, OPEC Fund for International Development, UNDP, and World Bank.CIMMYT also receives non-CGIAR extra-core support from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada, theRockefeller Foundation, and many of the core donors listed above.Responsibility for this publication rests solely with CIMMYT.Abstract: This report presents information on the level of investment in wheat breeding research in developing countries and theimpact of that research, and discusses issues related to assessing returns to wheat improvement research and improving researchefficiency. In 1990, the total estimated investment in wheat improvement research in developing countries was US$ 96 million.Expressed another way, developing countries spent about US$ 0.40 per ton of wheat on improvement research, or about 0.3% of thevalue of production. This research has had a considerable impact in the developing world. Modem varieties of wheat cover 70% ofthe developing country wheat area, and many farmers have replaced older improved varieties with newer ones. Research onimproved spring bread wheat varieties alone has contributed an additional US$ 3 billion in benefits in developing countries in thepast decade. However, results of this study suggest that national agricultural research programs have considerable scope to utilizeresearch resources more efficiently, by rationalizing the number and size of wheat research programs and by examiningopportunities to import technology or collaborate with countries sharing similar production environments.Correct citation: ClMMYT. 1993. 1992/93 CIMMYT World Wheat Facts and Trends. The Wheat Breeding Industry in DevelopingCountries: An Analysis ofInvestments and Impacts. Singapore: CIMMYT.To cite Part 1: Bohn, A., and D. Byerlee. 1993. The Wheat Breeding Industry in Developing Countries: An Analysis ofInvestmentsand Impacts. Part I of 1992/93 CIMMYT World Wheat Facts and Trends. The Wheat Breeding Industry in Developing Countries: AnAnalysis ofInvestments and Impacts. Singapore: CIMMYT.ISSN: 0257-8743ISBN: 968-6127-91-7AGROVOC descriptors: Wheats; plant breeding; research; economic analysis; investment; costs; developing countriesAGRIS category codes: ElO; F30Dewey decimal classification: 338.13Printed in Singapore.

CIMMYT1992/93 World WheatFacts and Trends.,-- ----j~- ---­, '-~:~'--~)The Wheat Breeding Industry inDeveloping Countries: An Analysis ofInvestments and Impacts

ContentsForewordAcknowledgementsIIIivPart 1: The Wheat Breeding Industry in Developing Countries:An Analysis of Investments and ImpactsA Profile of Wheat Research ProgramsThe Costs of Wheat Improvement ResearchThe Products of Wheat Improvement ResearchEstimating the Returns to Investment in Wheat ResearchToward Efficient Allocation of Resources in Wheat Improvement ResearchConclusionsPart 2: The Current World Wheat SituationProductionConsumptionTradeWheat AidThe Proposed European Community Policy ReformEffects of Change in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet UnionConclusionsPart 3: Selected Wheat StatisticsEastern and Southern AfricaWestern and Central AfricaNorth AfricaWest AsiaSouth AsiaSoutheast Asia and PacificEast AsiaMexico, Central America, and the CaribbeanAndean Region, South AmericaSouthern Cone, South AmericaEastern Europe and Former USSRWestern Europe, North America, and Other Industrialized CountriesRegional AggregatesReferences117121721232626262727282828293032343537383940424344465051

AcknowledgementsThe development of this issue of WorldWheat Facts and Trends wascoordinated by Derek Byerlee. Thefeature report in Part 1 on the wheatbreeding industry in developingcountries was written by Andrea Bohnand Derek Byerlee; Andrea Bohn alsowrote Part 2 of the report. Thestatistical tables in Part 3 were preparedby Laura Saad. Design and productionwere coordinated by Miguel Mellado E.The draft was edited by KellyCassaday.It would have been impossible toproduce this Facts and Trends ifscientists throughout the world had notprovided us with detailed informationabout their wheat research. Theirassistance is gratefully acknowledged:O.A. Ageeb, P.R Aldis, F. Altay,M.A Antoun, M. Arican, B. Basilio,G. Beecari, A. Benbelkacem,V.K. Bhatnagar, M.R. Bhatta, B. Bolat,F. Borum, J. Brennan, R. Britto Molina,S.J. Brown, A Bulbul, R.H. Bush,M.A Camacho, I.M. Carraro,Z. Chaofei, M. Chapon, M.H.Chaudhry,B. Chavez Tamayo, A. Daaloul,T. Dasgupta, J.V. Davidson,E. Deambrogio, M. Deghais,A Dekeyser, R.H. Devkota, R Dhari,P. D'Hertefelt, A.E. Firat,D.W. Feuerhelm, Getinet Gebaheyu,L. Germantsev, E.H. Ghanem,B. Giorgi, P.G. Goertz, D. Gogas,V. Golik, L.J. Gonzalez, K. Gotzov,A. Gul, M. Hanis, N.1. Hashmi,S. He-xian, K. Hjortsholm,L. Hongling, E.J. lorczewski,B.S. Jadon, J.M. Jager, L. Jestin,W. Jizhong, M. Jlibeue, N. Johansson,S.M. Kara, N. Kayitmazbatir,AW. Khattak, J.M. Kiss, E.1. Kivi,O.A. Klein, c.1. Kling, W.E. Kronstad,M.R. Lodhi, G. Lohan, S.V. Kyfenko,B.M. Macas, N.G. Machado,T. Mahlooji, P.K. Majumdar,J. Martinez Santana,N.A. Mashirigwani, J. Matuz,R.G. Matzenbacher, F. Montes,RG. Mora Herwig, M.S. Moughal,S. Muyanga, G.S. Nanda,E.D. Nettevich, E. Ngayempore,K. Ning, M. Obrero Serrano, C.E. deOliveira Camargo, A.P. Orlyuk,H. Ozcan, J.M. Pinto, V.A Pisarenko,M.E. Pomela, R. Pradhan, R.K. Rai,I. Ramirez A, A.J. Rathjen,M. Rivadeneira, D. Sakar, G.M. Salah,lAM. Sanchez, N.N. Saulescu,R. Schachschneider, H. Schvartzman,M.S. Shelembi, J. Shoran, A. Shreidi,0.1. Silvero Sanz, R.K. Singh,M. Sorrels, W. Sowa, O. Stolen,L.W. Suijs, S. Suleiman, L. Svuboda,J.P. Tandon, W. Tawil, I. Todorov,R. Trethowan, M. Truttet, J.M. Urbano,N.S. Vassiltechouk, S.V. Velankar,M.C.l Velasco L., R.P. Verges,D. Vial, R. von Broock, J.K. Wanjama,R. Ward, Y. Yanhua, M.L. Yu,L. Yuejian, P. Zhang, D. Zhao,X. Zhaofei, L.A Zhivotkov, andV. Zykin. In addition, scientists fromIAPAR (Brazil), ITGC (Algeria), andthe Research Institute at Akcakale(Turkey) provided useful information.Many CIMMYT outreach staff alsoassisted with data collection: S. Ahmed,H. Braun, Bantayehu Gelaw,H.J. Dubin, M.M. Kholi, C. Mann,C. Meisner, G. Ortiz Ferrara, M. Saade,and D. Tanner. We appreciate theirefforts. We also thank Michael Morrisand Colleen Clancy for designing andimplementing the survey of wheatresearch programs.Finally, the authors wish to thank manycolleagues who reviewed drafts of thispaper and made suggestions, includingH. Braun, J. Brennan, R.A. Fischer,P. Fox, L. Harrington, G. Hettel,M. Lopez-Pereira, M. Maredia,M. Morris, W. Mwangi, G. OrtizFerrara, P. Pardey, S. Rajaram,R.Rowe, G. Traxler,G. Varughese, and D. Winkelmann.

Part 1: Wheat Breeding Research in f ­DevelopingCountries:Investments and ImpactsAndrea Bohn and Derek ByerleeBetween 1961-65 and 1981-85,investment in agricultural research indeveloping countries rose in real termsat an annual rate of 6.2% (Pardey,Roseboom, and Anderson 1991). At leasttwo major factors stimulated this risinginvestment. First, the rapid growth inrice and wheat yields that resulted fromthe development and adoption ofsemidwarf varieties provided an exampleof what agricultural research couldaccomplish. Second, a growing body ofstudies suggested that investment inagricultural research provided higheconomic payoffs and that technicalchange in food crop production, broughtabout through research, could be an"engine of growth" for developingcountries.The way that agricultural research wasorganized in developing countries alsochanged significantly between 1960 and1980. Many agricultural researchsystems were reorganized intocommodity research teams, usually ledby a national coordinator. Now mostcountries in the developing world havenational wheat research programs thatrange from one centralized group ofscientists to an extended network ofseveral hundred scientists working inmore than 50 research centers. Theinvestment in these programs hasundoubtedly achieved success. Over thepast three decades, wheat yields indeveloping countries have grown at afaster rate than yields of any other foodcommodity.However, the environment in whichagricultural research is conducted haschanged markedly in the 1980s and early1990s. Expenditures on agriculturalresearch in the public sector havestagnated. In many countries, especiallyin sub-Saharan Africa and LatinAmerica, real expenditures havedeclined. Both national researchprograms and international researchcenters, such as CIMMYT, have had torationalize resource allocations; in somecases they have sharply curtailedresearch programs. Although the tasksfacing agricultural research appear morechallenging than ever, fewer resourcesare available to help researchersaccomplish their objectives.This report provides the first in-depthexamination of investment in wheatbreeding research in developingcountries, with the aim of identifying thekey policy issues that researchadministrators must address in the nextdecade if wheat research is to remaineffective. Nearly 100 wheat researchprograms were surveyed to obtain aperspective on wheat improvementresearch across countries (see the box,"Sources of Information for ThisReport"). Our report begins with adescription of the characteristics ofdeveloping country wheat researchprograms. We then estimate the level ofresources currently invested in wheatimprovement research in developingcountries. Next, we describe the productsof wheat improvement research, discussthe issues in computing economic returnsto wheat research investments, andreview evidence from studies of returnsto wheat research. We conclude ourstudy - which we regard as a first steptoward measuring the costs and benefitsof developing country wheat research ­by identifying the types of analysisrequired to guide research resourceallocation in a climate of growingresource scarcity for agriculturalresearch.A Profile of WheatResearch ProgramsThe results of our survey enabled us todevelop a profile of wheat researchprograms in developing countries. Threesets of characteristics are useful forcomparing these programs: the size anddiversity of their mandate areas, the sizeand composition of their scientific staff,and their primary breeding goals. Eachset of characteristics is discussedbriefly below.Size and diversity of the mandate areaAll wheat research programs areresponsible for a "mandate wheat area"to which they target the products of theirresearch. Usually this area is defined bypolitical boundaries. The average size ofthe mandate area of the developingcountry wheat research programssurveyed in this study is 1.3 millionhectares (M ha), with a median size of600,000 ha. However, the size of themandate area varies tremendously fromprogram to program, ranging from anaverage of 27,000 ha for the 8 smallestwheat research programs to an averageof 3.9 M ha for the I] largest ones(Figure I).Many of the small programs are locatedin sub-Saharan Africa (their averagemandate area is 0.2 M ha), whereas thelarge programs are concentrated in Asia(Figure]). The average mandate areaof the high-income industrializedcountries surveyed is 2 M ha, which isthe same as the average for Asia butmuch larger than the average of alldeveloping countries surveyed. Inaddition, the range of sizes of mandateareas is somewhat narrower forindustrialized countries than for

1992/93 World Wheal Facts and TrendsMandate area (M hal2.01.51.00.0Sub· W.AsiaJ Latin Asia High·Saharan N.Africa America incomeAfricacountriesFigure 1. Average size of the mandate areaof wheat research programs, by region.Source: CIMMYT 1992 Survey of Wheat ResearchPrograms.Programs usingthe criteria (%)100 ------------­806040developing countries. Only 20% of theresearch programs in industrializedcountries have mandate areas of lessthan 0.5 M ha, compared to 37% of theprograms in developing countries.However, it should be noted thatmandate areas overlap more inindustrialized countries than indeveloping countries, since manyindustrialized country programs arerun by the private sector and competein the same mandate area.Aside from size, the complexity of amandate area is also a significantdistinguishing characteristic. Thecomplexity of a mandate area can bemeasured by the number of distinctrecommendations that must be made tocover the diversity of wheat types andenvironments in the area. This studyuses the standard classification of wheattypes by species - bread wheat(Triticum aestivum) and durum wheat (T.turgidum CV durum) - and by growthhabit - spring or winter. Althoughmany wheat research programs conductresearch on triticale, barley, andsometimes other crops, most programswork on only one or two kinds of wheat.Programs in West Asia and North Africa(WANA) work on the greatest diversityof wheat types, because all four types ofwheat are prevalent in the region.In addition to working with an averageof 1.6 different wheat types, eachresearch program identifies an averageof 3.4 agroclimatic environments in itsmandate area (Table 1). Although thenumber of environments increases withthe size of the mandate area, even theprograms whose mandate areas aresmallest average 2.4 environments.Research programs most commonly useabiotic characteristics to delineate theagroclimatic environments in theirmandate areas. Moisture availability isthe most frequently mentioned definingcharacteristic (Figure 2). Across all ofthe research programs, wheatenvironments are divided evenlybetween irrigated areas, high rainfallareas, and low rainfall areas (less than500 mm rainfall during or just prior tothe wheat season). The irrigated areasare concentrated in Asia and low-rainfallareas in WANA. Soil-related factors arealso mentioned more frequently thanbiotic stresses, such as diseases, asimportant characteristics for delineatingenvironments. Time to maturity ismentioned as an important characteristicfor determining agroclimaticenvironments by two-thirds of programsin Asia but by only a little over one-fifthof programs in WANA. (This reflectsconcern to fit wheat into more intensivecropping systems of Asia.)20oMoisture Soil DiseaseTemperature/ Maturity OtherelevationbioticfactorsFigure 2. Use of different criteria to delineateenvironments for wheat improvementresearch.Source: CIMMYT 1992 Survey of Wheat ResearchPrograms.Table 1. Average number of wheat types and environments in the mandate area of a wheatimprovement programRegion Number of wheat types- Number of environmentsSub·Saharan Africa 1.3 3.2W.Asia/N.Africa 2.2 3.0Asia 1.3 3.4Latin America 1.7 3.8All developing countries 1.6 3.4All industrialized countries 2.1 2.9Source: CIMMYT 1992 Survey of Wheat Research Programs.a Bread wheat (spring, winter), durum wheat (spring, winter), feed types, biscuit types, etc.

Part 1: Wheat Breeding Research In Developing Countries: Investments and ImpactsSources of Informationfor This ReportTo obtain the data fI r thi. report.OMMYTonducted three .urveys of wheat researchprograms between J990 anti 1993. In 1990an intensive survey of research impactscovered all developing countrie that producewheal.. except f r mo I of China. The 38countries re ponding 10 thi survey providedinformation on varietal release •adoption.and overall levels of ientific invesbDenl inwheal re earch.*The CIMMYT 1992 Survey fWheatRe earth PmgnuTIJ coUected more detailedinformation on individual wheatimprovement program . ( wheaLresearcbprogram j' a researcb inslitute. public orprivate, with a mandate to conduct researchon wheat: it i' u ually idenlified with oneexperiment '(ation.) The urvey Will returnedby 70 program' from 31) countrie . includingChina (see Tahle . The developing countriwho responded cover 94% of the devel pingworld' I tal wheat area and account for97% of it total wheal production. Anabridged version f the urve was, ent towlieat improvement pmgrdm inindustrialized countri~ to obtaininformation on key ariable' lIlat wouJdallow u. 10 make comparisons betweenwheal program In developing andindustrialized ount.rl . Wh re po ible.these urvey included privare a: well Ill'public 'ector rt..;earch program .orne of the data in !hi report are pre 'enteda national estimates. Severcll researchprogram' that re 'ponded to our secondurvcy are the only wh at improvementprogram in their countri and have thenational mandate for wheat breedingresearch. When we received response fromall of the wbeat programs m an individualcountry we computed nationaJ esl1ma baggregating over programs. For f, wlargecountrie where coverage was incomplete(ful'key. India, China, Mexico), l1mafor th national-level variables were takento be either the average of the re.~nreceived, assuming thal the respondingprogram. were representative of the nation.Of were projected to the nati nallevel. Inseveral ca es. secondary ources were u cdto . upplemem urvey response .This InfQT11lilll n hill been IllIiIlyze

POII'll: Wheat Breeding Research in Developing Countries: Investments and Impacts-5_A ShortHistory of Wheat Breedingin DevelopingCounbiesCon~ci· u. selection r ~lJperior plums hu.been practiced lnte the beginning ofagriculture. but delJberatc ~"'Q -breedingbegan only shout 170 years ago. Research onwheat breeding in developing coulllrie"commenced ar lind thc cnu of the 19th• ntury. The mo t omprchen ive f th 'eeffort w~ in lndUl, which w.as then animportant wheal exporter. election hegunamong line!\ introduced from u 1nI1in andelsewhere to impro the quality f wheat (orthe xp rt market and t improve ro.1re i1itunee 1m t epidernic~ decimated wheat in,orne part of the coUntry almost every year).Un~ nunately. (he JntroJu cd line.~ had littlesucce s. fonnal wheat ee 'fIrch progr.amW . initiated in 1906 With the apr intmen! orGabrielle and lbert (Iuler Sir lhert)Howard to the reo earch lalian in Pu, II inn rthea lern lncJ]a. The Howards oUecledlocal "'heat varieties. 'electing amonglhem for high yl -Id. ro I reo i tance, andgood quality.The air 'I succes. I'll! variet wa rel~, eel in191:! and eventually doplecl on a . ignificantarea (Pray I 41. oon afterward. ahybridizati In program W3S tart d Icombine the be t cbamcteristic, of the localv.heat . B. conducting IV. \ brecuing cy Ieeach year in tW) eparal" IOt.:ati n . u ing II.nmmer "nurser •in Querta for lhe ,tIC nilycle. the Huward pi neered what Wit! laterknown a' .. hunJe breeding." They alsorecogrnzed Ihat if superior vati tie, l1reproduced they will be ad pled. Writing in theearl~ part of Ihi. ccntury. \ben Howardob. erved Ihat:II used It be an axiom Ihal the Indiancultivator wili adopt nothing new, Thiri n It true. IHh profit i greal enough.he will ad pt anything.... The differencebelweelllmprove1.lcces 1'1I1 wheat varieties. who~cmam advaDlJlge WllJ impn ved rustr si.um e. had been relea 'cd. Thi program.the predcce 'or of CNMYT. quicklye lJlbli!ihedlin to Rocke~ lIer- ponoredeffort in Col mbia lind Chile. leading to thefir t widespread e change oj gennpl m inthe r gilln.Beginning in Ihe 1960~. wh III breeding Inde el ping countrie. changed rapidly. fortwo reason:. Fir·t. technical as ' t n'e f I'increasing food. 1'011 production Wil.initiated: to accornpillih thi. o~iectivt:.iDlcrdisciplinary cornm it)' re arch teamand '\~lrdinated nati nill rc wch prolo!ramwere funned. ODe of the earliest of lhesepI' gram,. Ihe All India 0 Irdinaleu WheatRe. earu.h PI' gram. was e tabUlIhed In 196\Tundun and Sethi 1996). e

