Opening Session (Agenda Item 1)
Fourth External Programme and Management Review of ICRISAT (Agenda Item 2)
Third External Programme and Management Review of ISNAR (Agenda Item 3)
Fourth External Programme and Management Review of IPGRI (Agenda Item 4)
Centre Medium-Term Plans (Agenda Item 5)
CGIAR Priorities and Strategies (Agenda Item 6)
CGIAR Activity Classification (Agenda Item 7)
CGIAR Research Priorities for Marginal Lands (Agenda Item 8)
Future Reviews (Agenda Item 9)
Future Meetings (Agenda Item 10)
Other Business (Agenda Item 11)
1. The TAC Chair, Dr. Donald Winkelmann opened the meeting and welcomed the TAC Members present, giving particular attention to the five new TAC Members (Richard Harwood, USA and hitherto TAC consultant; Jacques Faye, Senegal; Justin Yifu Lin, China; Magdy Madkour, Egypt; and Cyrus Ndiritu, Kenya); representatives of FAO, Messrs. Henri Carsalade, the Assistant Director General of the Sustainable Development Department, and Gora Beye, Chief, Research and Technology Development Service; Dr. Hubert Zandstra, Director General of CIP and Chair of the Centre Directors Committee; Dr. Wanda Collins, IPGRI Board Chair and Chair of the Centre Board Chairs Committee; as well as staff from Centres, the CGIAR and TAC Secretariats.
2. The TAC Chair pointed out that this was an extraordinarily busy and long TAC meeting for all participants due to the medium-term plans. TAC 72 also presented an immediate opportunity for the new TAC Members to be introduced to the full array of TAC business. Dr. Winkelmann then invited Mr. Carsalade to address the meeting.
3. Mr. Henri Carsalade, representing FAO as a cosponsor and on behalf of Dr. Jacques Diouf, Director General, FAO, welcomed the participants to the meeting. He stressed the importance of FAO as co-sponsor of the CGIAR, in fostering a true and efficient collaboration as a partner of the System. FAO, which has hosted the TAC Secretariat since its inception in 1971, was particularly delighted to host this important TAC 72 meeting and the future ones. He welcomed a strong working relationship with TAC based on sharing responsibilities and extended collaboration with centres. In this regard a joint committee of Centre Directors and FAO directors has been in operation for some time, and will this week meet to explore ways to carry forward the Lucerne renewal process and follow-up the World Food Summit Plan of Action. He reported that plans are underway for FAO representatives to attend the programme committee meetings of the centres and that the CGIAR could benefit further by exploiting the capacity of FAO.
4. Mr. Carsalade appreciated the strong involvement of the CGIAR in the preparation of certain technical background papers for the World Food Summit, held at FAO, Rome in November 1996. He remarked that the two organizations share the common view of the paramount importance of international agricultural research for food security as a base for growth and sustainable development. Reiterating that the Committee plays a critical role as the System's independent source of scientific advice, especially on strategic issues and resource allocation, Mr. Carsalade echoed that FAO would continue to support a strong TAC.
5. He also underscored the willingness of FAO and its Sustainable Development Department to protect the TAC Secretariat from financial vagaries. Mr. Carsalade concluded that the relations between the CGIAR and FAO are cordial.
6. The TAC Chair thanked Mr. Carsalade for opening the meeting and for tracing the evolution between FAO and the CGIAR.
7. The Executive Secretary of the CGIAR, Mr. Alexander von der Osten, addressed the meeting giving highlights of the latest developments at the System level concerning governance, finance, membership/partnerships, and public awareness and resource mobilization.
8. Mr. von der Osten reported that the System Review is making progress and that the panel has been constituted with a good balance with regard to geographic provenance, gender, and professional considerations of its components. Sub-panels are being formed on special matters and the interactions with stakeholders are supposed to start at MTM97 in Cairo. Regarding the Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group, he mentioned the progress made in recent months including the delivery of a workshop at FAO in Rome with substantial participation from centres and the TAC Secretariat. Some concerns regarding the high expectations from the IAEG, the necessity for reporting to the stakeholders, and the niche IAEG ought to find in the System will be addressed in a report to be prepared for MTM97.
9. The financial situation of the CGIAR shows a budget of US$ 307.4 million in 1996, an increase of about 14% over the level in 1995. During 1996, some centres experienced a considerable increase in funding. The 1997 budget estimate is about US$325 million. Furthermore, Mr. von der Osten reported that some centres, especially the established commodity ones, are facing a levelling off of funding in absolute terms.
