The two livestock-focused centers had not achieved impacts comparable to the crop-focused centers. These concerns led to the creation in the 1970s and 1980s of a further wave of international agricultural research centers that were initially outside the ambit of the CGIAR (e.g., IWMI: water and irrigation, IBSRAM: soils, ICRAF: agroforestry, ICLARM: aquatic resources, and INIBAP: plantains and bananas). Generally speaking, the newer institutions developed more extensive networks of partnerships with a wider range of civil society and public agencies than the original crop research centers. In the early 1990s, some of the new centers were brought into the CGIAR ambit, after much discussion and resistance by those who feared that the expansion of the CGIAR would entail a reduction in funding for the original centers. Two major concerns drove this expansion: the perceived need to widen the research agenda to include a systematic focus on natural resource management, and a broad recognition of the need for CGIAR centers to diversify their partnerships and networking capacity. The international centers were thus driven by a growing pressure to address new issues, mainly related to natural resource management, and to address more directly than before the needs of the poorest producers and of undervalued clients, such as women (Jiggins, 1986; Gurung and Menter, 2004).

     In response to donor calls for more efficient, collaborative and cost-effective approaches, the CG centers opened up to new modes of collaboration, including "system-wide programs" that draw together expertise from across the range of centers and other AKST actors in order to focus on specific themes and the development of "partnerships for innovation". The increasing focus on innovation in turn required the centers to pay more attention to institutional issues and the contexts in which a technology is inserted and to seek a wider range of partners in recognition of the emerging global architecture for AKST (Petit et al., 1996). However, the rate of change within the CG was considered by its funders to be too slow and indecisive. One of the solutions was the introduction of well-resourced, multistakeholder, regionally focused "Challenge Programs" (CGIAR, 2001), often including a competitive research grant component. Their emphasis on multiple partnerships is a potentially significant institutional development for the CGIAR system. As yet however, there is insufficient evidence to assess their contribution to sustainable development or to driving change within the CG. The Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) was established in 1996 as a complementary initiative to promote global leadership in AKST for shared public interest goals; currently there is insufficient data for an assessment of GFAR's effectiveness.

Current debates. In spite of the changes briefly sketched above, the debates and controversies about the CGIAR have not disappeared. For some, "the CGIAR and the GR that it created have arguably been the most successful investments in development ever made" (Falcon and Naylor, 2005). Yet criticisms abound. The old fundamental questions regarding the insufficient inclusion of the poor and marginalized and the consequences on the environment, particularly the loss of biodiversity, have not been resolved in the eyes of many. Another criticism, often heard but seldom formalized, is that the CGIAR is very much part of the "establishment".

and not sufficiently receptive enough to new ideas. An illustration of this resistance to change is the assessment by social scientists (other than economists) that their expertise has not been used as effectively as possible (a few have now been integrated into some CG centers) (Rhoades, 2006; Cernea and Kassam, 2006). Another frequent criticism, often heard in donor circles but not often openly expressed, is that many centers are not open enough to broad partnerships with multiple and diverse actors. Others continue to fear a dilution of the main mission and unique role of the CGIAR, lest it drift more and more towards becoming a broad based development agency. Thus, some convincingly argue for a stronger CGIAR focus on international public goods through its attention higher productivity, particularly for orphan crops (Falcon and Naylor, 2005). One lesson to draw from this debate may be the relevance of, but also the difficulties associated with, the use of the concept of global public goods (Dalrymple, 2006; Unnevehr, 2004).

     Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) was founded in October 1945 under the United Nations as a key pillar of the post WWII reconstruction, with a mandate to raise levels of nutrition and standards of living, to improve agricultural productivity and the condition of rural populations. From 1994 onwards, it has undergone significant restructuring in an effort to increase the voice of tropical countries in its governance and priority setting and in response to advances within AKST and the changing architecture of public and private provision. Although remaining heavily male-dominated in its staffing and leadership, it has been a significant global actor in creating awareness of gender issues, stimulating growth with equity and in linking nutrition, food security and health issues.

     It has played a leading role in organizing disinterested technical advice in the international response to the health and environmental concerns associated with synthetic chemical pesticides (see 2.3.2), leading among other important outcomes to the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and efforts to remove stockpiles of obsolete pesticides. This code has encouraged many countries to adopt pesticide legislation and regulations although governments may experience difficulty in implementing and managing pesticide regulations in the face of competing interests (Dinham, 1995). The FAO similarly has played a critical role also in international efforts to protect crop genetic diversity through the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. One of the important spin-offs so far is the Global Crop Diversity Trust hosted jointly by FAO and IPGRI (http://www .fao.org/ag/cgrfa/itpgr.htm).

The World Bank. The World Bank Group was established as another of the key pillars of post World War II reconstruction. It consists of the International Bank of Rural Development (IBRD), the International Development Agency (IDA), International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Multilateral Investment Agency (MIGA). The Group has been and remains a leading global player in development policy, funding and advisory efforts. It has invested heavily in economic and service infrastructures in rural areas; it was an early backer and consistent supporter of the emerging CG system and particularly through the 1980s dominated investments