J992/93 World Wheat Facts and Trendssupport staff (Table 2). For example,developing country programs employ 10scientists, compared to four inindustrialized countries; furthermore, themandate area of the average wheatresearch program in developingcountries is only one-half of that inindustrialized countries.The number of scientists and number ofcrosses made are good indicators of theallocation of wheat research resourcesacross wheat types. Table 3 comparesthe number of scientists and crosses ineach region of the developing world withthe relative importance of wheat,indicated by the size of the area plantedto wheat. In general the allocation ofresources is quite consistent with theimportance of each wheat type at theglobal and regional levels.When the productivity of research isstudied. the importance of maintenanceresearch to crop improvement programsis often overlooked. "Maintenanceresearch" is the part of whealimprovement research directed atmaintaining yields despite changingbiotic and abiotic conditions. Breedingprograms devote considerable resourcesto maintenance research, which consistsmostly of maintaining disease resistance.The wheat research programs respondingto our survey estimate that they devote28% of their wheat improvement effortsto this task. By far the most importantcomponent of maintenance research isthe work focusing on incorporating newsources of resistance to the evolving rustpathogens, especially leaf rust (Pucciniarecondita). Most programs also estimatethat the share of resources dedicated tomaintenance research has grown overthe past decade.The international nature of most wheatbreeding programs is evident from thesources of the germplasm used in theircrosses (Table 4). By far the mostimportant sources for disease resistancegenes are breeding programs' ownadvanced lines, lines from CIMMYTnurseries, or Jines from the jointbreeding program of CIMMYT and theInternational Center for AgriculturalResearch in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).Breeders also make extensive use ofadvanced Iines l from other programs inthe same country or from otherBreeding goalsThe heads of wheat research programswere asked to rank 14 breeding goalsaccording to their relative importance(results of this ranking for spring breadwheat are illustrated in Figure 4). Yieldand yield stability are rated as the mostimportant goals (as one would expect),followed closely by disease resistance.Grain quality, early maturity, anddrought tolerance all received mediumrankings. Tolerance to abiotic stressesother than drought generally received alow priority, especially stresses relatedto soil problems. These results aresomewhat at variance with the rankingof factors used to delineate wheatproduction environments. where abioticstresses were very important. Thisdiscrepancy may reflect the relativedifficulty of breeding to overcomeabiotic stresses compared to bioticstresses.IAdvanced lines are strains of wheat that haveundergone considerable improvement; they arethe precursors of finished varieties.Table 2. Size of wheat research programs in developing and industrialized countries, 1992Number ofNumber of support staff per programscientistsRegion per programS Technicians LaborersSub-Saharan Africa 9.6 9.7 21.1W. Asia/N. Africa 11.9 5.2 13.0Asia 11.1 9.3 20.0Latin America 8.7 5.0 6.8All developing countries 10.5 7.1 14.8Industrialized countries 4.3 2.2 naSource: CIMMYT 1992 Survey of Wheat Research Programs.a Includes all scientists, whether full or part time, both in crop improvement and in cropmanagement research.na not available.Table 3. Relationship between area, percent of crosses made, and percent of scientists,by wheat type--VariableBread wheat Durumwheat AllwheattypesPercent of area 73.5 15.2 10.9 0.4 100Percent of crosses 73.3 13.7 11.9 1.1 100Percent of scientists 72.3 14.7 12.5 0.5 100Source: CIMMYT 1992 Survey of Wheat Research Programs.

Part I: Wheat Breeding Research in Developing Countries: Investrnents and Impactscountries. They use land races onlyinfrequently.2 There are somedifferences among the regions in the useand exchange of germplasm, however.For example, in sub-Saharan Africaresearch programs have less opportunityto use germplasm from another programin the same country (the mandate areasand number of research programs forYIeldGrain yieldStabilityStraw yieldQiiiltljBakingProteinDiseaseInsectsDroughtHeatColdSproutingAcidsoils _Salinity •1.43.12.91.43.43.02.51.81.61.00.6Figure 4. Average ranking of breeding prioritiesfor spring bread wheat (5 =highest, 0 =lowest).Source: CIMMYT 1992 Survey of Wheat ResearchPrograms.each area are small). Asian countries arerelatively more self-sufficient ingermplasm because they are larger.Furthermore, Chinese research instituteswork mostly with winter wheat, whereasthe bulk of CIMMYT germplasm isspring wheat.The Costs of WheatImprovement ResearchEstimating the cost of wheatimprovement researchOnly a small number of the countries wesurveyed could provide a comprehensiveestimate of the amount of moneyinvested in wheat research. One reasonfor this is that it is not always easy tomake such an estimate. The firstdifficulty is determining what costs toinclude. A comprehensive estimate ofcosts should include direct operatingcosts, salaries and fringe benefits,overheads (such as generaladministration), experiment stationexpenditures, and support services (suchas laboratories and libraries). In addition,annualized capital costs of fixed assetssuch as buildings should be added.A second problem is to define what toinclude in wheat research. A comprehensivedefinition would include allresearch related to wheat, from wheatbreeding to crop and resourceTable 4. Major sources of disease resistance used in wheat breeding programsSourceLand race varieties of local origin 15Land race varieties of foreign origin 11Program's own advanced lines 77Advanced lines from other programs in the same country 37Advanced lines from other countries 41Lines from CIMMYT or CIMMYT/ICARDA nurseries 77Source: CIMMYT 1992 Survey of Wheal Research Programs.-_.-of-'~management and socioeconomicresearch. In practice, most countriesidentify "wheat research" with theactivities of distinct wheat researchprograms. As we have seen, theseprograms usually are oriented heavilytowards wheat breeding and theassociated disciplines supporting thedevelopment of varieties. Much of themore basic research, such as research onwheat genetics and much of the researchon crop and resource management, isdone in other research programs andinstitutes, such as a molecular biologylaboratory or a soil fertility program. Forthis study, we decided to focus onresources devoted to applied research onwheat aimed at developing varieties ­that is, wheat improvement.Various methods have been used todivide up research expenditures by crop,including indices based on the share ofpublications related to each crop (e.g.,Judd. Boyce, and Evenson 1983) and theshare of experiments to each crop (e.g.,Traxler and Byerlee 1992). Both of thesemethods also provide a measure of theallocation of research resources bydiscipline. Another method, the one weconsider most appropriate, is to identifythe number of scientists involved in aparticular kind of research and multiplythis number by the expenditure perscientist to arrive at the totalexpenditure. Estimates for expenditureper researcher are available from varioussources. For example, Pardey,Roseboom. and Anderson (1991) provideestimates based on the average annualexpenditure per researcher and countryfor J981-85. Expenditures per researcherinclude far more than the cost of the2 Land races are cultivars that have evolvedthrough natural and human selection over a longperiod but have not been subject to modemscientific breeding.

1992/93 World WheatFacts and Trendsresearcher's salary and fringe benefits.They include a share of all the costsoutlined above as well as the salaries ofsupport staff assigned to the researcher.Aside from the difficulties involved inobtaining these estimates, the need tocompare wheat research expendituresacross countries presents othercomplications. Expenditu"res can beconverted to a common currency(usually the US dollar), but this is not assimple as it appears. Problems arisebecause of multiple exchange rates insome countries, day-to-day fluctuationsin currencies, and frequent over- orundervaluation of currencies.Increasingly, the Purchasing PowerParity (PPP) exchange rate is used tomake cost comparisons across countries. 3The cost of a basket of goods in the USserves as the reference base (that is,US$ 1.0 spent in the US is worth exactlyUS$ 1.0 PPP). Compared to the officialexchange rate, the PPP exchange ratetends to increase expenditure data indeveloping countries. This occursbecause the cost of services is generallylower in these countries than in the US.The reverse is true for many Europeancountries.Obviously, estimating the number ofscientists engaged in crop improvementresearch is the key task for arriving at anoverall estimate of research costs. Eventhis can be difficult. First, one shouldinclude the disciplines other than plantbreeding that support wheatimprovement. Second, many scientistsdo not work full time on wheat research,so the number of scientists should beconverted to full-time equivalents (FTE,or scientist-years). Third, the definitionof a scientist must be standardized acrosscountries. The survey data providedinformation on each scientist'sdisciplinary field, level of training, andtime devoted to wheat breeding research,seed production, crop managementresearch, and administration. Thenumber of scientist-years assigned towheat improvement research was takento include all time spent on the first twoactivities as well as each researcher'srelative share of administration,regardless of the researcher'sdisciplinary field. Only staff with a BScdegree or above were considered.The number of scientist-years derivedfrom the survey data were converted to1990 US dollars using the cost perscientist at the PPP exchange ratederived from Pardey, Roseboom, andAnderson (1991).4 This method has thedisadvantage of assuming that the costper scientist is the same for wheatresearch as for the research system as awhole. However, we have no reason tosuspect that the cost of wheat researchdeviates greatly from the average cost ofresearch for other commodities. Themajor advantage of this method is that itincludes all overhead costs and is abetter way of aggregating and comparingexpenditures across countries. 5In the sections that follow, totalexpenditures on wheat research areestimated at two levels: for individualprograms and for all wheat researchprograms in each country. The costestimates are based on the number ofFTE scientists in wheat improvement,derived from our survey data and thecost per scientist reported by Pardey etal. Although we have reasonableestimates of variables for individualresearch programs, the data at thecountry level are more problematic. Thisis especially true for large countries,which may have numerous wheatprograms in the public research sector,universities, and the private sector,which must be aggregated to the countrylevel. Hence country-level data shouldbe interpreted with caution.Program-level expenditureson wheat researchDifferences in salaries are an importantsource of differences in costs of wheatresearch. One measure of thesedifferences is the annual salary of ascientist and an unskilled laborer (Table5). Salaries for scientists are highest inresearch programs in Latin America andWANA and lowest in Asia. However,the salary of a scientist relative to alaborer is highest in sub-Saharan Africa.A researcher's salary is only a small partof the total cost of a researcher, for thereasons noted above. Latin America andWANA are still relatively high-costregions, although the cost per scientist insub-Saharan Africa is also high (Table5). The cost per scientist in Asia is by farthe lowest. For all the programssurveyed in developing countries,the average PPP cost per scientist wasUS$ 86,000, compared to a cost per3 See Pardey and Roseboom (1989).4 Pardey. Roseboom, and Anderson (l99t) express cost per scientist-year in 1980 US dollars. Followingthe World Bank approach (World Bank 1993), we have approximated 1990 US dollars by inflating thiscost by the US consumer price index. Our methodology assumes that expenditures on wheatimprovement research have neither decreased nor increased in real terms. In actual fact, expendituresper researcher have been declining in the majority of developing countries (on average by 2.4%annually from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, as reported in Pardey, Roseboom, and Anderson 1991).To the extent that expenditures per scientist have continued to decline, our method will overestimateexpenditures in the early 1990s.5 This method of calculating research expenditures differs from the method used to calculate expenditureson maize research reported in the last issue of Facls and Trends (Morris, Clancy. and L6pez-Pereira1992). Thus readers should not make direct comparisons of expenditures given in the two reports.

Part 1: Wheat Breeding Research in Developmg Countries: Investments and Impactsscientist in the industrialized countriesstudied of US$ 133,000. When theofficial exchange rate is used, the costper scientist in developing countries isUS$ 53,000, about one-third of whatit is in industrialized countries(US$ 152,000).Given the PPP estimate of the cost perscientist and the number of scientists,the cost of a wheat research program isUS$ 610,000 in developing countries,compared to US$ 280,000 in the sampleof industrialized countries. Expressed indollars at the official exchange rate, thecost of a wheat research programapproaches US$ 380,000 in developingcountry programs and US$ 320,000 inindustrialized countries. The lowernumber of scientists in industrializedcountry programs explains their loweroverall cost.These broad comparisons of researchcosts across programs do not account fordifferences in research costs arisingfrom differences in the size of aprogram's mandate area or the level ofwheat production in the mandate area.A better comparative measure ofexpenditures among programs isobtained by looking at research intensityindicators that take these differencesinto account. Table 6 expresses differentmeasures of research intensity of wheatresearch programs. 6 By all measures,two factors stand out. First, the number6Reporting research intensities for a specificwheat program assumes that the mandate areafor that program is unique to that program. Infact, as noted earlier, a given region may havemore than one wheat research program, andthese programs may have overlapping mandates(e.g.. a government research station and auniversity). Likewise, varieties from a givenresearch program often are used outside of themandate area of the program that developed thevariety. For these reasons, caution must be usedin interpreting research intensities at theprogram level presented in this report.Table 5. Salaries of scientists and laborers in wheat research by region, 1990 (at officialexchange rate)RegionSub-Saharan Africa 5,000 2,400 600 57,000 113,000W. Asia/N. Africa 8,000 5,500 2,900 74,000 100,000Asia 2,000 900 300 24,000 57,000Latin America 18,100 5,300 2,200 78,000 117,000All programs 7,100 3,500 1,600 53,000 86,000Source: CIMMYT 1992 Survey of Wheat Research Program and Pardey, Roseboom, and Anderson (1991).Table 6. Research intensities by program and size groupResearch expenditure intensityNumber of•scientistsCost per;' variety releasedmandate tons of ,. , . . -. (0001990wheat area wheat . .. • ,. .I' . US$ PPP)Developing country programs< 0.1 M ha 55.4 4.56 2.03 5640.1 - 0.5 M ha 6.9 1.01 0.57 8440.5 - 1.0 M ha 4.9 0.47 0.16 5521.0 - 2.5 M ha 32 0.18 0.07 709> 2.5 Mha 1.0 0.09 0.04 818Size of per million .. :....All developing countriesWeighted 2.5 0.21 0.09 696Unweighted 18.0 1.75 0.79 1,172Industrialized country programs< 0.1 M ha 3.0 0.39 0.34 2110.1 - 0.5 M ha 1.1 0.10 0.08 1900.5 - 1.0 M ha 0.6 0.08 0.06 3251.0 - 2.5 M ha 0.3 0.04 0.03 388> 2.5 M ha 0.1 0.01 0.01 425All industrialized country programsWeighted 0.2 0.03 0.02 330Unweighted 0.8 0.08 0.06 372Source: CIMMYT 1992 Survey of Wheat Research Programs.a Research expenditures are expressed at the official exchange rate because the value of wheat productionwas calculated using a standard international wheat price.

1992/93 World Wheat Facls and Trendsof researchers per million hectaresdecreases dramatically as the size of themandate area increases (Figure 5), andtherefore the cost of wheat researchdecreases as well. The relative costs ofsmall programs whose mandate areascover less than 100,000 ha of wheat areseveral times the costs of large programs.Research expenditure per ton of wheat isseveral times higher for small programs.This has important implications forregional comparisons, since, forexample, most Asian research programsare large whereas most programs in sub­Saharan Africa are small. Second, andsomewhat more surprising, researchcosts and intensities in developingcountries, with the exception of the largeprograms in Asia, are higher than inindustrialized countries. This isparticularly true for the unweightedmeasures of research intensities, whichare a simple average across programs.One reason for this difference is thesmaller mandate area and larger numberof scientists per program in developingcountries, which more than compensatefor their lower cost per scientist. On theother hand, mandate areas moreResearchers per Mha200150• •100500••frequently overlap in industrializedcountries, which explains part of thedifference in research intensities.A common measure of research intensityis the ratio of research expenditures tothe value added in wheat production. 7 Inpractice, it is difficult to compute valueadded. As an approximation, the value ofwheat production is calculated bymultiplying the amount of wheatproduced by a standard wheat price. Inthe case of food grains, a share of 2.0%of the value of production is often usedas a benchmark for recommendingresearch investments (World Bank1981). Since we are considering only theinvestment in wheat improvement, amore appropriate benchmark would be1.0% of the value of production,assuming that half of all wheat researchis devoted to wheat improvement(Byerlee 1993c). Programs havingmandate areas of 0.1 M ha have anaverage share of about 2.0%, whilelarger programs have shares of 0.5% orless (Table 6). In contrast, all programsin industrialized countries have average•research intensities that are far less than1.0%.Another measure of research expenditureis the cost per variety developed by aprogram. On average, this varies fromabout US$ 0.3 million in industrializedcountries to US$ 0.7 million indeveloping countries (the respectivefigures in dollars at the official exchangerate are US$ 0.37 million and US$ 0.44million). The estimate for industrializedcountries is consistent with other studies(Brennan 1988, Perrson 1990, andMcMullen 1987). However, therelatively high cost per variety releasedin developing countries has not beendocumented previously.Country-level expenditureson wheat researchFrom the survey and from secondarysources we can estimate the totalexpenditures on wheat improvementresearch for individual countries and forall developing countries. Since mostcountries support more than one wheatbreeding program, data must beaggregated over several and sometimesmany programs, and errors are likely tobe greater than for estimates ofexpenditures at the program level.However, because mandate areas ofmany wheat breeding programs overlap,country-level information provides amore accurate measure of researchintensities than program-levelinformation.Several large countries average aboutone wheat breeding program for each1 million tons of wheat produced, but insmaller countries the average is-500.1 0.51.0 2.0 3.0 6.0Size of the mandate wheat area (M halFigure 5. Economies of scale in wheat improvement research.Source: CIMMYT 1992 Survey of Wheal Research Programs.7 In calculating this ratio, research expenditureswere not based on PPP dollars but wereexpressed in dollars at the official exchange ralebecause a standard international wheat pricewas used.