10. Regarding new membership of the CGIAR, the Executive Secretary referred to strong negotiations but no definitive results in this matter since ICW96. The partnership initiatives are progressing positively, and Mr. von der Osten mentioned especially the Global Forum meeting and its follow up at MTM97, the private sector and the NGO committees.
11. Mr. von der Osten also reported that public awareness efforts have been extensive with support from Centre Directors and NARS representatives campaigning not for the CGIAR itself, but for agricultural research at the international level to achieve poverty alleviation, food security and protection of the environment.
12. The report of the TAC 71 was adopted with minor amendments. In adopting the agenda, the TAC Chair indicated that items to be covered under other business would include:
· Briefing on the meeting organized by the Rank Prize in London and attended by Dr. Donald Winkelmann, Sir Ralph Riley and Dr. Ted Henzell;· Outcome of the joint IAEG/centres meeting held in Rome, in conjunction with the TAC Secretariat and attended by Dr. Guido Gryseels;
· CGIAR Chairman's Science Awards.
TAC Commentary on the ICRISAT External Programme and Management Review
13. The Report of the Fourth External Programme and Management Review (EPMR) of ICRISAT was presented to TAC 72 by the Panel Chair, Dr. Ronnie Coffman of Cornell University. The Chair of ICRISAT's Board of Trustees, Dr. Rajendra Paroda, and the Director General, Dr. James Ryan, presented the response of the Board and management of the Centre. Dr. Coffman gave credit to the Review team and the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats. In the short time available, the Panel responded to the concerns of management, staff and Board. The Review was strategic, forward-looking and utilized Centre Commissioned External Reviews (CCER). Since the last Review, several important changes have occurred such as the development and implementation of a quantitative approach to priority setting; the formulation of a transparent and structured medium-term plan 1994-98; the restructuring of ICRISAT into a corporate organization with global programmes; the introduction of research matrices; and project-based planning and executing research activities. Dr. Coffman said that the panel applauded ICRISAT for implementing a difficult mandate.
14. However, the changes have added to the complexity of managing the institute and presently the Centre is facing institutional challenges and scientific opportunities which can be addressed successfully provided ICRISAT undergoes a fundamental transformation. The Panel considered that the mandate is broad, complex, and formidable to implement effectively and efficiently. Several factors were listed by the Panel in drawing its considerations for the future of the Centre. For example the poor financial and infrastructural status of many NARS, particularly in Africa; the presence of qualified but poorly supported research staff in many NARS; the continued shortfall in funding for ICRISAT through the CGIAR; the increasing strength and influence of some NARS and regional fora, like APAARI; the strength of the national agricultural research system in India. Based on these considerations, the Panel examined three possible models for a strategic vision of the future:
(i) downsize the present model;(ii) create an Africa-only centre out of ICRISAT; and
(iii) a strategic partnership model which would build on comparative advantage of research presence in Asia, but at the same time address pressing research needs in the SAT of Africa.
15. However, the Panel Chair stressed that this recommendation would have several organizational and management implications: the new ICRISAT would be much simpler in structure and management. For scientific activities the panel envisaged fewer international research staff at Hyderabad and approximately the same number of research staff in Africa. To assist the Director General two types of research leaders would be required: A Deputy Director General at Hyderabad to guide the strategic research on germplasm, and a Deputy Director General in Africa with a considerable autonomy to guide the efforts in NRM and crop improvement. Finally, Dr. Coffman reiterated the Panel's high regard for the efforts and achievements of ICRISAT's Board, management and staff for the period under review. Nevertheless, he emphasized that as time had run out for the status quo, change had become inevitable and must be accepted and supported by the entire staff, management and Board of ICRISAT.
16. The Board Chair, Dr. Paroda, in his response considered the report as significant and timely for ICRISAT. He mentioned the relevance of the Centre's research for the poor people who live in the fragile ecoregion of SAT. This is a concern which has been pivotal since the inception of ICRISAT and is now ranked as high priority by TAC. Dr. Paroda concurred with the ten recommendations and 68 suggestions contained in the report and the need for a fundamental transformation. He identified four points of major significance to ICRISAT. The first was the failure to highlight research accomplishments during the Review period and the inadequacy to demonstrate impact of the centre in its mandated responsibilities. The second was ICRISAT's role as trustee and custodian for 110.000 plant genetic accessions, equivalent to 20% of the entire germplasm maintained by CGIAR Centres. The third was ICRISAT's release of improved crop cultivars with an increase of 120% over the last 4 years. And fourthly, the high quality of scientific work for which the Panel commended ICRISAT's researchers.