Part 1: Wheat Breeding Reseru'ch in DevelopIng COlmtrtes: Investments and Impactsobviously much less, because totalnational wheat production was less than 1million tons in 16 of the countriessurveyed. We have included the USA andAustralia by way of comparison. Both ofthese countries average about one wheatbreeding program for every 1-1.5 milliontons of wheat produced (Brennan 1986,James 1990).About 1,100 scientists work in wheatimprovement in developing countries(Table 7). Nearly half of them work inthe two largest wheat-producingcountries, India and China. The numberof wheat improvement researchers in agiven country is higher, the higher thelevel of wheat production is in thatcountry (this is the same pattern observedat the program level). Countries in sub­Saharan Africa support an average ofonly four scientists in wheatimprovement for an average productionof 0.3 million tons. In contrast, Asiancountries have an average of 142 wheatscientists for an average wheatproduction of 32 million tons. Thenumber of scientists per million tons ofwheat (between four and five) is similarin Asia and in the two industrializedcountries for which data are available.However, 15 developing countries whosewheat areas do not reach 0.5 M hasupport more than 10 scientists permillion tons of wheat. As a result, theunweighted average for all developingcountries is 31 scientists per million tonsof wheat.In 1990, the total estimated investmentin wheat improvement research indeveloping countries was US$ 96million. (For comparison, at the officialexchange rate this would be US$ 58million.) Expressed another way,developing countries spend aboutUS$ 0.40 per ton of wheat onimprovement research, or about 0.3%of the value of production. The USAspends about US$ 0.70 per ton of wheatproduced. The 15 small developingcountries having less than 0.5 M ha ofwheat spend an average of US$ 4.0 forevery ton of wheat (Figure 6).High-income cou~n_tr_IM0.1-0.5 M ha..I0.4070.70.31.016030.80.6Expenditure(1990 US$PPP per ton)Figure 6. Research expenditure per ton ofwheat produced nationally, by region and sizeof national wheat area.Source' CIMMYT 1992 Survey of Wheat ResearchProgramsTable 7. Country-level expenditures on wheat research, by region, 1990Average Number of Total Rese8rChnumber sclentletl I'88QfCh costNumber of of sclenttats Totalper expenditures perlonscIentlsts Inwheit wheat mlffiontons (million ofwheetNumber of In wheat Improvement production Qfwl\e8t 1990 (1990countries Improvement per country (million tons) J produced USSPpp) USSPPP)Sub-SaharanAfrica 6 27 4 2 14.3 3 162W. Asia/N. Africa 9 283 31 39 7.2 38 0.95Asia 5 710 142 162 4.4 41 0.25Latin America 11 123 11 20 60 14 0.71All developingcountries 31 1,142 37 224 5.1 96 0.43(30.5)a(3.15)aAustralia 72 72 14 5.3 6 0.43USA 278 278 60 4.6 44 0.73Source' See Bohn (1993) for details. The estimate of number of FTE scientists In the US IS based on Huffman and Evenson (1993). Kallon, Rlcnardson. and Frey (1989), aswell as the survey responses. while the estimate for Australia IS taken from Clements, Roslelle. and Hlllon (1992)a Unwe1ghted averages.

1992/93 World Wheat Facts and TrendsThese estimates confirm that developingcountries invest considerable resourcesin wheat improvement research.However, except for the smallestcountries, the difference betweendeveloping countries and industrializedcountries is not as marked at the countrylevel as at the program level, for tworeasons. First, the mandate areas ofindustrialized country programs,especially private sector researchprograms, overlap. Second, nationalestimates for wheat research in the USAand Australia include the costs of a gooddeal of basic research (especially inmolecular biology) and graduate trainingthat are not included in the developingcountry estimates.These data can be compared withestimates of total wheat researchexpenditures in developing countries inthe 1970s of US$ 67 million (excludingthe two large wheat producers, Chinaand Iran) (Judd, Boyce, and Evenson1983). Considering that we haveincluded only wheat improvementresearch here, and deflating to 1980dollars, the figures are of the same orderof magnitude.Finally, to obtain a more complete ideaof expenditures on wheat improvementresearch in developing countries, thecosts of wheat improvement byCIMMYT must be included. In 1990,CIMMYT (including the joint CIMMYTIICARDA program) spent about US$ 8.2million on wheat improvement research,or about US$ 0.03 per ton of wheatproduced in the developing world.The overall picture emerging from thisanalysis is that, on average, wheatresearch expenditures in developingcountries are comparable to or higherthan levels in industrialized countries.However, the aggregate data disguise thedominant role of a few large developingcountries, especially China and India,where expenditures per unit of wheatoutput are relatively low. At the oppositeend of the spectrum are the 16 countriesproducing less than I million tons ofwheat, whose research expenditures arehigh compared to those of largeproducers in developing andindustrialized countries. This raisesquestions about whether the levels ofinvestment in wheat improvementresearch in smaller countries areefficient. We will return to the issue ofefficiency later in this report, afterdiscussing both the products of wheatimprovement research and ways ofmeasuring the returns to research.The Products of WheatImprovement ResearchHaving examined the level of resourcesthat developing countries invest in wheatresearch, we now take a look at theproducts of their investment. The outputsof a wheat improvement researchprogram can be measured by variousindicators. Perhaps the simplest indicatoris the rate at which new wheat varietiesare released. Although a program thatdoes not release varieties is clearlyunsuccessful, a program that releasesmany varieties that farmers never adoptalso has little impact. To be adopted byfarmers, varieties must provide sometangible benefit. This benefit can takethe form of higher yields or simplymaintenance of yields, improved yieldstability, better quality, or some otherdesirable characteristic. The sections thatfollow discuss all of these elements ofresearch success, from the release andadoption of new varieties to the reasonsfor their adoption.Varietal releasesThe number of varieties releasedannually in developing countries hasincreased steadily since 1966. In the1980s, developing countries (excludingChina) released an average of about 65varieties every year, which translates toabout one variety per million hectares ofwheat. Smaller wheat producers releasemore varieties annually for every millionhectares cropped to wheat (in otherwords, they have a higher intensity ofvarietal releases) than large countries,Percentage of all varieties100 ­80 ­6040 ­o1966-70 71-75 76-80 81-85 86-90CIMMYT crossCIMMYT parent­o Non-CIMMYT semidwarfNon-CIMMYT tall varietyFigure 7. Trends in the origin of spring breadwheat varieties in developing countries,1966·90.Source: Byerlee and Moya (1993).Area (M hal Wheat area (%)50 80403020100 01965 70 75 80 85 90Figure 8. Adoption of semidwarf wheatvarieties in developing countries, 1966·90.Source: Byerlee and Moya (1993).Note: Excludes China.70605040302010

Part1: Wheat Breeding Research in Developing Countries: Investments and Impactswhich have larger wheat productionenvironments. This situation isparticularly common in the smallAfrican countries, but Latin Americancountries also release varieties at a muchhigher rate than countries in otherregions.Over the past 25 years, the proportion ofsemidwarf wheat varieties among thewheat varieties released has keptgrowing. From 1966 to 1970, about halfof the spring bread wheat varietiesreleased were semidwarfs. During the1970s and 1980s, the proportion ofsemidwarfs among spring durum wheatand winter wheat releases also roserapidly, so that by 1986-90 well over80% of all varieties released weresemidwarfs. About half of spring wheatvarieties were based on crosses made byCIMMYT, but with increasing frequencynational research systems are producingsemidwarf varieties based on their owncrosses (Figure 7).Adoption of modern wheat varietiesThe adoption of improved or modernvarieties (MVs) can be viewed in twostages (Morris, Dubin, and Pokhrel1992):• Stage 1: Modern high-yieldingvarieties are released and adopted toreplace local varieties or olderimproved varieties that farmers haveused for many years. In most cases,these MVs differ considerably fromthe varieties they replace because ofcharacteristics such as higher yieldpotential or better disease resistance.• Stage 2: Newer generations of MVsare adopted periodically (at leastonce a decade) to replace earliergenerations of MVs and providesteady improvement in yield andother traits.The changes that occur in Stage I arebest illustrated by the Green Revolutionin South Asia, where semidwarf varietiesrapidly replaced older, mostly improvedvarieties released in earlier decades.When farmers grew semidwarfs underirrigation and with modest levels offertilizer, their wheat yields jumped 35­50%. The impact of these changesArea sown to MVs (%)10080604020Pakistaninevitably lessened over time in in'igatedareas as semidwarf wheats reached thepeak level of adoption - 100%.However, Stage-l varietal changescontinue in the developing world'srainfed areas. Figure 8 shows currentestimates of Stage-l adoption of MVs.Since 1975 much of the increase in areaplanted with MVs has OCCUlTed inrainfed areas (Figure 9).OW----,--,-----r-------.-----"''--.--------,-------,----.---.-------,------,1967 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89Area sown to MVs (%)Syria100----------------~jiiiiiijiiiiiiiii._80------~-~ .....--~~=----60 ---------1'-'-------------------­40-------!...--------::.;....-~-~~:....----20----------------",,...------------­o"---,---------,----T------.,-----,---.,.---------,---,----------,-----.-----,-­1967 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89Area sown to MVs (%)Argentina100------------------------­8060-----------------------:;;;~"------~'""-------40 ------------------ol"'-'-----------.r-------­20-----------:;;oIF-----------"jjf---------­0-,-------,------,---e...~___,__-___,_--,---4~r______r-_____,_--,--__,___1967 69 71 73 75 77 79 83 85 87 89Figure 9. Adoption of modern wheat varieties (MVs) in different moisture zones.Source: Byerlee and Maya (1993).

1992/93 World Wheat Facts and TrendsFarmers still grow tall varieties on 30%of the developing world wheat area andin some parts of industrialized countries.These areas generally suffer the effectsof harsh climates, especially severedrought and extreme heat or cold. Evenso, MVs are edging into these difficultenvironments. For example, in the verydry wheat-producing state of WesternAustralia, where annual rainfall is lessthan 350 mm, the adoption of MVslagged until in the 1980s, when a newergeneration of better adapted varietieswas released and adopted quickly.Most wheat-producing areas of thedeveloping world are now characterizedby Stage-2 changes (in other words, theyhave entered a "post-Green Revolution"phase). In these areas, farmers replaceMVs with newer generations of MVsevery few years. Most farmers inPakistan and India have switched wheatvarieties at least twice since adopting theoriginal Green Revolution varieties(Figure 10). In northwestern Mexico,farmers replace varieties even morerapidly - on average once everythree years.One measure of the rate of varietalreplacement is the age of varieties,measured in years since release,weighted by the area that farmers sow toeach variety. This measure is refeo'ed toas the "weighted average age ofvarieties." Varietal age averages aboutseven years but varies considerably fromcountry to country (Figure 11). Aweighted age of seven years is consistentwith replacing a variety once every fi veyears, assuming that two years usuallyelapse between the time a variety isreleased and adoption begins (time isneeded to multiply seed of the variety).The average age of varieties isgenerally lower in commercial wheat­ Sonora, Mexico 3.7producing areas because seed and Punjab, India ••• 6.3extension systems are well developed. Kansas, USA ..... 6.7It is high in parts of South Asia, whereNSW, Australia •••• 7.4many farmers have not yet substitutedNetherlands •••• 7.6a new variety for the original GreenRevolution variety, Sonalika. FrequentNew Zealand •••• 7.9replacement of varieties is desirable, Parana, Brazil •••••• 10.5because it enables farmers to avoid the Punjab, Pakistan ••••• 10.9loss of disease resistance that oftenBangladesh ••••• 11.0aft1icts older varieties and to reap theBihar, India ••••••••••benefits of traits bred into newervarieties (see the box, "TransferringFigure 11. Weighted average age of varietiesTechnology to Farmers"). grown by farmers, 1980s.Source: Byerlee (1993a).Area sown to varietya (%)80604020Jupateco 73Yaqui Valley, Mexicoo- -~~--=---------..;~~~-w---=~~~=f..l=~=~=c1978 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90Area sown to variety (%)6050403020~---'\.10Punjab, PakistanPak 81o1978 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90Figure 10. Patterns of varietal change in post-Green Revolution areas of Mexico and Pakistan.Source: CIMMYT data files.a Bread wheat varieties only. Durum area was important in Mexico in the late 19805.

Part 1: Wheat Breeding Research in Developing Countries: Investments and ImpactsBenefits of varietal adoptionThe benefits of new varieties range frombroad characteristics such as higheryields to more specific qualitycharacteristics needed by farmers. Thefollowing paragraphs describe some ofthe benefits of adopting new varieties.Yield gains and stability - The majorfocus of wheat breeding programs hasbeen to increase yield potential andimprove yield stability. In Stage 1 of theadoption process, farmers may see asurge in yields, but the impact of Stage-Ichanges diminishes over time as MVsdiffuse into marginal areas, where theiryield advantage is usually less. Thusyield gains for wheat in Stage 1 havedeclined from about 40% when MVswere adopted in the 1960s in highpotentialareas to about 10% when MVsTable 8. Annual rates of genetic gains in wheatyields observed in experiments in differentenvironments over the past two decades,developing countrieswere adopted in the late 1980s in drierrainfed areas. When the impact of thesevarieties is expressed as absolutegains in yield, it is more modest, perhaps800 kg/ha in the first case and only100 kg/ha in the second.Genetic gains in yields resulting from therelease and adoption of newergenerations of improved varieties inStage 2 tend to be a steady 0.3-1.0% peryear over the longer term, althoughconsiderable short-term fluctuations maybe experienced (Table 8). In irrigatedareas, there is substantial evidence ofgenetic gains in yields of about 1%annually in post-Green Revolution areas(Byerlee and Maya 1993). This translatesinto absolute yield gains of about 20 kg/ha/yr in Pakistan to 50 kg/ha/yr innorthwestern Mexico. In rainfed areasthat experience some drought stress, thelong-term average rate of yield gain isonly about 0.5% per year, which isusually less than 10 kg/ha/yr in absoluteterms. In very dry areas, genetic gains inyield may average only 2-3 kg/ha/yr(e.g., Perry and D' Antuono 1989, Jain etal. 1993). Of course, the yield gains thatfarmers actually achieve are often higherthan this because of improvements incrop and resource management, which inmarginal areas are usually moreimportant than genetic gains inimproving yields.The general pattern in varietal adoptionthat emerges is that developing countriesare passing through a transition fromStage-l adoption to Stage-2 adoption.For example, in South Asia practicallyall the benefits of wheat breeding from1966 to 1977 were derived from Stage-lchanges. However, from 1977 to 1990an estimated 78% of economic benefitscame from Stage-2 changes (Table 9). Inother regions, Stage-l gains still madeup half or more of the benefits between1977 and 1990. Improvements in yieldand the maintenance of diseaseresistance in spring wheats alone duringthis period added benefits of US$ 3billion in 1990 (Byerlee and Maya1993). In every region except sub­Saharan Africa, these benefits, expressedin average annual increments,considerably exceed the annual cost ofresearch in 1990 (Table 9). However,IrrigatedNorthwestern MexicoNorthwestern IndiaPunjab, PakistanZimbabweIrrigated hotSudanRainfedBrazilParaguayCentral IndiaRainfed acid soilsBrazil0.6 -1.1%b0.5 - 1.0 b0.8 b10 bO.gc0.5 - 0.8 b1.3 COC2.2 - 3.2%CTable 9. Estimated annual average costs and increment in benefits of wheat improvementresearch for spring wheats, 1977·90Sub-Saharan Africa 3 2 62 38W. Asia/N. Africa 22 a 39 49 51Asia 22 b 143 b 22 78Latin America 14 51 56 44Source: Byerlee and Moya (1993).a Period varies, but the most common period is fromabout 1970 to the late 1980s.b Semidwarf varieties only.c Includes the effect of switching from tall tosemidwarf varieties.All developing countries 61 b 235 b 34 66Source: Byerlee and Moya (1993).a Assumes that research resources are allocated between spring wheats and winter wheats in proportion totheir share in regional production.b Excludes China.

1992/93 World Wheat Facts and Trendsransferring Technologyto armerI In, lIer h \\ impre-s1w an uUluvati n i .JI is 1101 worth much UJ11e , farmer. u~c i\. Inthe cu llf \\ hea1lmprovemenl. Ull~ Imn ~ tf!he innovatioll-Ihal is. 9 nc\\ vnriery- d penu liD farm • kn wing about neWarielic nl! their pl !h Itthl period average. :Ib lUI Ii e yeaN unJ i'fair!) unlfom1 a '1'0' q)1 mne: ,• TI"IJvuilaMlm' oj ff'J ojII II' ,'uri rjt',~(llId /IIl;' pri,.e of /11 ' ,etici III to •tdevelopwl! rowltri' ,"eeu production andlIi lribull n an: ti1l11l!g I: II ll\e )' thepublic, ector. lthough the prom marginol1l11arkeullg seed of a, elf-p IIrnat.ed cropu'h it "'heal i mull. there are probably~uh. wnlinl opp 10ha< 10 hare ult of 0 detaiJed study from tin: Punjab~lr Pald Ian. where oJ)' 70k (If farmcc.3. lhey or,t obl'nneci. eed uf llt:WVarieties fmQl formal (lUre .• E.tlellSlpn oj informaTion ahofl/ nnlr{lrIl'trl!.\' !tJ Jtlrm,·n. Th' peed tlf\wiela! chan e d~pend. al 0 n ,meffective e tension y tt.w lu makefarmer, uware If lh avaihlbilit) foevarieli and theirdlat11C t:ri Iii; . On farmdem n Inmon, are probably III mll Iffe \lve \\.-ay uf prom Ilng ne" vlIrielieand Ilt lhe .;\ffie lime soliciting leedhnckfrom Jmme. lit vmiewt tra [' lhill theyI refer.The sp J)f v:lrietal ,ltl plion I. 'cnlrllllOd 'lrrmU1in~ the magnitud of !he benditsund the rate ofT Iunllm Ihe re eareh IfiIakl!~ ill III Iime rOt f1lflIlcC') 10 aUI pi avariet.. th henefit of re earch will beJela. cd antllhe rol f return n Ihe ..ear 11will be I \\ &;:1' Giv~n r~l\ liable 1I,. umpllonIlbuut the ulue' uJ the variables listed abD\'t:.Hei, cy and Brenn In 1991) a( 'ullile lhal Ultloptimum p~riod for varietl1l replacement ihetween 5 ;mu 10 yelif

Part 1: Wheat Breeding Research in Developing Countries: Investments and Impactsthese comparisons to do not take intoaccount the different periods in whichcosts and benefits of research occur. Thiswill be discussed later in "Basic conceptsin evaluating returns to research."Disease resistance -In mostenvironments where wheat is grown,diseases, especially the three rusts,8 caninflict large yield losses. After yield, theobjective to which breeders attach thegreatest importance is improving andmaintaining disease resistance in the faceof evolving pathogens. In many areas,the contribution of new wheat varietiesmay be greater in terms of diseaseresistance than in terms of increasedyield potential.If resistance to rust breaks down invarieties grown by farmers and anepidemic occurs, average yield losses ofup to 20% may be recorded. Figure 12shows the role of maintenance breedingin avoiding losses to leaf rust innorthwestern Mexico. Since the averagelife of a variety's resistance to rust is fiveto seven years (Khan 1987, Kirkpatrick1975), the loss of resistance is a majorYield (tlha)7force behind regular varietalreplacement. Recent breakthroughs inobtaining durable resistance to leaf rustshould help alleviate the problems thatarise when rust resistance breaks down(Singh et al. 1991).Galns have also been made in reducinglosses from other endemic diseases,especially in warmer humid areas.Improved disease resistance has beenimportant in reducing the use offinancially and environmentally costlyfungicides, especially in South America.Maturity - Particularly where doublecropping is common or the potential fordouble cropping exists, the length oftime that it takes a variety to reachmaturity is an important characteristicaffecting varietal acceptance andbenefits. Early maturing varieties werecritical to the rapid expansion of wheatarea in northeastern India, Nepal, andBangladesh (Morris, Dubin, and Pokhrel1992). Although progress in improvingyields of early maturing varieties hasbeen relatively slow, several varietiesreleased in Bangladesh yield 10-20%more than the original early maturingvariety of the Green Revolution period,Sonalika. These varieties are grownwidely by Bangladeshi farmers. InPakistan, progress has been achieved bydeveloping varieties of average maturityfor late planting in double-crop systems.In some cases, however, intensifiedcropping may have costs. In Argentina,double cropping of wheat and soybeans,which became possible with theintroduction of earlier maturingsemidwarf varieties, has raised concernsabout soil erosion.Quality - In general, improvements ingrain quality have not been an importantpart of the benefits of wheat breeding indeveloping countries, except in durumwheat. Since there are likely to be yieldqualitytradeoffs, a rational strategy maybe to maintain minimum qualitystandards to meet consumer acceptance.Most developing countries have provideda uniform wheat support price regardlessof quality, so breeders have had littleincentive to improve quality. However,in Latin America wheat markets arebeing liberalized and price premiumsgiven for quality, so breeding programsin this region may place greateremphasis on quality in the future.65432g =2.7%, cv =24%•o1960 65 70 75Year variety was releasedg =growth rate (%/yr)cv =coefficient of variation80 85 90Figure 12. Yield of historically important varieties (released 1964-86) with and without fungicide,Obregon, Mexico, 1990-91.Source: K. Sayre (pers. comm). Data for normal planting in 1990·91 and 1991-92.Estimating the Returns toInvestment in Wheat ResearchAlthough yield gains, disease resistance,and the other products of wheatimprovement contribute to the benefitsthat can be realized from a wheatimprovement program, ultimately theymust be summarized in economic terms8 The three rusts are (1) leaf or brown rust(Puccinia recondita), (2) stem or black rust(P. graminis f.sp. trifid). and (3) stripe oryellow rust (P. sfriiformis).

___ 1992/93 World Wheat Facts and Trendsif we are to compare them to the costs ofwheat research. This section provides abrief overview of methods thateconomists use t6 measure the benefitsof agricultural research and demonstrateshow these methods have been applied tomeasure the benefits of wheat research.Basic concepts in evaluatingreturns to researchConfronted with increasingly scarceresources in the public sector, policymakers are asking if agriculturalresearch is a worthwhile investment.How do returns to investment in researchcompare with other possible uses ofpublic monies, such as building a newroad or irrigation system? Suchcomparisons can be made becauseagricultural research, just like any otherinvestment, has identifiable costs andbenefits derived from those costs.Economists have used various methodsto calculate the returns to researchinvestments, but in the case of researchon a specific commodity, such as wheat,a practical method is the "economicsurplus approach." The steps in thisapproach are:• Identify the costs for each year of theresearch project or, in this case, theannual costs of the wheatimprovement program.• Identify the products of the research,the extent of their adoption byfarmers, and the economic benefitsderived from those products.• Since the costs and benefits ofresearch occur at different periods,they must be adjusted to becompared. They are adjusted bydiscounting to the same time period,usually the initial year of the project.Discounting reflects the fact thatbenefits occurring many years in thefuture are valued less than the samebenefits received today. The sameholds for costs. The typical wheatimprovement program has costs andbenefits related to the development ofan individual variety (Figure 13).Costs occur in the early years of theproject and benefits later in theproject, for two reasons. First, in theresearch process there are lagsbetween expenditures on breedingand the release of a new variety.Second, once a variety is released,there is another lag before it isadopted. Eventually benefits declineas a variety reaches peak adoptionand is replaced by newer varieties.Figure 13 shows how an annualNet benefits ($)600 ------------------------­500400300200100o-100__Research costsResearch benefitsYearsUndiscounted stream of costs and benefits associated with varietal development.Discounted net benefits ($)300 ----------------------------Research costs_ Research benefits200 --------------------------CertificationPeak adoption100 be~g'---in_s~-----o-100YearsEffects of discounting the stream of costs and benefits associated with varietal development.Discount rate =8%.Figure 13. Generalized pattern of costs and benefits associated with developing a new variety.Source: Morris, Clancy, and Lopez-Pereira (1992).

Part 1: Wheat Breeding Research in Developing Countries: Investments and Impactsdiscount rate of 8% reduces futurebenefits relative to costs. Thediscounting of future benefits iscommonly used in appraisinginvestments. It clearly shows why it isimportant to reduce lags in theresearch process (e.g., through twobreeding cycles per year) and theadoption process (e.g., throughimproved seed production andextension systems).• Generally the return on an investmentis expressed as an "internal rate ofreturn" (IRR), which is the rate ofreturn that makes the discounted sumof costs and benefits equal. Thus anIRR of 20% indicates that the returnon the research investment isequivalent to a deposit in a bank at aninterest rate of 20% over the entireperiod of the analysis (usually greaterthan 20 years).To estimate benefits in each region, two yielded 17% more than the TVs and thatkey parameters were needed: statistics MV2 yielded 6% more than MV 1. Theseon varietal adoption and estimates of the estimates enabled Macagno and Gomezrelative yields of MVI and MV2 Chao to estimate K, the unit reduction invarieties. Statistics on varietal adoption cost of production. Next, the benefitswere available from wheat market were calculated by multiplying K by thedeliveries for each region and each year. price of wheat and the baselineResearchers estimated the relative yields production level in Region I in 1975of MV I and MV2 varieties from the (307,000 t). With the data on adoption ofresults of multilocational trials sown MV I and MV2 varieties, aggregateyearly in each region to evaluate annual benefits of the new varietiesvarieties that were candidates for could be calculated for the region. Theserelease. Because the trials included a data were then aggregated over theseries of check varieties, the yields of seven regions considered in the study tonew varieties could be estimated in give the gross benefits over regionsrelation to the checks. In Region 1, for (the third column from the right inexample, it was estimated that MV I Table 10).Table 10. Aggregated cost and benefits of wheat research in Argentina, 1967-92These concepts are best illustrated by aspecific example of how the returns towheat improvement research have beencalculated.An example of calculationof returns to researchThe returns to wheat breeding researchin Argentina from 1967 to 1992 havebeen calculated by Macagno and GomezChao (1993). First, the benefits of wheatbreeding research were calculated foreach of Argentina's seven major wheatgrowingregions. Macagno and GomezChao considered two periods of varietalchange: 1) the initial adoption ofsemidwarf wheat varieties in the 1970s(MVls) to replace older tall varieties(TVs) and 2) the adoption of a secondgeneration of varieties in the 1980s(MV2s) to replace the MVls in mostregions. (This process mirrors the Stage­1 and Stage-2 varietal changes describedearlier.)1967 1.91 1.0 .02 2.94 -2.9 -311968 1.88 1.0 .05 2.93 -2.9 -291969 2.15 1.0 .11 3.26 -3.3 -301970 1.94 1.0 .11 3.05 -3.0 -241971 2.05 1.0 .32 3.37 -3.4 -251972 1.94 1.0 .33 3.27 -3.3 -221973 3.33 1.0 .39 4.72 -4.7 -291974 2.87 1.0 .33 .94 5.14 1 -4.1 -231975 2.41 1.5 .33 .82 5.06 18 13 661985 3.12 1.5 .66 1.66 6.94 103 96 1871986 1.66 1.66 100 97 1721987 1.66 1.66 112 111 1791988 1.66 1.66 178 176 2581989 1.66 1.66 167 165 2201990 1.66 1.66 83 82 991991 1.66 1.66 114 112 1231992 1.66 1.66 129 127 127Total 107 1,855 1,750 299Source: Macagno and Gomez Chao (1993).a Improvement research assumed to be 50% of all wheat research.b Percent of the CIMMYT wheat improvement budget proportional to Argentina's share of wheat production.c Discounted at 10%.

• # ••1992/93 World Wheat Facts and TrendsThe next step was to estimate costs.Macagno and Gomez Chao included fourcategories of costs:1. Costs of the public sector breedingprograms. These programs werelargely responsible for developing theMY 1s. Costs were estimated takingaccount of salaries, overheads, andother expenses, as discussed above.2. Costs of private sector breedingprograms. The private sector isactive in wheat breeding inArgentina, and accounts for aconsiderable share of the MY2s. Onlyrough estimates of private sectorexpenditures could be obtained, andthese had to be extrapolated overyears.3. A share of the costs of CIMMYTwheat research. Because the MYswere developed through a'collaborative research programbetween CIMMYT and Argentina, ashare of CIMMYT costs proportionalto Argentina's share of CIMMYT'smandate wheat area was included.4. Extension costs. Extension costs forwheat were apportioned as a share ofall extension costs over crops. Half ofthe share of wheat extension costswas attributed to disseminating thevarieties. Both public sector andprivate sector extension (the latter isimportant for larger-scale farmers)were included.Research costs were assumed to begin in1967, when work on MYs began. Thusseven years elapsed from the beginningof the research until the first benefitswere received. The cost of extension wasassumed to begin in the first year ofadoption of the MYs.The rate of return on research is then This suggests that wheat research hassimply the interest rate that makes the been a good investment. However, fornet present value of benefits and costs in several reasons, caution is needed inthe final column of Table 10 equal to interpreting these results.zero. Despite the fact that this studyincludes costs that are not normally • Most of the studies were done duringconsidered in country-specific rate of the Stage-l adoption of improvedreturn studies, such as CIMMYT costs varieties (the Green Revolution, forand extension costs, the return toexample). Returns to research in thisresearch is still estimated at the high rate period were unusually high. Inof 42% per annum.Pakistan, for instance, returnsexceeded 50% for 1967-81 but fell toSummary of estimates ofabout 25% in the post-Greenreturns to research Revolution period (Byerlee 1990).Several studies of returns to wheatresearch have used the method described • Most of the studies focused on largeabove, and they generally show returns wheat-producing countries. Returnsin the range of 25% to 80% (Table 11). for smaller wheat-producingTable 11. Summary of estimates of returns from investments in wheat research.-,~ --­ArgentinaBrazilCanadaChileColombiaIndiaIsraelMexicoNepalPakistanPakistan (Punjab)USAUSA----­ -ImprovementAll wheat researchImprovementAll wheat researchImprovementAll wheat researchImprovementImprovementImprovementImprovementImprovementAll wheat researchAll wheat research1967-921974-901946-791949-771927-761972-841954-731943-631960-901960-811978-871967-791978-854259-743021-2811-1251125-1509075-8455-6216-278146Macagno and Gomez Chao(1993)Ambrosi and da Cruz(1984)Zentner and Peterson(1984)Yrarrazaval et al. (1982)Hertford et al. (1977)Evenson and McKinsey(1991)Kislev and Hoffmann(1978)Ardito-Barletta (1970)Morris, Dubin, and Pokhrel(1992)Nagy (1991)Byerlee (1993b)Otto and Havlicek (1981)Eddleman (1977)South America(PROCISUR) Improvement 1979-88 110 Evenson and da Cruz(1989)All developing countriesexcept China(spring wheat only) Improvement 1977-90 50-70 Byerlee and Moya (1993)Source: CIMMYT database,

Part 1: Wheat Breeding Research in Developing Countries: Investments and Impactscountries, such as Colombia, aremuch lower (although Israel is anexception to this generalization). Thispattern is consistent with the evidencepresented above on the relativelyhigher costs of conducting wheatresearch in small wheat-producingcountries.• Few of the studies accounted for thecosts of research conducted by othercountries and by CIMMYT. Sincesuch a large share (over half) of thevarieties released in developingcountries originates abroad, costs ofresearch at a global level have notbeen accounted for adequately.• Few studies accounted for thebenefits of maintenance research,especially research that ensurescontinuing disease resistance andprevents epidemics. While the factorslisted above tend to exaggerate thereturns to research, failing to considermaintenance research leads to anunderestimate of returns, especiallysince we have seen that, at least in thecase of wheat, maintenance researchis a significant proportion of the totalresearch effort.In summary, studies of returns to wheatresearch are still rather few andselective. More studies of this kind areneeded to guide the allocation of scarceresearch resources.Despite the limitations of these studies,there is still no doubt that globally theinvestment in wheat research has beenproductive. A more recent study than theones described above estimates the rateof return to research by nationalprograms and CIMMYT on spring wheatimprovement at 50-60% (Byerlee andMoya 1993).Toward Efficient Allocationof Resources in WheatImprovement ResearchAlthough the few studies available showhigh returns to wheat breeding research,this does not necessarily imply thatreturns are always positive and thatresources are being used mostefficiently. Few countries have done acritical analysis of their expenditures onwheat breeding research in terms of thenumber, size, and location of theirprograms and the scope of thoseprograms.The information presented in this reportsuggests that there are significanteconomies of scale in wheat breedingresearch. Many small wheat-producingcountries have established wheatresearch programs that are quite large inrelation to their mandate areas. Evenlarge wheat-producing countries maysupport programs that have smallmandate areas - for example, a statethat produces little wheat - oroverlapping mandate areas. Forexample, in India, where more than 50programs are dedicated to wheatimprovement, the average wheat areaper program is only about 0.5 M ha(Wheat Project Directorate 1988).Many research systems seem to considerthat a wheat research program requires acertain critical mass of skills ­breeders, pathologists, cereal chemists,and so on. In fact, the capability of awheat research program may vary,ranging from a part-time breeder/pathologist screening international,regional, and national nurseries; to a fullcrossing program and supportdisciplines; to a program that hasspecialized disease screening facilitiesor, increasingly, a molecular biologylaboratory.Rather than assuming that all of theelements of a large research program arenecessary, each country and/or wheatresearch program should take a carefullook at the range of possibilities formeeting its needs efficiently. Forexample, varieties that might be utilizedeffectively in the mandate area could beacquired from an external source (seethe box, "Technology Spillovers").Common sources of varieties are otherprograms in the same country, othercountries that have similar productionenvironments, and widely adaptedmaterials from international researchcenters such as CIMMYT.Countries or programs should evaluatewhether their wheat research capabilitiesare commensurate with the size of themandate areas they serve. In a recentstudy, Maredia (1993) has expanded onBrennan (1991) and developedguidelines on the minimum size of amandate production area that is requiredto justify investment in wheat breedingprograms of different capabilities. Sheestimated the major technical andeconomic variables for a typicaldeveloping country program for twolevels of research capacity - testingonly introduced lines, and conducting afull crossing program (Table 12). Sheassumes that a crossing programincreases the rate of yield progress by50%, but estimates that a full-timecrossing program requires three full-timescientists, versus only one for a testingprogram.

fl= 1992/93 World Wheat Facts and Trendsechnology pillo emh is widely as 'umet! that agriculturaltechnology. including Wheat varielie ,i quite'te pecific, Technology developed abroadmust be adapted to local conditions before iti really useful. Inerop breeding, thi'"adaptive research" usually involves crossingimponed material. with loeaU)' developedmaterial to blain the required trcli ,In raet. there i growing evidence thatvarietie developed in one country perfonnwell in othercounuies with similarenvironmenl5. CIMMYT view global wh atproduction environments in tenns of 12"megaenvironment "(ME), which areelas ified by uch factors moi'lure,tempemture.latitude. and di ease tres1, Inone megaenvironment alone. MEl (irrigatedspring bread wheal). _orne 45 MT of wheatare produced in 1 countri dominated byIndia. Pakistan. and ChinaGenerally mat rials develQPCd in a countryfora given ME wilJ perfOlll1 well in -imilarenvironments in other countrle . Thi. isbome out by an anaIy i f the Internati nalSpring Wheal Yield ursery trial.. whichCIMMYT and national re eareh lJ ternconduct annually (. Table). The high -tY Ids in JlJl ME are obtained by varietiongmating in that ME (that i . the relativeyields along the diagonal in the Table renearly alway higher than the yield in thO(f-diagurtal elements of the Table). Inparticular. varieti developed for 'MEl andME2, here there are ~ wabiotic tresl , dorelati el pOOrly in megaenvironmentcharacterized by abiotic lIe ( andME4 ).CIMMYT. because it devel p. widely the varieri released in dcvelbping countriesadapted materials through multilocation4l1 in the 1980s were derived from CIMMYTtesting in collaboration with national research cro se These varietie underwent various.y tern •produces maleoah' that peru nn well level f selection by national programs,in ~ventl MEs. These material. du e pccially ranging from direct introduction to a longerwell in irrigated and high rainfall 1'rtX.-e of selection from carl generation (F2environment where CIMMYT has had the or F3) breeding lines (Byerlee and Moyalange't experienc . For example. CIMMYT 19

Part 1: Wheat Breeding Research in Developing Countries: Investrrents and ImpactsSome of the results reported by Maredia(Figure 14) confirm what one wouldexpect. For example, to justify allocatingone FIE scientist to wheat researchrequires an industry size of 200,000 t,considerably higher than the level ofwheat production in the mandate areasof a significant number of the programssurveyed in this study. Regions orcountries that have programs smallerthan this should consider assigning parttimeresearchers to work in wheatimprovement, unless they expect wheatarea to expand dramatically in thefuture. 9It is important to note that although acrossing program becomes profitable atan industry size of 460,000 t, it remainsless profitable than testing until thethreshold of 1.4 million tons is reached.Even if a crossing program doubles therate of yield gains relative to a testingprogram, the threshold size for acrossing program to be the bestalternative is still 800,000 t. Marediacalculates that about half of the wheatresearch programs in developingcountries operate below these thresholds.These results are only indicative, butthey suggest that with increasingly tightbudgets, national research systemsprobably have considerable scope to usetheir research resources more efficientlyby rationalizing the number and size ofwheat research programs and byexamining the opportunities to importtechnology. At the same time, there is astrong case (at least on economicgrounds) for small countries sharing9Even without a wheat varietal testing program,new varieties can spread from other regions in acountry and across national boundaries.However, a minimal investment in screeningsuitable materials may give high payoffs(Morris, Dubin, and Pokhrel 1992).similar production environments toestablish collaborative regional wheatresearch or close links with internationalresearch centers.ConclusionsOver the years wheat breeding researchhas attracted considerable resources, asmeasured in terms of the number andtraining of scientists and the budgetsallocated to wheat research. Mostcountries now have well-establishedwheat research programs; currently morethan 1,000 scientists, supported by atotal of about US$ 100 million, conductresearch related to wheat improvementin developing countries. Overall theseprograms have been highly successful,continuously releasing superior wheatvarieties that farmers use. More than70% of the wheat area in developingcountries is planted to modem wheatWheat production(OOOt)T Cannot justify full-lime198 scientist in wheat breeding1,392Testing of introduced materialsis profitable (1 FrE scientist)Crossing program with 3 FTEscientists is profitable, buttesting program is mostprofitable1Crossing program with 3 FTEscientists is justifiedFigure 14. Threshold size of wheat productionin a mandate area needed to justify differenttypes of wheat research programs.Source: Maredia (1993).Note: FTE =full·time equivalent.varieties, and on much of that area,farmers replace older varieties with newones every few years. Research onimproved spring bread wheat varietiesalone has contributed an additionalUS$ 3 billion in benefits in developingcountries in the past decade.In looking to the next decade, however,it is clear that several policy issuesaffecting wheat research require theclose attention of research decisionmakers. Budgets for wheat research inmany countries and at the internationallevel appear to be stagnating ordeclining. Frequently this decline is notreflected in an overall reduction in thenumber of scientists, but in shrinkingoperating budgets for scientists. Tighteroperating budgets reduce theeffectiveness of the human resourcesinvested in wheat breeding. At the sametime, it seems clear that many countriesmay actually have overinvested in wheatimprovement research, particularlysmaller countries and in smaller regionswithin countries.How can decision makers respond to thissituation? A rule of thumb provided bythis analysis is that any country or regionwithin a country that produces less than1 million tons of wheat should evaluateits options carefully to ensure theefficiency of investments in wheatimprovement research. These optionsinclude centralizing programs within acountry or forming regionalcollaborative programs across countries.Another option is to identify theminimum number of scientists andspecific disciplines needed for a regionin terms of the type of research program(for example, a program that evaluatesand selects from national or international