17. Dr. Paroda highlighted ICRISAT's recognition, particularly the King Baudouin Award received for the work on pearl millet improvement. Other achievements of ICRISAT included the development of short duration pigeonpea, watershed management, and IPM. He stressed ICRISAT's support for option 3, the strategic partnership model. Regarding recommendation 6 on diligence in oversight, strategy, and policy, the Board expressed concern that a crisis exists, but this should be seen as an unique opportunity for the Centre to institute renewal and rejuvenation. The Board would critically re-examine the Centre's mandate and vision for the future. He said that closer attention will be given to the CGIAR guidelines for role, responsibility and accountability. Furthermore, the Board sensed the need for a simplified but more effective management system. Dr. Paroda also confirmed that in future Africa's representation on the Board would rise from 2 to 3. Recommendation 7 was fully endorsed by the Board, reaffirming the need to improve the visibility of ICRISAT.
18. Dr. Paroda reiterated the Board's views on the governance of the centre, especially recommendation 8 on a transition team. The Board had endorsed a strong change in the management team and that the Director General of ICRISAT, Dr. James Ryan, will be acting as interim Director General until the new Director General is appointed. Further, the selection of a new Deputy Director General was being deferred until the new Director General has settled in. However, the Board took note of some concerns about the functioning of the Board itself and temporarily asked Dr. Paroda and Dr. Schulberg to act as Chairman and Vice-chairman, respectively. On rightsizing the centre, the Board agreed that this will be handled through a transparent and fair approach. In addition, the dialogue between management and staff would be improved via the establishment of a staff council. Regarding recommendation 9, the Board argued that this was seen as a contradiction with other EPMR observations. However, Dr. Paroda pleaded for more support to ICRISAT to facilitate the visiting scientists programme that is expected to contribute to scientific interaction with NARS and IARCs. Pertaining to recommendation 10 on a mid-term review by 1998, the Board felt that too frequent analysis may paralyse the Centre's work but accepted that progress reports by the management and Board be made available to TAC if requested.
19. Dr. Ryan, Director General of ICRISAT, amplified the comments made by Dr. Paroda on the EPMR report addressing the other recommendations made by the Panel. Concerning recommendation 1 on strategic pre-breeding, Dr. Ryan stressed the need for maintaining desirable linkages with applied work in crop improvement to ensure that ICRISAT's research finds its way to the end users. Therefore, the Centre will use the visiting scientists modality to provide NARS scientists with the opportunity to become closely involved in the research continuum. He stressed ICRISAT's intention to use new science in genetic resources research adding that a key opportunity is to strengthen NARS through joint efforts to fill gaps in the Centre's germplasm collections, during which the needs of the NARS will also be recognized; and in assisting NARS in the repatriation of lost collections. On watershed research, particularly at Patancheru, India, Dr. Ryan accepted that issues focused more on land degradation research and that the management will look into ways of capitalizing on the work done in watershed management research in India such that these can be linked with the programmes in SSA.
20. Dr. Ryan concurred with recommendations 4, 5 and 7 reaffirming that steps are underway to implement them through the MTP, recent CCERs and the change management team. He concluded by thanking the panel for their favourable comments and constructive suggestion for future improvement in a period of rapid change.
21. The TAC Chair then turned to Dr. Ted Henzell, Chair of the TAC Working Group III who raised three questions. First, the Working Group sought clarity about ICRISAT's future role in germplasm research as provider of intermediate products (recommendations 1 and 2). He wanted the Panel to elaborate on the partnership model for the wide spectrum of NARS in the SAT, and taking into account the timeframe for this process. Secondly, the working group expressed a need for clarification on recommendations 3 and 4 on NRM, and the relevance for retaining the broad and complex watershed research in India, including its linkages with the national watershed research. Furthermore, Dr. Henzell raised the issue of potential and stronger impact of NRM research in Africa. Thirdly, retaining faith in this Centre by donors, posed questions as to how the donors perceive research in SAT as being too hard, and whether the rumours about ICRISAT's future over the last five years influenced in some way how the Centre was funded. He concluded that the Board and management have been open, honest and generous in their responses to the recommendations in a remarkable way.
22. In responding to the questions, Dr. Coffman reiterated the future strategic niche of ICRISAT in applying new science, particularly in genetics, to exploit its germplasm collections for the SAT. He stressed that upstream strategic research is a strong niche for ICRISAT, despite the suppliers in LAC and Asia. Dr. Ryan added that the heterogeneity of NARS between and within regions of the SAT calls for networks, particularly regional fora, as vehicles to move intermediate products to the end users and to have a process that is demand driven. Dr. Paroda emphasized the complementarity between NARS and the regional fora, especially in adaptive and applied breeding to support NARS in SSA, and that the strength of Indian NARS should be seen as an opportunity and not a challenge.