24- 1992/93 World Wheat Facts and Trendsnurseries versus a crossing program).Even programs with large mandatewheat areas may have opportunities forenhanced efficiency, given that wheatresearch programs in developingcountries typically employ morescientists than equivalent programs inindustrialized countries. Upgrading thetechnical skills of support staff may beone way of increasing efficiency andreducing costs.In addition, countries must determinetheir comparative advantage inconducting different types of research.Although we have not analyzedinvestments in crop and resourcemanagement research in this report. weobserve that many countries haveemphasized investment in wheatimprovement research over investmentin crop and resource managementresearch. Given that it may be easier toimport germplasm to manyenvironments than to import more sitespecificcrop and resource managementresearch recommendations, the relativepriority that should be given to each typeof research ought to be evaluated. This isparticularly true in more marginalenvironments, where investment inwheat improvement research has hadless of an impact.On the output side, steady gains havebeen made in wheat in mostenvironments since the initial GreenRevolution successes. However, onefactor that does reduce returns to wheatresearch is slow replacement ofvarieties, especially in some areas ofsmall-farm agriculture where extensionand seed systems are not well developed.Slow turnover not only reduces returnsbecause gains in the distant future arevalued less than gains in the near future,but also because frequent varietalreplacement is an important means ofpreventing disease losses.Few in-depth analyses have been done ofthe resources invested in wheat researchor of the benefits resulting from thatresearch, especially in smaller countries.In addition, there has been little effort toevaluate alternative ways of organizingindividual wheat improvement researchprograms and groups of programs thatexploit complementarities betweenthem. Nor has the potential role ofprivate sector research been exploredthoroughly (see the box, "Private SectorInvestment in Wheat ImprovementResearch"). We hope this report willprovide some important benchmarks forevaluating resource investments andprogress achieved, and will stimulatemore studies of the returns to investmentin wheat research and the efficiency ofwheat breeding programs in developingcountries. In a global climate of scarceresearch resources, such studies canprovide valuable information forinsuring that investments in researchremain productive.Pri at S dor lnve trnenl inWb at 1m ro m es a -hTh public' 'lor i largely re pOll ible forwheat improvement reo earch in developinl!ountri . More thun 0% of the wheatresean:h program.. urveyed .tate Tbal Thereare no prival eet r reo elU'Ch progmms Intheir mandaI arc (Ihe main ceplion arein outh America).Thi. ilUati n cantril Is wilh the chnnginrole of privale :md public eclOr wheatreo h in indmitriallzed counlrie: . Alth ughprivate breede~ (n, unlly farmers' once ledthe LIt: elopm III or new wheat cuh.lvar. , withthe tabli hOlenl of pUblic a rieulluralresearch in titute t ani the enU of the IQthntury, the public eel r came to domiJ1lltewheat breeding efforts.Becan wheal i a elf-pollinated 'rop.fnrmer can live ecd from carlo year Wldpal eed to ther flll'l1lm without ri kingany I oftbe i!eed' genetic purity. Thim ans that the market for whem d n uallyha low profit matgirl. [n ,I vel, pingcountrie . th public ctor usually producesand eli trihUl .fed. To provide In entivesfor private sector inv 'meilt in ~mrbreeding. two approach lutvc been u !d.Hybrid fed providing inerea ed yield· onlyin the first generation in which il i own hMbeen the vehicle for pnvatizing. wearch onmaize and me oth r crop . In the J960and 1910s, vernl private companiesinv ted heavily in earch on hybrid .... heat(Knud on 1986).* However. thi, approachha bad linle commercU1l uece •although,mall amounts of hybrid wheat wi are Idin everal countri (e.g.• in Europe, theU ustral1a, and rgentina).OMMYTlullJ 1\ h boo whellt pr\JJP1!m until1971

Parll: Wheat Breeding Research in Developing Countries: Investments and Impacts _ 25Prom with h. brid wheat ha, been low for~veral re 005; the rel:uivel low yielduuvantage uf hybrids vcr conventionalvarietie high seed rate . lack of efficienlte.cbn logy for pnldu ing hybrid 'eed. andthe ra 'I that 'tead~ progre 'in yield has beenachieved through con entional breeding.Recentl developed genetic approacbe trn I terilit) and fertility restoration throughbiot hnlll g hav the potent1allo alleviateone of the e onstraint -the high co t ofeed IMllriani et al. 1990).'e nd approach to encouraging privatesector inve. tm nt in breeding J'eSe-arch j thetnbli hmenl of plant variety rig.ht !P R l.In mo t indu trialized countries and a fewdeveloping couotri s, PVRs have beenintroduced to en 'ourage private: sectorin e tment in breeding of self-pollinatedcrop' uch as whenl (Pray 1992). Plant:uiety ri[!h enable seed companie. tocollect royalti on, eed sal and I gailyre ll'ain !llher from produ ing and . Ilingd f PVR-pmtected varieties.inee the 19 05, PVRs have existed in orneform in Europe. where mo. t wheat breedingresearch L n IW conducted in the privatector.In the K, f( r example, farmers pay aroyalty of about 0,03_ per kilogram feed purch d. or about U 5.00lha, whichu'Iain breeding re earch by' ernl pnvateC( mpani . (Pemon 1990), The use f PVR.hit!' al 0 been effe tive in ,ome um. merican wheat·producmg countri ,peclatly Arglllltina. where mO.t wheal areai . wn to varietie from the private ectoronethele', PVR have heen Ic.~, f£ tive' intimul ling the, wit h t privat ectorbreeding in the USA Wld u tralia, althoughthe lrend i. 'Iearly toward the private ~ctor. t1n the U A. fOT example. th number of wheatbreeder JO me pri ate sector If n w imllar tothat in the public. ector (Jame 1990: Kallon.Richard on, and frey 1989).tTbe numbero(wheat liD tie. relwtllre lind r PVR grewfrom 13 in 1971-7.• ju t after PVR legi lationwas enacted, to more than 100 in 19 6·l,l0(Huffman aJld Even '(m 1993). The public. CIor also increasingly u e PVR to earnroyaltie. from i plan! breeding pr gram andto pay at least a portion of the research cl .However. PVR. and other foml Ifinlellectual property prot tion will beocce sful for, elf-pollinmed crop. unly if twO'undition . are mel Fmt. fanners wiIJ bave Ipurchase seed frequentl~, mther than aveeed from their own harv~ 1. econd.v~ latilln. of P R will have 1 he enforcedoost effectiv I). either of the'c 'iluatlon ichuractenstic of . mall~farm griculture indevel ping countri~ If\;ompanie eek tocancct royaltie on eed lIdld by unauthori1.eddettlCTll, the '0 t of litigatiun again I thou andor million of mall fanners, each owing onlya few hectares of wheat. wlll be: extremelyhigh., Iso. the ruyalti are likely to bele ,than the I' 5.00/ha collecled in the UK,. onelheles., in orne :omm relal wheatgrowing~ in J veluping countriM(Argentina. Brazil. M{:xico. and Turkey). thuse ofPVRs will become mote omm 10. andthe private 'tor will pIll a greater role inwheat improvement rese-arch.D 'pile lhe c limitation nn private e torinve. tment LD heal rescllJch. theparti 'ipalllO ftbe privale:e tor ID wh tre earch- e peciall. the participation offarmers them I e. - can be increased inotherway . Tn lme place. in ludingnorthwestern Mexico and Zimbabwe,farmers pay a small percentage qf wheat~lll III upport whetll rc eareh in the publicsector in BnlZil. farmers hllve formedcooperativ to onduct wheat re earch.While the~ campI come largely fromcommercial fannmg area . Ihey could bee tended I . mall-farm ngricultur hycharging fanners the wean:h lev only onhem ale· Iin whkb nse larger scalefarmers would pay a. hi her proportion ofthe levy), ioee wheat is nearl nlway. animpMllDllc)()d ~ r urban llnsumer andmer: the formal market the admini. rrativecosts for 'Ulch n lev~ h uld be I wer thanfor levie. on crop that ~ marketed thmu.ghinfonnal channel or mostly con umed onthe farm. In addition. when fanners pay partof the \,~ll;1 of wheat re 'eaTch and influencethe a1loclllion of those fuud! ,I"CJ arch 1Inore likely I be Jue ·t It farme 'priuriliet H Wl!\I(!J. a majllf priYal c; 11l1pllny inKansw; c1oSl!d recell11v antIdunlltw lISbn:~inl! ma rial ttl ita. pl,lbU

Part 2: The World Wheat Situation:Current Developments and Emerging TrendsAndrea BohnProductionIn 1992, 564 million tons of wheat wereproduced on 220 M ha worldwide; theaverage yield was 2.6 t/ha. The share ofdeveloping countries in global wheatproduction is now around 43%, asubstantial increase from less than 30%in the early 1950s (Figure 15). Indeveloping countries, the average annualgrowth rate of production over the wholeperiod has been almost twice as high asin the rest of the world (4.1 % vs. 2.2%)(Figure 16).Wheat production continues to expand,but at a slower pace, and the source andcomposition of production increaseshave changed over time (Figure 16). Indeveloping countries, the 1960s was theperiod of highest annual productiongrowth (5.2%/yr, composed of 3.4%growth in yields and 1.8% expansion inarea). During the I960s and 1970s areaexpansion in China, now the world'slargest wheat producer, was slower thanin the rest of the developing world,although yield gains tended to besomewhat higher.As annual growth in yields peaked indeveloping countries in the 1970s, areaexpansion began to slow. The latest FAOcereal statistics confirm the trendsdiscussed in the last issue of WheatFacts and Trends. In developingcountries, annual growth in yields from1983 to 1992 slowed to 2.0% (2.4% ifChina is excluded), whereas inindustrialized countries it has picked upfrom the 1.3% recorded during the 1970sto 1.9% today. Wheat area in theindustrialized world has actuallydiminished as land is taken out ofproduction. This trend will likelycontinue, particularly in the EuropeanCommunity (EC), because of land setasideprograms inspired byoverproduction and environmentalconcerns about intensive farming. Atleast in the economically more advancedproducer countries, greater publicawareness of ecological and food policyissues, as well as of the cost ofagricultural subsidies, may create aproduction and marketing environmentfor cereal producers during the 1990sthat differs greatly from the environmentof past decades.ConsumptionWorld wheat consumption is estimatedat 555 million tons for 1992-93, 20million tons below the peak recorded in1990-91, which came about becauseprices were extremely low and muchwheat was used as feed. Wheatconsumption in developing countries hasbeen growing at a rate of 4.8% over thelast three decades (1961-90), comparedto only 3.5% for all cereals (Table 12).Growth in demand worldwide will slowto around 2.1 % from 1990 to 2005, butconsumption of wheat in developingcountries will grow much faster(3.0%/yr, headed by sub-Saharan Africaat 3.3%/yr) than in industrializedShare of total worldwheat production (%)100 -r---------------,9080 ­7060 ­50403020·10Hlgh-lncome countriesO·1950 60 70 80 90Figure 15. World wheat production, 1950-92.Average annual growth rate (%)6,-----------,5f----;----;-+-1----14f----t---;-+--+---I31------,;-+----1:---+-----12 f----t-----i----i---t--:--'-Io-1 '----­ ---11953-62 63-72 73-82 83-92_AreaYieldFigure16. Sources of growth in wheatproduction in developing countries, 1953-92.Table 12. Growth in consumption of cereals indeveloping countries, 1961-90cerealGrowth Inconsumption(°4)Wheat 4.8Maize 4.3Rice 3.1Other cereals 1.5All cereals 3.5Source: CIMMYT database.

1992/93 World Wheat Facts and Trendscountries (l.O%/yr). As a result,developing countries will probablyconsume three-fifths of the world'swheat by 2005, while their share todayis only half. Most of the growth indemand will come from Asia.By 2005, wheat will challenge rice asthe major food staple in developingcountries because of a relatively higherincrease in demand (3.0% vs. 2.1 %). Percapita rice consumption is projected tobe around 97 kg/yr compared to 86 kg/yrof wheat in 2005 (CIMMYT EconomicsProgram database).TradeA volume of 115 million tons (21 % ofworld wheat production) was traded in1991. Despite rapid growth in wheatyields, the developing country share ofworld wheat imports has increasedsteadily from 47% in 1972 to around61 % in 1991 (Figure 17). Although theirshare of world wheat production hasbeen increasing, developing countrieshave not substantially strengthened theirposition as exporters.The volume of world wheat trade usuallydepends very much on the level ofdemand from the two main importers,the former Soviet Union (PSU) andChina. Uncertainty about demand fromChina stems from the unpredictableeffect of recently introduced marketreforms and decentralization efforts(USDA 1992).Wheat AidWheat food aid fluctuates greatly fromyear to year. In 1989 Asia, sub-SaharanAfrica, Latin America, and WANA eachreceived 1.3-2.3 million tons of wheat,although these regions differ greatly insize and population (Figure 18). As Asiahas become more self-sufficient andwealthy enough to purchase theadditional food it needs, its share inwheat aid has declined. The oppositetrend has prevailed in sub-SaharanAfrica, which since 1980 has receivedabout 20% of total wheat aid. The shareof Latin America, albeit small, has beengrowing since the mid-1970s. The mainrecipients are Central Americancountries, but Peru and Bolivia also havereceived substantial amounts.In 1989, nearly 1.3 million tons of wheataid went to Poland; consequently, theshare of aid going to industrializedcountries rose from less than 5% to 16%.At the same time, aid to developingcountries dropped to its lowest absolutelevel (6.4 minion tons) since 1982-83. Inthe short term the industrializedcountries' share of aid will probablyremain high, due to the increasing needfrom former socialist bloc countries andthe simultaneous concern of donors forstabilizing those new market economies.Share of totalwheat imports (%)100 -r--------------,Share of totalwheat aid (%)1009090,­I­80 High-Income countries80707060 ­50403060504030-I­-- 1­,­20 - 20 -f---f- .. .--,.....f--­ ,­ -10 10III • . I I_I I I_I I~~oo - .....1961 70 80 90 1970 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88Figure 17. World wheat imports, 1961-91. Sub-Saharan c:=J W. Asia! CI Asia c:=J Latin America OtherAfricaN. AfricaFigure 18. Wheat aid to developing countries, 1970-89.

1992/CJ3 World Wheal Facts and TrendsThe Proposed EuropeanCommunity Policy ReformThe reform of the EC CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP) is scheduledto begin with the 1993-94 (July-June)marketing year and will be phased inover three years. The reform consists offive key changes. First, the internalmarket will be slightly more accessibleto imported, non-EC wheal. Second, theprice guaranteed to farmers will belowered. Third, large producers willhave to take land out of production,including land usually sown to wheal.Fourth, producers hard hit by thesemeaSures will receive compensation inthe form of direct cash payments.Finally, new programs will be put intoplace to discourage the intensificationof production and the use ofenvironmentally harmful practices. As aresult, wheat production and area areexpected to decline, whereasconsumption is likely to increase due toa decline in wheat prices.Effects of Change inEastern Europe and the FormerSoviet UnionThe 1990s got off to a turbulent start inEastern Europe and the FSU as oldborders fell and new ones were created,old regimes were displaced, andfledgling democracies struggled to cometo terms with more market-orientedsystems. All of these changes haveimplications for the world wheatsituation.As markets were liberalized, food pricesrose, making the still relatively cheapwheat products preferred food items anddrastically reducing the feeding of breadto livestock. At the same time, livestocknumbers began to decline, loweringdemand for wheat as feed. Overall,wheat consumption and demand forimports fell, with the principle exceptionof Russia.Following 1992' s drought and uncertaingrain prices, Eastern Europe isrecovering from its lowest level of grainproduction in more than 10 years (USDA1993). Imports by Eastern Europe areprojected to fall for 1992-93, but FSUimports will probably rise. Whetherproduction in these regions will stabilizeor even grow in the next few yearsdepends on renewed economic growth aswell as the dissemination of betterproduction technologies. The formerEastern Bloc is challenged withimplementing much-needed land reform,which will certainly influence croppingpatterns, although the effect on wheatproduction is uncertain.Many former socialist countries willcontinue to rely heavily on wheatimports, particularly Russia. The FSUonce paid cash for all its imported grain,but barter ("ores for ears") nowconstitutes an estimated 20% of thevalue of the grain trade. The rest is paidfor mainly with credits and to a smallextent is given as food aid. Westernwheat exporters are still trying toestablish long-term, viable tradearrangements. Meanwhile, the EC hasbegun to dominate the East Europeanwheat market through preferentialtariffs, association agreements, creditallocations, and the EC' s transportationadvantage.What lies ahead for the FSU? Ensuringsufficient food supplies in the FSU is amajor concern to Western countries, whowant to ensure political stability and tosupport democratization, seeing thelong-term benefits of reduced militaryspending and potential export markets.The question remains of whether this isbest done through directly supporting thefood sector (import credits being atransitory instrument) or investing inother sectors of the economy to increaseexport opportunities and foreigncurrency income, which in tum willpermit a return to purchasing grain oncommercial terms.ConclusionsAs indicated above, growth in wheatyields and area has slowed considerablythroughout the world, especially indeveloping countries. At the same time,demand for wheat has been growingfaster than demand for any other cereal(Table 12). Although growth inconsumption is expected to declineeventually, it is not certain to whatextent developing countries will be ableto produce the wheat they need. Wheataid continues to be delivered todeveloping nations, but since the late1980s former socialist countries havealso emerged as major aid recipients. Allof these trends presage significantchange in the world wheat economy.