23. Regarding the retention of watershed research in India, Dr. Coffman said that the Panel and Centre agreed to maintain this research to provide valuable studies and effective models as interesting insights were gained in India from water catchment research with spillovers in Africa. Dr. Ryan emphasized that ICRISAT is presently searching for ways to rebalance the efforts between crop improvement and resource management research, particularly soil fertility. He reiterated the expectation to gain spill-over effects from NRM research in Asia, with its immense land degradation problems, to the African situation by modelling and GIS techniques.
24. Concerning donors' perceptions on research in the SAT and the rumours about ICRISAT, Dr. Coffman stressed that there was overall recognition about the difficulties of ICRISAT's tasks such as plant breeding for niche adaptation. However, there is much hope relying on the Centre to achieve substantial progress. Dr. Ryan pointed out the complex stress factors with which ICRISAT is faced and that the mandate crops of ICRISAT have a very short history of research. Presently, ICRISAT was able to increase sharply its deliveries to NARS, and the Centre was confident that more progress can be achieved with the new tools. Dr. Paroda re-emphasized the importance of ICRISAT to sell itself more aggressively and become more visible than in the past.
25. Dr. Paroda stressed the importance of watershed management research in the context of generation of basic information for long-term perspectives and in its usefulness for site training. He mentioned that ICRISAT will retain in India 42 key research sites, while the Indian national research system is developing more than 30,000 sites. The sites are also important for the refinement of the technologies. Dr. Paroda agreed that more attention be paid to NRM research in Africa, but he reiterated that it is also of great importance in Asia where rising population is causing severe degradation of the resource base. These research sites are important for interdisciplinary and inter-institutional work.
26. TAC Members raised questions on the number of ICRISAT's mandate crops and the rationale for certain crops; the usefulness of the CCERs; air pollution at Patancheru and how it affects the crop improvement programme; the germplasm collection and its availability; the research types concentrated at the Indian Centre, their impact on the two regions and its compatibility with donor preferences for funding specific research topics; and on impact assessment to guide donor perceptions of the Centre.
27. Regarding the mandate crops, Dr. Coffman stated that finger millet is a minor crop and retained as part of the germplasm collection only. Dr. Ryan elaborated that the number of crops was fully endorsed by the Panel, and that the Centre could envisage working on more crops in the future to cover the full range of ecoregions in its mandate area. Regarding pigeonpea, Dr. Coffman said that it is presently essential for India but has a particular place in the maintenance of soil fertility. He foresaw an important role for the crop in the SAT of Africa. Dr. Paroda concluded that ICRISAT sees pigeonpea as a multipurpose crop with new opportunities for other countries, following the example of Australia where it became popular based on ICRISAT's research.
28. Dr. Coffman acknowledged that the CCERs were used for the first time in this EPMR. The Panel stressed that it could not have managed the tasks without having had access to these for an institution of the size of ICRISAT. Dr. Ryan added that the CCERs commissioned were too many to handle in a short time and that not more than one per year would be ideal to provide a panel with "digested" information.
29. Dr. Coffman said that pollution at Patancheru was still a problem while the team was at ICRISAT. He stated that it could affect somehow the crop improvement programmes. However, Dr. Paroda reported that a court order against the offending factory had been instituted and that the situation was improving.
30. Dr. Paroda stated that recently an agreement has been signed with the national agricultural research station in Hyderabad which provides support on quarantine issues and is run jointly with ICRISAT. Dr. Ryan emphasized that the movement of germplasm is highly facilitated by the Indian government and its desire for true partnership can be seen from the opening of the Indian collection for regional collaboration. On the research thrusts in India, Dr. Coffman emphasized that ICRISAT should concentrate on its comparative advantage for the SAT, while Dr. Paroda considered that upstream NRM research in India is of utmost relevance for Asian countries, and this is reflected in the response of the Centre to the EPMR report. Dr. Ryan emphasized that the visiting scientists model will provide a bridge between Africa and Asia and diminish the perception of ICRISAT being an Indian institute. Regarding impact assessment, Dr. Ryan stressed that ICRISAT is increasing its commitment to document results. However, it experiences difficulties to assess its impact in NRM research, as the other CGIAR Centres medium-term. The TAC Chair wound up by thanking the Panel Chair and all those who contributed to the discussion. TAC then prepared the following commentary, which took into account also inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat:
31. The Report of the Fourth External Programme and Management Review (EPMR) of ICRISAT was discussed at TAC 72 in the presence of the Panel Chair, Dr. Ronnie Coffman, the Chair of ICRISAT's Governing Board, Dr. Rajendra Paroda, and the Director General of ICRISAT, Dr. James Ryan.