Part 3: Selected Wheat StatisticsLaura SaadThe tables that follow present 33statistics related to wheat production,trade, consumption, research, and prices,as well as some basic economicindicators. The statistics were selected toprovide the latest available information.Countries listed in the tables areclassified either as wheat consumers orproducers. Wheat consumers includedeveloping countries consuming over100,000 t of wheat per year, andindustrialized countries consuming morethan 1 million tons of wheat per year.Wheat producers include developingcountries in which wheat productionexceeded 100,000 t/yr (or accounted forat least 50% of total wheat consumption)and industrialized countries in whichwheat production exceeded I milliontons per year (or accounted for 50% oftotal wheat consumption). Average1989-91 data were used in theclassification.Unless otherwise indicated, the regionalaggregates include all of the countries ofa particular region, even countries forwhich data have not been reportedindividually (for a list of countriesbelonging to each region, see Annex I,inside back cover).All prices reported in the tables wereconverted to US dollars at officialexchange rates.Notes on the VariablesVariable 1: The source of thisinformation was the FAO AgrostatlPCdiskette of population statistics (1992).Variables 2-3: These data were obtainedfrom the World Bank WorldDevelopment Report (1993).Variables 4, 5, 9-17, 20: The source ofthese variables was the FAO World Cropand Livestocks Statistics, 1948-85(1987), FAO.DIF files on diskette (1987and 1988), and FAO AgrostatlPCdiskettes of production statistics (1993).Growth rates were calculated by semilogregression.Variables 6-8, 18, 19: These variableswere obtained from the FAO Agrostat/PC diskettes of production statistics(1993).Variables 21-24: These data wereobtained from the FAO diskettes of tradestatistics (1992). Net impOlts werecalculated as imports minus exports.Negative numbers indicate that a countryis a net exporter. Consumption wascalculated as production plus netimports. Growth rates were calculated bysemilog regression.Variables 25-29: These data (which arefor 1966-92) were collected through twosurveys sent to knowledgeable wheatscientists worldwide (see the box in PartI, "Sources of Information for ThisReport"). In nearly all cases, modernvarieties are defined as varieties carryingone or more semidwarf genes. Data onthe number of researchers refer to fulltimeequivalent scientists in wheatimprovement in 1992, although in somecases the late 1980s are the referenceyears. Some data were estimated byCIMMYT staff based on secondarysources. Data on the number of full-timeequivalent researchers (variable 28) arefor researchers in the public sector only.Variable 29 was calculated usingaverage 1988-92 production data.Regional totals and regional averages insome instances were based on data froma subset of countries in the region.Regional data are reported only wheninformation is available for at least 50%of the area in the region (or 50% ofwheat production, depending on thevariable).Variable 30: The source of thisinformation was the FAO FertilizerYearbook (1990) and FA0 Agrostat/PCfiles of land use statistics (1992).Fertilizer applied per hectare of arableland was calculated dividing the totalconsumption of fertilizer by total arableland and permanent crop area.Variables 31-33: These data werecollected through a general countrysurvey of wheat scientists andeconomists and refer to an importantproducing region within the country.Data for the majority of the countriesrefer to the wheat crop harvested in1991-92, although in some cases1992-93 is the reference year. The wheatprice is the average post-harvest pricereceived by farmers. The nitrogen priceis usually the price paid by farmers forthe most common nitrogenous fertilizer(usually urea). In some countries, onlythe price of compound fertilizer wasavailable; in these cases the variablerefers to the average price of allnutrients, whether N, P 20 S' and/or K 20.

1992/93 World Wheat Facts and TrendsEastern and Southern MricaIrrotlU{'crsIIEthiopia Kenya Sudan I Tanzania Zambia~I.I2.-f.. ~.. ­! e~)3.4.Estimated population, 1992 (million)EstImated growth rate of populatIon,1991-2000 (%/yr)Per capita income 1991 (US $)Per capita cereal production,1990-92 (kglyr)52.1 25.9 26.7 294 9.12.71201301141541311155, Growth rate of per capita cereal production.1983-92 (%/yr) 1.3 -1.2 38 -1.2 4.26. Wheat area harvested, 1990-92 (000 hal 687 102 368 46 147, Wheat yield, 1990-92 (tJha) 1.3 1.9 1.8 1.78, Wheat production, 1990-92 (000 t) 886 195 661 76.:!l 9. Growth rate of wheat area, 1951-92 (%) -1.0 0,2 8,6 4.2e 10. Growth rate of wheat area, 1973-92 (%) 0,9 0,8 0.8 0.0II1.1 II. Growth rale of wheal area, 1983-92 (%) 0.4 -1.3 161 -1.6'i 12, Growth rate of wheat yield, 195 J-92 (%) 2,2 1.6 -0.1 2,8'813. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1973-92 (%)2,00.62.50.6ClI...14, Growth rate of wheat yield, 1983-92 (%)2,81.45.33,3ClI 15, Growth rate of wheat production,i!~ 1951-92 (%)1.2 1.8 8,5 7.0... 16, Growth rate of wheat production,c:=Cl1973-92 (%) 2.8 1.4 32 0.6-::l~17. Growth rate of wheat production,1= 1983-92 (%)3,2 0.1 21.4 1.6~18. Wheat area as percent of total cereal area,1990-92 (%) 13 6 6 2 219. Average yield of all cereals, 1990-92 (tJha) 1.3 1.6 0.7 1.3 1.320. Growth rate of yields of all cereals,1951-92 (%/yr) 1.8 1.2 -1.4 1.6 2.53.53403.03.01003.0'isCOl%!-!1lI~=~~21. Net imports of wheat. 1989-91 (000 t) 622 222 663 60 1222, Net imports of wheat per capita,1989-91 (kg/yr)13 9 26 223, Per capita total wheat consumption,1989-91 (kg/yr) 30 18 44 5 824, Growth rate of per capita wheat consumption,1983-91 (%/yr) 3.5 -01 4.9 0,0 -10,025, Percent area under modern wheatvarieties, 1990 12 100 95 100 100~ 26, Number of wheat varieties released,......o~1966-90353481614! 27, Wheat varietal releases per million ha=.l:I wheat area, 1966-902,1 II2.012205i ~28. Number of full-time wheat improvement~!e researchers. 19921342529, Wheat improvement researchers per million ttlwheat production, 199215 17 5 8530. Fertilizer applied per hectare of arable land,t:= 1988-90 (kg nutrientslha) 6 47 4 14 17~~;f '"31. Farm price of wheat. 1991-92 (US$/t) 338 196 23332. Ratio of farm-level nitrogen priceto wheat price. 1991-922.73.01.533, Farm wage in kg of wheat per day, 1991-92464

Part 3: Selected Wheat StatisticsEastern and Southern Mrica(continued)l'rllducerConsumersZimbabwe Mozambique Somalia- '" .... oa :: -l!! ~~]I. Estimated population, 1992 (million) 10.3 16.5 7.9 242.22. Estimated growth rate of population,1991-2000 (%/yr)2.32.92.93. Per capita income 199\ (uS $)650802554. Per capita cereal production,1990-92 (kg/yr)17131 451165. Growth rate of per capita cereal production.1983-92 (%/yr) -7.3 -7.1 -8.5 -0.6i;fi•6. Wheat area harvested. 1990-92 (000 hal 41 3 2 1,3087. Wheat yield. 1990-92 (Uha) 5.5 1.78. Wheal production, 1990-92 (000 t) 222 2,1609. Growth rate of wheat area, 1951-92 (%)12.30.210. Growth rate of wheat area, 1973-92 (%)1.40.7~(J 11. Growth rate of wheat area. 1983-92 (%) 5.5 3.1='"'Ẹ .i-=~...=.gCol:I."E12. Growth rate of wheat yield. 1951-92 (%) 5.0 2.513. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1973-92 (%)2.02.214. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1983-92 (%)-0.73.715. Growth rate of wheat production.1951-92 (%)17.2 2.6Cl 16. Growth rate of wheat production,1973-92 (%)3.42.917. Growth rate of wheat production,1983-92 (%)4.87.018. Wheat area as percent of total cereal area.1990-92 (0/0)3

1992/93 World Wheat Facts and TrendsWestern and Central AfricaCunsume/osgolaCameroQnoled".vohoe GhllllB GuineBI. Estimaled population, 1992 (million)2. Estimated growlh rate of population.,,~1991-2000 (%lyr)3 Per capita income 1991 (US $)~;;... 4. Per capita cereal production,.. ~1990-92 (kg/yr)5. Growth rate of per capita cereal production,1983-92 (%/yr)------­6 Wheat area harvested, 1990-92 (000 hal7. Wheat yield, 1990-92 (t/ha)8. Wheat production, 1990-92 (000 t).

Part 3: Selected Wheat StatisticsWestern and Central Africa(continued)ConsulllersauritanJa 1gem Senegaal zaire-.....rr.1'1 =""=QI =... .­,."'Cw .:I.2.3.4.5.Estimated population, 1992 (million)Estimated growth rate of population,1991-2000 (%/yr)Per capita income 1991 (US $)Per capita cereal production.1990-92 (kg/yr)Growth rate of per capita cereal production.1983-92 (%/yr)2.12.9510452.2115.92.8340I 17to7.72.87201230.63793702281.72.94671071.0~..il...";1~.:$...=::;Ṣ.=~6.7.8.910.II.12.13.]4.15.16.17 .18.19.20.Wheat area harvested, 1990-92 (000 halWheat yield, 1990-92 (tJha)Wheat production, 1990-92 (000 t)Growth rate of wheat area, 1951-92 (%)Growth rate of wheal area, 1973-92 (%)Growth rate of wheat area, 1983-92 (%)Growth rate of wheat yield, 1951-92 (%)Growth rate of wheat yield, 1973-92 (%)Growth rate of wheat yield, 1983-92 (%)Growth rate of wheat production,1951-92 (%)Growth rate of wheat production,1973-92 (%)Growth rate of wheat production,1983-92 (%)Wheat area as percent of total cereal area,1990-92 (%)Average yield of all cereals, 1990-92 (tJha)Growth rate of yields of all cereals,1951-92 (%/yr)10.71.8571.2704.29.023.1-0.5-1.7-6.93.77.316.211.21.7000.81.47

34 1992/93 World Wheat Facts and TrendsNorth AfricaI'rodul"l'rsAJgeriaEgwt.. = 3-f~-~a :1-­.~ 'tl"-".:I. Estimated population, 1992 (million) 26.4 54.8 4.9 26.4 8.5 121.02. Estimated growth rate of population,1991-2000 (%/yr)2.72.12.21.92.2Per capita income 1991 (US $)1,980 6101,030 1,500 1,1794. Per capita cereal production,1990-92 (kg/yr) 110 258 61 232 255 2125. Growth rate of per capita cereal production,1983-92 (%/yr) 3.6 4.3 -4.8 0.7 4.1 3.46 Wheat area harvested, 1990-92 (000 hal 1,633 877 128 2,530 954 6,1227. Wheat yield, 1990-92 (tlha) 0.9 5.1 l.l 1.3 1.6 1.88. Wheat production, 1990-92 (000 t) 1,422 4,456 143 3,372 1,497 10,8909. Growth rate of wheat area, 1951-92 (%) -0.5 0.0 0.8 1.0 -1.1 0.0~10. Growth rale of wheat area, 1973-92 (%) -2.6 1.8 -1.1 J .9 -1.7 -0.1:.. II. Growth rate of wheal area, 1983-92 (%) 08 7.2 -8.9 3.6 -0.5 2.2:a '" 12. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1951-92 (%) 0.4 2.1 60 1.9 2.7 1.9'tlc13. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1973-92 (%) 2.4 2.6 68 26 2.6 3.7n 14. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1983-92 (%)4.0 4.7 5.5 07 7.6 5.5';!!15. Growth rate of wheat production,1951-92 (%J-0.2 2.2 6.9 2.9 1.6 2.01...c 16. Growth rate of wheat production,.2= 1973-92 (%)-0.3 4.4 5.6 4.5 0.8 3.6t: 17. Growth rate of wheat production,1983-92 (%)4.9 11.8 -3.4 4.2 7.1 7.8~ .. 18 Wheat area as percent of total cereal area,=­ 1990-92 (%) 54 36 30 47 64 4819. Average yield of all cereals, 1990-92 (t/ha) 0.9 5.7 0.7 1.1 1.4 2.020. Growth rate of yields of all cereals,1951-92 (%/yr) 0.5 2.0 4.5 1.2 2.7 1.9"0==~==~]E:s,..=21. Net imports of wheat, 1989·91 (000 t) 4,679 6,564 1,050 1,419 895 14,60522. Net imports of wheat per capita,1989-91 (kg/yr) 187 125 231 57 109 12723. Per capita total wheat consumption,1989-9 I (kg/yr)238 201 265 223 245 21924. Growth rate of per capita wheal consumption,1983-91 (%/yr) 2.2 1.2 3.4 2.3 1.8 1.9.......!l;>c~c..la~'" ~~~..25 Percent area under modem wheatvarieties, 1990 25 76 60 60 80 5626. Number of wheat varieties released,1966-90 25 18 22 28 14 10727. Wheat varietal releases per million hawheal area, 1966-900.5 1.3 4.1 0.6 0.7 0.828 . Number of full-time wheal improvementresearchers, 1992 15 30 12 19 9 8529. Wheal improvement researchers per miJJion twheat production, 1992 12 8 66 5 8 9-c. 30. Fertilizer applied per hectare of arable land,~~Gl1988-90 (kg nutrients/hal 27 383 40 35 23 66lo.:c';:; '"=..31.32.Farm price of wheat, 1991-92 (US$/tJRatio of farm-level nitrogen priceto wheat price, 1991-92417l.l3.02.733. Farm wage in kg of wheat per day, 1991-92 17 19 17258271

Part 3: Selected Wheat StatisticsWest AsiaI'rudlln~r~fghaals1aD lran Iraq Turkey-floS!" Go.Sf~lI. Estimated population, 1992 (million)2. Estimated growth rate of population,1991-2000 (%/yr)3. Per capita income 1991 (US $)4. Per capita cereal production,1990-92 (kg/yr)5. Growth rate of per capita cereal production,1983-92 (%/yr)18.5ISO-9.057.23.42.1702672.420.2127-1.715.33.57,82030613.113.53.41,1602762.\58.21.91.780528-0.51III~="'8"..J~...=>c:c:I~'8ṟ6. Wheat area harvested, 1990-92 (000 hal7. Wheat yield, 1990-92 (t/hal8. Wheat production, 1990-92 (000 t)9. Growth rate of wheat area. 1951-92 (%)10. Growth rate of wheat area. 1973-92 (%)II. Growth rate of wheat area, 1983-92 (%)12. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1951-92 (%)13. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1973-92 (%)14 . Growth rate of wheat yield. 1983-92 (%)15. Growth rate of wheat production,1951-92 (%)J6. Growth rate of wheat production,1973-92 (%)17, Growth rate of wheat production,1983-92 (%)18. Wheat area as percent of total cereal area.1990-92 (%)19 Average yield of all cereals, 1990-92 (t/ha)20 Growth rate of yields of all cereals,1951-92 (%/yr)1,6201.01,675-0.5-2.5-3.606-0.6-2.30.2-3.1-5.9721.20.76,3571.49.0022.70.70.70.92.23.83.62.94.6671.61.01,3380.81,091-0.5-1.52.61.20.6-1.30.7-0.81.3460.90.57615.13,8946.718.310.23.36.85.49.925.115.6764.52.61,3301.82.419-O.J-1.51.33.04.4462.82.95935091.29.4102.119,9191.00.20.32.12.21.63.12.31.8692.22.0e­... i21. Net imports of wheat, 1989-91 (000 t)22. Net imports of wheat per capita,1989-91 (kg/yr)23 P er capita tota I w heat consumption,1989-91 (kg/yr)24. Growth rate of per capita wheat consumption.1983-91 (%/yr)246IS119-6.63,854712101.52,205116172-5.9-1,447-102158-0.51.374110249-0.581339-0.3... £=> =>1IIt:j~.:varieties, 199026 . Number of wheat varieties released,1966-9027. Wheat varietal releases per million hawheat area, 1966-9028. Number of full-time wheat improvementresearchers. 199229. Wheat improvement researchers per million twheat production. 1992ji e25. Percent area under modern wheata..t-Iii:..........30. Fertilizer applied per hectare of arable land.1988-90 (kg nutrients/hal 8 71 39 202 45 6233160.1719..........10091.6....68110.3..31780.3513III2:E31. Farm price of wheat, 1991-92 (US$It)32. Ratio of farm-level nitrogen priceto wheat price, 1991-9233. Farm wage in kg of wheal per day, 1991-923001.910250........ ....5911.3..2021.635

1992/93 World Wheat Facts and TrendsWest Asia(continued)CunsumersJordan Lebanon OmannltedrabEmirateem~nnaIlotaJ oravengef§jt1. Estimated population, 1992 (million)2. Estimated growth rate of population,1991-2000 (%/yr)3. Per capita income 1991 (US $)4. Per capita cereal production,1990-92 (kglyr)5. Growth rate of per capita cereal production,1983-92 (%/yr)3.54.01,050370.02.82914.91.63.96,12037.31.720,14051,41263.752056-0.5207.92.92,5442930.2...;....Col:;1";.!~..Cll:l= Col='£6. Wheat area harvested, 1990-92 (000 hal7. Wheat yield, 1990-92 (tlha)8. Wheat production. 1990-92 (000 t)9. Growth rate of wheat area, 1951-92 (%)10 Growth rate of wheal area, 1973-92 (%)II. Growth rate of wheat area, 1983-92 (%)12. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1951-92 (%)13. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1973-92 (%)14. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1983-92 (%)15 . Growth rate of wheat production,1951-92 (%)16. Growth rate of wheat production,1973-92 (%)17. Growth rate of wheat production,1983-92 (%)18. Wheal area as percenl of total cereal area,1990-92 (%)19. Average yield of all cereals, 1990-92 (tlha)20. Growth rate of yields of all cereals.1951-92 (%/yr)591.375-4.3-5.9-4.81.85.75.0-2.5-OJ0.1441.01.2262.256-3.7-4.3592,43.78.3-1.3-0.514.2642.01.6502.01.52834.0-3.6921.51365.2093.80.02.1815.13.011.9130.90,421,0021.838,2811.10.00.51.92.62.73.02632621.71.6lla=*=~.af­!-i21. Net imports of wheat, 1989-91 (000 t)22. Net imports of wheat per capita,1989-91 (kg/yr)23. Per capita total wheat consumption,1989-91 (kg/yr)24. Growth rate of per capita wheat consumption,1983-91 (%/yr)4851491700.32861061270.512281821.91257980-5,41,363117129539,01746224-0.6... -!Cl~ll ..!a.a"'ColIll"~ị...:m ..t!!!'Et25. Percent area under modern wheatvarieties, 199026. Number of wheat varieties released,1966-9027. Wheat varietal releases per million hawheat area, 1966-9028. Number of full-time wheal improvementresearchers. 199229. Wheat improvement researchers per million twheat production, 199225133.930. Fertilizer applied per hectare of arable land.1988-90 (kg nutrients/hal 61 79 69 120 6 5831 Farm price of wheat, 1991-92 (US$/t)32. Ratio of farm-level nitrogen priceto wheat price, 1991-9233. Farm wage in kg of wheat per day, 199/-925010II3615012 a9,4 a381490,41987aData refer to former Yemen Arab Republic.

Part 3: Selected Wheat StatisticsSouth AsiaPakIstan- t:ES~ oa5·::c]I. Estimated population. 1992 (million)2. Estimated growth rate of population.1991-2000 (%/yr)1 Per capita income 1991 (US $)4. Per capita cereal production,1990-92 (kg/yr)5. Growth rate or per capita cereal production,1983-92 (%/yr)121.91.92202380.0889.31.83302250.543.5332-3.020.12.51802730.6130.62.8400169-1.317.71.1500139-2.41,224.91.93272240.0';....~'"...

- 8=_1992/93 World Wheat Facts and TrendsSoutheast Asia and Pacific( 'UIISUI1It'rS.Ingapore-,:w -I. Estimated population. 1992 (million) 191.3 18.8 65.4 2.8 57.2 69.7 431.92. Estimated growth rate of population,1991-2000 (%/yr)1.4 2.2 1.9 1.5 1.41.63. Per capita income 1991 (US $)610 2,520 730 14,210 1,5701,0874. Per capita cereal production,1990-92 (kg/yr) 282 105 220 397 306 2745. Growth rate of per capita cereal production,1983-92 (%/yr) 1.3 -1.2 0.1 -2.1 1.9 0.46. Wheat area harvested, 1990-92 (000 hal 0 0 0 0

Part 3: Selected Wheat Statistics.­East Asia l"'ulluCCI"SorthSouthChina Korea Mungolla Koreae::f'" 5·:' 13•• ":l... .:I. Estimated population, 1992 (million) \,\73.0 22.6 2.3 43.5 1.241.52. Estimated growth rate of population,1991-2000 (%/yr)1.30.81.33. Per capita income 1991 (US $)3706,3306054. Per capita cereal production.1990-92 (kg/yr)346 455 2391873425. Growth rate of per capita cereal production.1983-92 (%/yr) 0.4 -1.9 -7.5 -1.9 0.4~..;; '"6. Wheat area harvested, 1990-92 (000 hal 30,785 51 512

==-4a-1992/93 World Wheat Facts and TrendsMexico, Central America,and the CaribbeanubaConsumersDomInkanRepubU('EI. alvador-l;011 ~.. ­~~~lI. Estimated population, 1992 (million)2. Estimated growth rate of population,1991-2000 (%/yr)3. Per capita income 1991 (US $)4. Per capita cereal production,1990-92 (kg/yr)5. Growth rate of per capita cereal production,1983-92 (%/yr)92.31.93,030273-2.13.22.01,85086-7.710.846-4.77.51.694071-4.05.52.01,0801581.9-; '"f~~-;1oWJ~...g=:z=iIt6 Wheat area harvested, 1990-92 (000 hal7. Wheat yield, 1990-92 (tlha)8 Wheat production, 1990-92 (000 t)9. Growth rate of wheat area. 1951-92 (%)10. Growth rate of wheat area. 1973-92 (%)II. Growth rate of wheat area, 1983-92 (%)12. Growth rate of wheat yield. 1951-92 (%)13. Growth rate of wheat yield. 1973-92 (%)14. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1983-92 (%)15. Growth rate of wheat production,1951-92 (%)16 Growth rate of wheat production,1973-92 (%J17. Growth rate of wheat production,1983-92 (%)18. Wheat area as percent of total cereal area,1990-92 (%)19. Average yield of all cereals. 1990-92 (tlha)20. Growth rate of yields of all cereals,1951-92 (%/yr)9454.13,8660.723-08381.0-0.64.53.2-1392.43.000302.7002.32.3003.72.6001.91.9as011;1~ .. ­i-'521. Net imports of wheat, 1989-91 (000 t)22. Net imports of wheat per capita,1989-91 (kg/yr)23. Per capita total wheat consumption,1989-91 (kg/yr)24. Growth rate of per capita wheat consumption.1983-91 (%/yr)387451-2.51244141-1.81,336126126-2.220729290.31292525-3.1.....'"=~~-== ~lit~!....S!~25. Percent area under modem wheatvarieties. 1990 9526. Number of wheat varieties released.1966-908527. Wheat varietal releases per million hawheat area, 1966-904.028. Number of full-time wheat improvementresearchers, 1992529. Wheat improvement researchers per million twheat production, 199230. Fertilizer applied per hectare of arable land.1988-90 (kg nuu;entslha) 72 191 191 50 121~;e31. Farm price of wheat, 1991-92 (US$It)32. Ratio of farm-level nitrogen pliceto wheat price, 1991-9233 Farm wage in kg of wheat per day, 1991-921942.040

Part 3: Selected Wheat Statistics_-41=Mexico, Central America,('ltn~Ul1lCr~and the Caribbean(continued)JamaicaTrinidadand Tl)bago-,eS!~":a~ ,5I. Estimated population, 1992 (million)2, Estimated growth rate of population,1991-2000 (%/yr)3 Per capita income 1991 (US $)4. Per capita cereal production.1990-92 (kg/yr)5. Growth rate of per capita cereal production,1983-92 (%/yr)9.72,9930146-1.26.81.737047-7.05.52,9580130-0.32.50.51,380-14.81.30.93,6701311.6154.12.02,398199-2.0-=....'"...os-;'l;l=II';;-= "~'==~u'l;l=:>£:6. Wheat area harvested, 1990-92 (000 hal7. Wheat yield, 1990-92 (t/ha)8. Wheat production, 1990-92 (000 t)9. Growth rate of wheat area, 1951-92 (%)10. Growth rate of wheat area, 1973-92 (%)11. Growth rate of wheat area, 1983-92 (%)12. Growth rate of wheat yield. 1951-92 (%)13. Growth rate of wheal yield, 1973-92 (%)14. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1983-92 (%)15. Growth rate of wheat production,1951-92 (%)16. Growth rate of wheat production,1973-92 (%)17. Growth rate of wheat production.1983-92(%)18. Wheat area as percent of total cereal area,1990-92 (%)19. Average yield of all cereals, 1990-92 (t/ha)20. Growth rate of yields of all cereals,1951-92 (%/yr))41.725-l.0-5.4-12.33.22.61.72.3-2.8-10.621.92.800l.00.5

1992/93 World Wheat Facts and TrendsAndean Region, South Americat'UI1SU IIll'rS-~"e'-­~H'~:aPeru BoJlvla ColombiaI. Estimated population, 1992 (million) 22.4 7.7 34.2 11.1 20.7 9762. Estimated growth rate of population,1991-2000 (%/yr)1.92.41.52.11.9 1.83. Per capita income 1991 (US $)1,070650 1,260 1,000 2,730 1,4564. Per capita cereal production,~.E 1990-92 (kg/yrl 77 113 118 135 99 1095. Growth rate of per capita cereal production,1983-92 (%/yr) -2.7 -0.3 0.9 7.5 12 0.6..'­.."; '"6. Wheat area harvested, 1990-92 (000 hal 85 93 49 35 2637. Wheat yield, 1990-92 (t/ha) 1.2 0.8 1.9 0.8 1.18. Wheat production, 1990-92 (000 t) 100 79 91 28 2989.10.Growth rate of wheat area, 1951-92 (%)Growth rate of wheat area, 1973-92 (%)-1.8-2.01.61.1-4.61.3-2.0-2.4-1.8-0.7~ 11. Growth rate of wheat area, 1983-92 (%) 0.8 0.9 0.7 4.7 1.3iii 12. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1951-92 (%) 0.7 0.8 2.4 0.9 0.9'l; 13.1.70.22.6 -1.41.3I:14.1.62.51.9 -3.41.415.jS...Growth rate of wheat yield. 1973-92 (%)Growth rate of wheat yield. 1983-92 (%)Growth rate of wheat production,1951-92(%)Growth rate of wheat production,-1.116.I:c:> 1973-92 (%) -0.3 1.3 4.0 -3.8 0.6~ 17. Growth rate of wheat production,~ 1983-92 (%) 2.4 3.4 2.6 1.3 2.7E18. Wheat area as percent of total cereal area,1990-92 (%) 12 16 3 4

Part 3: Selected Wheat StatisticsSouthern Cone, South Americal'rlllluCl'rsrgentlna Brazil Paraguay Uruguay'i~.. =eli~!1. Estimated population, 1992 (million) 33.\ 156.3 13.6 4.5 3.1 210.62. Estimated growth rate of population,1991-2000 (%/yr)1.01.4 132.60.6 133. Per capita income 1991 (US $)2,790 2,940 2,160 1,270 2,840 2,8294. Per capita cereal production,1990-92 (kg/yr)669247218 231393 3135. Growth rate of per capita cereal production,1983-92 (%/yr) -6.1 0.7 4.5 -2.5 2.2 -2.0'"lQl""j~...c6. Wheat area harvested. 1990-92 (000 hal 4,858 2,224 503 188 166 7,9407. Wheat yield. 1990-92 (tlha) 2.1 1.3 3.2 1.4 2.0 1.98. Wheat production, 1990-92 (000 t) 10,094 2,951 1,621 271 335 15.2729. Growth rate of wheat area, 1951-92 (%)0.43.6-1.4 10.9-3.50.810. Growth rate of wheat area, 1973-92 (%)0.3-0.2-0.9 14.1-5.20.011. Growth rate of wheat area, 1983-92 (0/0) -3.5 0.6 1.5 6.0 -5.0 -2.2::; 12. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1951·92 (0/0) 1.4 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.1 1.4113.1.73.85.13.14.72.6~ 14.1.41.27.11.54.31.515.=0Growth rate of wheat yield, 1973·92 (0/0)Growth rate of wheat yield, 1983·92 (0/0)Growth rate of wheat production,1951-92 (%)16. Growth rale of wheat production,1973-92 (%)1.82.05.63.60.74.213.\17.1-1.4-0.52.22.7-=~"0eIloo17. Growth rate of wheat production,1983-92 (0/0)18 Wheat area as percent of total cereal area,[990-92 (0/0)-2.158116833332719. Average yield of all cereals, J990-92 (tlha) 2.6 1.9 3.9 1.8 25 2.220. Growth rate of yields of all cereals,1951-92 (%/yr) 2.1 12.1 2.7 0.9 3.2 1.51.98.67.7-07-0.7igIll;~~~=II>.... 1:C c... t:~.:Bi~rḷ...:.!E~I~..21. Net imports of wheat. 1989-91 (000 t) -5384 2,736 90 -100 -158 -281622. Net imports of wheat per capita.1989-91 (kg/yr) -167 18 7 -23 -5\ -1423. Per capita total wheat consumption.1989-91 (kg/yr) 155 44 \35 52 87 6824 Growth rate of per capita wheat consumption,1983-91 (%/yr) 13 -3.2 -1.7 -3.0 -11.4 -0.325. Percent area under modern wheatvarieties. j 990 90 64 90 100 72 8226. Number of wheat varieties released,1966-90104179\062120 43027. Wheat varietal releases per million hawheat area, 1966-900.82.97.1102.72.028. Number of full-time wheal improvementresearchers, 199223479738929. Wheat improvement researchers per million twheat production, \992 2 12 5 18 7 630 Fertilizer applied per hectare of arable land,J988-90 (kg nutrientslha) 6 62 74 6 48 45~'C31. Farm price of wheat, 1991-92 (USS/t) 93 201 179 106 11032. Ratio of farm-level nitrogen price.c. to wheat price, J99\-92 6.1 4.5 3.2 7.0 4.633. Farm wage in kg of wheat per day, 1991-92 21 23

44 - 1Cf'!2/CJ3 World Wheat Facts and TrendsEastern Europe and Former USSR*ProducersFQI"Jllet'IbllDla Bl1Igarla zech~lol'akill Hungary1. Estimated population. 1992 (million) 3A 9.0 15.7 10.32. Estimated growth rate of population,v.-'" .. 1991-2000 (%/yr)-0.2-OA.. ­~3. Per capita income J991 (US $)1,840 2,4702,720~~.. " '­ 4. Per capita cereal production.~...I .S 1990-92 (kg/yr) 212 887 739 1,2505. Growth rate of per capita cereal production,1983-92 (%/yrl -7.8 0.5 -0.2 -IA6. Wheat area harvested. 1990-92 (000 hal 158 1.104 1,185 1.0647. Wheat yield, 1990-92 (t1ha) 2.6 3.9 5.1 4.98. Wheat production. 1990-92 (000 t) 414 4.353 6.050 5.211.!!i 9. Growth rate of wheat area, 1951-92 (%) 1.9 -0.8 1.7 00=" ṭ ..1011.Growth rate of wheat area, 1973-92 (%)Growth rate of wheat area. 1983-92 (%)-0.3-3.01.3-0.3-0.1-0.2-0.8-39-; 12 Growth rate of wheat yield. 1951-92 (%) 3.6 3.1 2.8 3.8~=:13. Growth rate of wheat yield. 1973-92 (%) 1.6 0.7 2.0 2.0COl14. Growth rate of wheat yield. 1983-92 (%)-2A1.6OA0.1;; 15. Growth rate of wheat production.l!~ 1951-92(%)'­ Q 16 Growth rate of wheat production,c1973-92 (%),~t:i 17. Growth rate of wheat production.::I~ 1983-92 (%)Q.. 18 . Wheat area as percent of total cereal area.Q.5.5IA-SA1990-92 (%)5953493919 Average yield of all cereals. 1990-92 (tlha) 2.6 3.8 4.8 4.820. Growth rate of yields of all cereals.1951-92 (%/yr) 3.5 3.0 2.8 3521. Net imports of wheat. 1989-91 (000 t) 124 -131 -1l3 -1298~c22. Net imports of wheat per capita,C~=: 1989-91 (kg/yr) 38 -15 -7 -125..

Part 3: Setected WheatStabsbcs45 _.­ .-Eastern Europe and Former USSR*(continued)PolllJldRomania"rllduccrFormerYugoslavia-"CQIf:g....=...QI .­:)]I. Estimated population. 1992 (million)2. Estimated growth rate of population,1991-2000 (%/yr)3. Per capita income 1991 (US $)4, Per capita cereal production,1990-92 (kg/yr)5. Growth rate of per capita cereal production,1983-92 (%/yr)38.50.31,7906600.023.10.21.390702-4.0293.6OA2,697630-0.724.0623-3.2417.6OA2,349659-1.0J}'3"'­...QI';1!....~.A: '"$...~::.~...=I6 Wheat area harvested. 1990-92 (000 hal7, Wheat yield. 1990-92 (tiha)8 Wheat production. 1990-92 (000 t)9. Growth rate of wheat area. 1951-92 (%)10, Growth rate of wheat area, 1973-92 (%)II. Growth rate of wheat area, 1983-92 (%)12. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1951-92 (%)13. Growth rate of wheat yield, 1973-92 (%)14, Growth rate of wheat yield, 1983-92 (%)15, Growth rate of wheat production,1951-92 (%)16 Growth rate of wheat production,1973-92 (%)17, Growth rate of wheat production,1983-92 (%)18, Wheat area as percent of total cereal area.1990-92 (%)19. Average yield of all cereals. 1990-92 (tiha)20. Growth rate of yields of all cereals,1951-92 (%/yr)2,3743.68,5551.01.44.72.7IA0.33.72.95.0283.02A1,9302.85,320-1.0-0.7-3.03.01.20.22.0OA-2.8332.83.046,5991.987,939-0.4-1.9-1.22.01.32.91.5-0.61.7451.82.01,3524.05,452-1.0-1.4-1.83A1.61.12A0.1-0.7343.83.355,7662.2123.294-OA-1.6-1.12.31.62,31.90.01.3432.22,221. Net imports of wheat, 1989-91 (000 t)22, Net imports of wheat per capita,1!§"'.=1989-91 (kg/yr)'ia .. " 23, Per capita total wheat consumption,'-­= 1989-91 (kglyr)24, Growth rate of per capita wheat consumption,1983-91 (%/yr)1.010272612.715273031.515,60954355-0.3-559-232350,414,794363440.2... ;: '"OQe :,,).. =",1::.A:B i:~ ~:I'­L,;lo!,!::l QI~ :g~'"..'i: '"::l.25. Percent area under modern wheatvarieties, 199026. Number of wheat varieties released.1966-9027. Wheat varietal releases per million h.awheat area, 1966-9028. Number of full-time wheat improvementresearchers. 199229. Wheat improvement researchers per million twheat production. 199230. Fertilizer applied per h.ectare of arable land.1988-90 (kg nutrients!h.a) 224 136 114 126 12931. Farm price of wheat, 1991-92 (US$/t)32 . Ratio of farm-level nitrogen priceto wheat price, 1991-9233. Farm wage in kg ofwh.eat per day, 1991-92810.624* Data cover the same area previously designated as the USSR.

1992/93 World Wheat Facts and TrendsPt"CfChll'l'l"SWestern Europe,~-North America, and OtherIBelgium!Industrialized Countries uslraUa Au.!!!!!.....Luxembo~ ....£...anada Denmark I FinlandIf'fsQj 5~l1;=;1~~01­"':1-=......'aD~a.c:~I1. Estimated population, 1992 (million) 17.5 7.8 10.4 27.2 5.2 5.02. Estimated growth rate of population,1991-2000 (%/yr)1.30.40.20.8 0.2 0.33. Per capita income 1991 (US $)17,050 20,140 18,950 20,440 23,700 23,9804. Per capita cereal production,1990-92 (kg/yr)1,284 626 214 1,975 1,679 7135. Growth rate of per capita cereal production,1983-92 (%/yr)_.-4.8 -1.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 -1.36. Wheat area harvested, 1990-92 (000 hal 8,501 265 219 14,030 548 1297. Wheat yield, 1990-92 (t/ha) 1.6 5.0 6.6 2.2 6.9 3.68. Wheat production. 1990-92 (000 t) 13,586 1,326 1,437 31,305 3,757 4619. Growth rate of wheat area, 1951-92 (%) 2.5 0.5 -0.1 0.9 4.5 -0.610. Growth rate of wheat area, 1973-92 (%) -0.2 0.2 0.4 2.4 10.0 -2.0II. Growth rate of wheat area, 1983-92 (%) -5.2 -2.7 1.5 0.4 8.4 -4.312. Growth rate of wheat yield. 1951-92 (%) 0.7 2.5 2.0 1.1 1.6 2.013. Growth rate of wheat yield. 1973-92 (%) 1.2 l.9 2.4 0.7 2.2 1.314. Growth rate of wheat yield. 1983-92 (%) 0.4 1.I 1.4 2.2 0.8 0.015. Growth rate of wheat production,1951-92 (%) 3.3 3.0 1.8 2.0 6.2 1.416. Growth rate of wheat production,1973-92 (%) 1.0 2.1 2.9 3.1 12.2 -0.717. Growth rate of wheat production,1983-92 (%) -4.8 -1.6 2.9 2.5 9.2 -4.318. Wheat area as percent of total cereal area,1990-92 (%) 65 29 62 67 35 1219. Average yield of all cereals. 1990-92 (t/ha) 1.7 5.4 6.3 26 5.5 3.420. Growth rate of yields of all cereals,1951-92 (%/yr) 1.1 2.9 2.0 1.5 1.3 l.921. Net imports of wheat, 1989-91 (000 t) -11,412 -403 446 -17,709 -1,239 2622. Net imports of wheat per capita.\989-91 (kg/yr) -668 -52 43 -665 -241 523. Per capita lotal wheat consumption,1989-91 (kg/yr)112 127 182 447 462 11724. Growth rate of per capita wheat consumption,1983-91 (%/yr) -12.8 I.l 2.7 9.2 3.9 0.025. Percent area under modern wheatvarieties, 199026. Number of wheat varieties released,1966-9027. Wheat varietal releases per million hawheat area, 1966-9028. Number of full-time wheat improvementresearchers. 1992 7229. Wheat improvement researchers per million twheat production. 1992 5

Part3: Selected WheatStatistics .__ ~7- 'Western Europe,North America, and Other(continued) ranee Germany- Greece!'l"Ilducl'rs-~~c.. ­i! 13;1'­(,;~I, Estimated population, 1992 (million)2, Estimated growth rate of population.1991-2000 (%/yr)3. Per capita income 1991 (US $)4, Per capita cereal produclion.1990-92 (kg/yr)5, Growth rate of per capita cereal production.1983-92 (%/yr)56.80.420,3801,0351.479,80,023,650 b4670,110.10,\6,3405371.43,60,311,120593-0.457.80.118,520325-0.215.20,818,78087·0.4,II:~

48 1992/'J3 World Wheat Facts and TrendsWestern Europe,Prlldll~cr~North America, and Other(continued)ewZealandouthAfT! awilzerlandUnited~ngdom-f'" C~;;.~~v.E1. Estimated population, 1992 (million)2, Estimated growth rate of population,1991-2000 (%/yr)3, Per capita income 1991 (US $)4, Per capita cereal production,1990-92 (kg/yr)5, Growth rate of per capita cereal production,1983-92 (%/yr)3,50.812,350243-4.736,92.22,560246-1.639.40,112,450446-0,38,60.625,110592-3.46,80.733,6101883157,90,216,550389-0.9or.:.....

Part 3: Selected Wheat Statistics ~;Western Europe,NorthAme rica, and Other(continued){"OIiSlIllll'I'SUnited'tal I raeI Japan lorway Portugal-~fs;.­ 0/5• _ "Cl'-' .5I. Estimated population. 1992 (million)2. Estimated growth rate of population,1991-2000 (%/yr)3. Per capita income 1991 (US $)4. Per capita cereal production.1990-92 (kglyr)5. Growth rate of per capita cereal production,1983-92 (%/yr)253.60.922,2401,2530.85.12.811,95052-2.7124.40.326.930113-1.74.30.424,220308-0.610.30.05.9301431.1..II>

1992/93 World Wheat Facts and TrendsRegional Aggregatestern.a t mEurope.EurQpe.ortb mer! a. and Formerand Other U:'R World.. .:::.. !:: "I. Estimated population, 1992 (million) 4,213.5 847.9 417.6 5.478.92. Estimated growth rate of population.1991-2000 (%/yr) 1.8 0.6 0.4 1.53. Per capita income 1991 (US $) 858 20.252 2.349 3.983i! e 4. Per capita cereal production,.~]1990-92 (kg/)'r) 254 720 659 3585. Growth rate of per capita cereal production.1983-92 (%/yr) 0.0 0.3 -1.0 -0.46, Wheat area harvested. 1990-92 (000 hal 101,710 67.204 55,766 224.6807, Wheat yield, 1990-92 (tlha) 2.4 3.0 2.2 2.58, Wheat production, 1990-92 (000 t) 239.931 204.298 123.294 567.5229, Growth rate of wheat area. 1951-92 (%) 1.1 0.6 -0.4 0.510. Growth rate of wheat area, 1973-92 (%) 0.7 0.3 -1.6 0.01.. II Growth rate of wileat area. 1983-92 (%) 0.3 -1.0 -1.1 -0.4":i 12. Growth rate of wheat yield, 195 I-92 (%) 3.0 1.9 2.3 2.413. Growth rate of wheat yield. 1973-92 (%) 3.6 1.9 1.6 2.511It 14, Growth rate of wheal yield, 1983-92 (%) 2.0 1.5 2.3 1.9;; .. 15, Growth rate of wheat production..::.~ 1951-92 (%) 4.1 2.5 1.9 2.9...c 16. Growth rate of wheat production.

ReferencesAmbrosi, I., and E.R. da Cruz. 1984. Taxes deretorno dos recursos aplicados em pesquisano Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Trigo.Passo Fundo, Brazil: EMBRAPA-CNPT.Ardito-Barletta, N. 1970. Cost and SocialBenefits of Agricultural Research in Mexico.PhD dissertation. Chicago, Illinois:University of Chicago.Australian Wheat Board. 1992.1991-1992Annual Report. Melbourne, Australia:Australian Wheat Board.Bohn, A. 1993. Investment in wheat breeding indeveloping countries. Draft paper. Mexico,D.F.: CIMMYT.Brennan, J. 1986. The wheat breading industryin Australia. Wagga Wagga, Australia:Agricultural Research Institute. Mimeo.____. 1988. An Economic Investigation ofWheat Breeding Programs. AgriculturalEconomics Bulletin No. 35. ArmidaJe,Australia: University of New England,Department of Agricultural Economics andBusiness Management.____.1991. Economic CriteriaforEstablishing Plant Breeding Programs.CIMMYT Economics Working Paper 92-01.Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.Byerlee, D. 1990. Technical Change andReturns to Wheat Breeding Research inPakistan's Punjab in the Post-GreenRevolution Period. PARC/CIMMYT PaperNo. 90-7. Islamabad, Pakistan: PakistanAgricultural Research Council.____. 1993a. Modern varieties,productivity, and sustainability: Recentexperience and emerging challenges. Paperpresented at the AAEA Pre-conferenceWorkshop, "Post-Green RevolutionAgricultural Development Strategies: WhatNext?", 30-31 July 1993, Orlando, Florida.____. 1993b. Technical change and returnsto wheat breeding research in Pakistan'sPunjab in the Post-Green Revolution period.The Pakistan Development Review 32(1): 69­86.____. 1993c. Technology Transfer Systemsfor Improved Crop Management: Lessons forthe Future. In J.R. Anderson (ed.),Agricultural Technology: Policy Issues forthe III/ernational Community. Wallingford,UK: CAB International.Byerlee, D., and P. Moya. 1993. Impacts ofInternational Wheat Breeding Research inthe Developing World, 1966-1990. Mexico,D.F.: CIMMYT (forthcoming).Clements, R.J., A.A. Rosielle, and R.D. Hilton.1992. National Review of Crop Improvementill the Australian Grains Industry: A Reportto the Board of the Grains Research andDevelopment Corporation. Canberra,Australia: GRDC.Dalrymple, D. 1978. Development and Spread ofHigh Yielding Varieties of Wheat and Rice inthe Less Developed Nations. USDA ForeignAgricultural Economics Report No. 95.Washington, D.C.: United States Departmentof Agriculture.____. 1986. Developmell/ and Spread ofHigh Yielding Wheat Varieties in DevelopingCoul11ries. Washington, D.C.: United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Agency forInternational Development.Eddleman, B. 1977. Impacts ofReduced FederalExpenditures for Agricultural Research andEducation. IR-6 Information Report No. 60.Evenson, R.E., and E. da Cruz. 1989. TheEconomic Impacts of PROCISUR Program:An Il11ernational Study. Economic GrowthCenter, Yale University. New Haven,Connecticut: Yale.Evenson, R.E., and J.W. McKinsey. 1991.Research, extension, infrastructure, andproductivity change in Indian Agriculture. InR.E. Evenson and C.E.Pray (eds.), Researchand Productivity in Asian Agriculture.Ithaca. New York: Cornell University Press.Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations. 1987.1948-1985 World Crop andLivestock Statistics. Rome, Italy: FAO.____.1991. FAO Yearbook. Rome, Italy:FAO.___. 1992. FAO AgrostatJPC land usestatistics. Diskettes. Rome, Italy: FAO.____.1992. FAO AgrostatlPC populationstatistics. Diskettes. Rome, Italy: FAO.___.1992. FAO Agrostat/PC tradestatistics. Diskettes. Rome, Italy: FAO.____.1992. Fertilizer Yearbook. Rome,Italy: FAO.____.1993. FAO AgrostatlPC productionstatistics. Diskettes. Rome, Italy: FAO.Gebre-Mariam, H., D.G. Tanner, and M. Hulluka(eds). 1991. Wheat Research in Ethiopia: AHistorical Perspective. Addis Ababa:Institute of Agricultural ResearchiCIMMYT.Hanson, H., N.E. Borlaug, and R. G. Anderson.1982. Wheat in the Third World. Boulder,Colorado: Westview Press.Heisey, P. (ed.). 1990. Accelerating the Transferof Wheat Breeding Gains to Farmers: AStudy of the Dynamics of VarietalReplacemell/ in Pakistan. CIMMYTResearch Report No. I. Mexico, D.F.:CIMMYT.Heisey, P., and J. Brennan. 1991. An analyticalmodel of farmers' demand for replacementseed. American Journal ofAgriculturalEconomics 73(4): 1044-1052.Hertford, R., J. Ardila, A. Rocha, and G.Trujillo. 1977. Productivity of agriculturalresearch in Colombia. In T.M. Arndt, D.G.Dalrymple, and V.W. Ruttan (eds.), ResourceAllocation and Productivity in National andInternational Agricultural Research.Minneapolis. Minnesota: University ofMinnesota Press.Howard, L.E. 1953. Sir Albert Howard in India.Emmaus, Pennsylvania: Rodale Press.Huffman, W.. and R. Evenson. 1993. Science forAgriculture. Ames, Iowa: Iowa StateUniversity Press.International Wheat Council. 1992. GrainMarket Report (various issues).1993. Grain Market Report (variousissues).Jain, K.B.L., et al. 1993. Wheat breeding inIndia: Trends and impacts. Draft paper.Mexico, D.F.: Indian Council forAgricultural Research/CIMMYT.James, N.!. 1990. A survey of public plantbreeding programs in the United States,1989. Diversity 6(2): 32-33.Judd, M.A., J.K. Boyce, and R.E. Evenson,1983. Investing in Agricultural Supply.Discussion Paper No. 442. New Haven,Connecticut: Yale University, EconomicGrowth Center.Kallon, R.R., P.A. Richardson, and N.M. Frey.1989. Inputs of private breeding andbiotechnology research programs in theUnited States. Diversity 5(4): 22-25.Khan, M.A. 1987. Wheat Variety Developmell/and Longevity ofRust Resistance. Lahore,Pakistan: Department of Agriculture,Government of the Punjab.Kirkpatrick, R.A. 1975. New Wheat Cultivarsand Longevity ofRust Resistance, 1971­1975. ARS-NE-64. Washington, D.C.:Agricultural Research Service, United StatesDepartment of Agriculture.

Kislev, Y., and M. Hoffman. 1978. Researchand Productivity in Wheat in Israel. JournalofDevelopment Studies 14(2): 165-181.Knudson, M. 1986. The Research andDevelopment on a Biological Innovation:The Case of Hybrid Wheal. Discussion PaperNo. 56. Minneapolis, Minnesota: StrategicManagement Research Center, University ofMinnesota.Macagno, L., and V.L. Gomez Chao. 1993.Impaclo de la invesligaci6n en Irigo en laArgentina: Un analisis econ6mico "expost".Documento de Trabajo NO.3(Revised). Buenos Aires, Argentina:Direccion Nacional Asistente dePlanificacion, Instituto Nacional deTecnologia Agropecuaria (forthcoming).Maredia, M. 1993. The Economics of theInternational Transfer of Wheat Varieties.PhD dissertation. East Lansing, Michigan:Department of Agricultural Economics,Michigan State University.Mariani, C., M. de Beuckeleer, J. Truettner, J.Leemans, and R.B. Goldberg. 1990.Induction of male sterility in plants by achimaeric ribonuclease gene. Nalure 347:737-741.Marshall, G., and J.P. Brennan. 1993. Onbenefit-cost evaluation of research projects.Paper presented at the 37th AnnualConference of the Australian AgriculturalEconomics Society, 9-11 February, 1993,University of Sydney, Australia.McMullen, N. 1987. Seeds and WorldAgricultural Progress. NPA Report No. 227.Washington, D.C.: National PlanningAssociation.Morris, M.L., C. Clancy, and Miguel A. Lopez­Pereira. 1992. Maize Research Investmentand Impacts in Developing Countries. Part Iof 1991/92 C1MMYT World Maize Facts andTrends: Maize Research Investment andImpacts in Developing Countries. Mexico,D.F.: CIMMYT.Morris, M.L., H.J. Dubin, and T. Pokhrel. 1992.Relurns 10 Wheat Research in Nepal.CIMMYT Economics Working Paper 92-04.Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.Nagy, J.G. 1991. Returns from agriculturalresearch and extension in wheat and maizein Pakistan. In R.E. Evenson and C.E.Pray(eds.), Research and Productivity in AsianAgriculture. Ithaca, New York: CornellUniversity Press.NPBRC. 1974. Annual Report. Njoro, Kenya:National Plant Breeding Research Centre.Otto, D.M., and J. Havlicek. 1981. An EconomicAssessment of Research and ExtensionInvestments in Corn, Wheat, Soybeans, andSorghum. Research Report. Blacksburg,Virginia: Department of AgriculturalEconomics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute.Pardey, P.G., and J. Roseboom. 1989. ISNARAgricultural Research Indicator Series. AGlobal Data Base on National AgriculturalResearch Syslems. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.Pardey, P.G., J. Roseboom, and J.R. Anderson.1991. Agricultural Research Policy:International Quantitative Perspectives.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.Perrson, R, 1990. Financial and TechnicalAssessment of the Seed Business in tbeUnited Kingdom Today and FutureProspects. MSc thesis. Edinburgh, Scotland:University of Edinburgh.Perry, M., and M. D' Antuono. 1989. Yieldimprovement and associated characteristicsof some Australian spring wheat cultivarsintroduced between 1860 and 1982.Australian Journal ofAgricultural Resea'rch40: 457-472.Pray, C. 1978. The Economics of AgriculturalResearch in British Punjab and PakistaniPunjab, 1905-75. PhD dissertation.Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University ofPennsylvania.____. 1984. The impact of agriculturalresearch in British India. Journal ofEconomic History 44: 429-440.____. 1992. Plant breeders' rightslegislation, enforcement, and R&D:Lessons for developing countries. In G.H.Peters and B.F. Stanton (eds.), SustainableAgricultural Development: The Role ofInternational Cooperation. Proceedings ofthe 21 st International Conference ofAgricultural Economists, 22-29 August,1991, Tokyo, Japan. Brookfield, Vermont:Dartmouth Publishing.Rajaram, S., M. van Ginkel, and R.A. Fischer.1993. CIMMYT's wheat breeding megaenvironments(ME). In Proceedings oftheInternational Wheat Genetics Symposium,20-25 July 1993, Beijing, China(forthcoming).Singh, R.P., T.S. Payne, P. Figueroa, and S.Valenzuela. 1991. Comparison of the effectof leaf rust on the grain yield of resistant,partially resistant, and susceptible springwheat cultivars. American Journal ofAlternative Agriculture 6: 115-121.Tandon, J.P., and A.P. Sethi (eds.). 1986.Twenty-five Years of Co-ordinated WheatResearch. New Delhi, India: All IndiaCoordinated Wheat Improvement Project,Indian Agricultural Research Institute.Traxler, G., and D. ByerJee. 1992. The economicreturns to crop management research in aPost-Green Revolution setting. AmericanJournal ofAgricultural Economics 74: 575­582.USDA. ERS. 1992. Wheat Situation and OutlookReport, November 1992 (WS-299).Washington, D.C.: United States Departmentof Agriculture, Economic Research Service.____. 1993. Wheat Situation and OutlookReport (various issues). Washington, D.C.:United States Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Service.USDA, FAS. 1993. World Grain Situalion andOutlook (various issues). Washington, D.C.:United States Department of Agriculture,Foreign Agriculture Service.van Ginkel, M. and S. Rajaram. 1992. Breedingfor durable resistance to diseases in wheat:An international perspective. Draft paper.Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.World Bank. 1981. Agricultural Research SectorPolicy Paper. Washington, D.C.: WorldBank.____. 1993. World Development Report1993: Investment in Health New York, NewYork: Oxford University Press.Wortman, S., and R.W. Cummings. 1978. ToFeed this World: The Challenge andStrategy. Baltimore, Maryland: JohnsHopkins.Yrarrazaval, R., R. Navarrete, and V. Valdivia.1982. Costos y beneficios sociales de losprogramas de mejoramiento varietal de trigoy maiz en Chile. In M. Elgeta and E.Venezian (eds.), Econom(a y Organizaci6nde la Investigaci6n Agropecuaria. Santiago,Chile: INIA.Zentner, R.P. and W.L. Peterson. 1984. Aneconomic evaluation of public wheatresearch expenditures in Canada. CanadianJournal ofAgricultural Economics 32: 327­353.

Annex 1: Regions of the WorldL..-_---=.--=__ untrlEastern and Southern AfricaBotswanaBurundiComorosDjiboutiEthiopiaKenyaLesothoMadagascarMalawiMauritiusMozambiqueNamibiaRwandaSeychellesSomaliaSudanSwazilandTanzaniaUgandaZambiaZimbabweWestern and Central AfricaAngolaBeninBurkina FasoCameroonCape VerdeCentral African RepublicChadCongoCote d'lvoireEquatorial GuineaGabonGambiaGhanaGuineaGuinea BissauLiberiaMaliMauritaniaNigerNigeriaReunionSao TomeSenegalSierra LeoneSt. HelenaTogoZaireNorth AfricaAlgeriaEgyptLibyaMoroccoTunisiaWest AsiaAfghanistanBahrainCyprusIranIraqJordanKuwaitLebanonOmanQatarSaudi ArabiaSyriaTurkeyUnited Arab EmiratesYemen RepublicSouth AsiaBangladeshBhutanIndiaMyanmarMaldivesNepalPakistanSri LankaSoutheast Asia and the PacificAmerican SamoaBruneiCook IslandsEast TimorFijiFrench PolynesiaGuamHong KongIndonesiaKampuchea DemocraticKiribatiLaosMacaoMalaysiaNauruNew CaledoniaNiueNorfolk IslandPacific IslandsPapua New GuineaPhilippinesSamoaSingaporeSolomon IslandsThailandTokelauTongaTuvaluVanuatuVietnamWallis and Futuna IslandsEast AsiaChinaMongoliaNorth KoreaSouth KoreaMexico, Central America,and the CaribbeanAntiguaBahamasBarbadosBelizeBermudaCayman IslandsCosta RicaCubaDominicaDominican RepublicEl SalvadorGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaHaitiHondurasJamaicaMartiniqueMexicoMontselTatNetherlands AntillesNicaraguaPanamaSt. Christopher and NevisSI. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSI. Vincent GrenadinesTrinidad and TobagoU.K. Virgin IslandU.S. Virgin IslandAndean RegionBoliviaColombiaEcuadorFrench GuianaGuyanaPeruSurinameVenezuelaSouthern Cone, South AmericaArgentinaBrazilChileParaguayUruguayFalkland IslandEastern Europe andFormer USSRAlbaniaBulgariaFormer CzechoslovakiaHungaryPolandRomaniaFOlmer USSRFormer YugoslaviaWestern Europe,North America, and OtherIndustrialized CountriesAustraliaAustriaBelgium-LuxembourgCanadaDenmarkFaeroe IslandsFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceGreenlandIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanMaltaNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPortugalSouth AfricaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUnited KingdomUnited States