32. TAC thanks Dr. Coffman and the Panel that conducted the Review for its incisive, forward-looking and basically very positive assessment of the future role and importance of the Centre. At the same time, the Panel's Report clearly defines some major issues that face the Board and Management of the Centre and its recommendations and conclusions are expressed in the more direct style that enhances communication.
33. The major conclusions and recommendations of the EPMR are supported by TAC, in the light of the interpretations and qualifications listed in the commentary that follows, which was prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat.
Evolution of the Centre
34. The EPMR Panel has identified the need for the Institute to formulate an operational mandate, which clearly spells out the strategic elements and focus of its work, as the transcending issue underlying the majority of its recommendations. TAC interprets this conclusion to mean that the Centre must be more decisive and resolute in making choices amongst the many attractive research themes that have been identified by the comprehensive priority-setting processes used for the previous and current MTPs. The process used by ICRISAT in developing its MTP for 1994-1998 was commendably systematic, detailed and quantitative and broke new ground for the CGIAR. The Plan for 1998-2000 has built on that sound foundation. Nevertheless, TAC agrees with the EPMR Panel that effective implementation then requires concentration on a few carefully chosen project or programmatic themes that, if successful, open the way for further investment in agricultural R&D in the semi-arid tropics.
Genetic Resources and Commodity Improvement Research
35. The first two recommendations are aimed at speeding up the transformation of ICRISAT's commodity improvement research at Patancheru to a global focus on pre-breeding based on the strong advantage of the valuable germplasm of the five mandate crops held in the Centre's genebank. TAC endorses this redirection, which is in line with the conclusions of two previous external reviews and is therefore overdue, and which accords with TAC's recommendations for a future emphasis on this kind of germplasm enhancement research in all of the CGIAR's "commodity" Centres.
36. TAC recognizes and commends the Government of India for its wholehearted support of the activities built around the genetic resources collection, which is held in trust by ICRISAT on behalf of FAO and the people of the Semi-Arid Tropical (SAT) Region. The availability of the plant quarantine facility and the facilitation of germplasm movement as an international public good, openly available to all users, is a model of national support and contribution. Such stable, long-term support is seen as a major benefit of the Hyderabad location for the genebank of SAT crops. TAC was pleased also to receive assurances that steps are being taken to protect this valuable facility from the threat of air pollution.
37. The Board has accepted the first two recommendations with the reservation that sufficient linkages be maintained with applied work. TAC accepts that ICRISAT needs to interface effectively with crop improvement programmes in a group of NARS whose capacity varies across almost the entire spectrum found in developing countries. However, if sufficient resources are to be found in a time of financial stringency for ICRISAT to continue to provide breeding products for testing by the weaker NARS, until they develop sufficient capacity to meet these needs individually or collectively, then the Institute must move very quickly to develop more effective partnerships with the stronger NARS. India is undoubtedly the strongest but there are others (Brazil and South Africa have a capacity for research on at least some of the mandate crops, as do a variety of public and private sector institutions in industrialized countries).
Natural Resources Management Research
38. The third recommendation pertains to the watershed studies at Patancheru. There is certainly a strong case for extracting maximum value from the data already collected, while further research there will need very effective links with Indian agencies engaged in river basin or catchment studies. Such studies use one of the broadest and most complex of all natural resource management (NRM) research paradigms. The Board's intention to focus on aspects that are most likely to generate international public goods is strongly supported. The possibility of contracting some of the research to national institutions should be given every consideration.
39. The other recommendation about NRM research is more complex. The EPMR Panel's good advice to focus on fewer lines of research and to ensure that they are done well probably applies more to this component of ICRISAT's research portfolio than to any other. There is certainly a case for seeking new approaches to NRM research and the integrated NRM framework may be the most useful vehicle for satisfying many of these objectives.
40. Two important factors should be taken into account by the Institute in planning to revitalize its NRM research. Firstly, the whole international research system has yet to identify a proven paradigm for NRM research in the tropics, and secondly, the type of NRM research needed in the African SAT may change quite quickly if agricultural development takes off. There are indications, summarized at the end of this commentary, that new technologies and market reforms are beginning to have a significant impact in some countries of SSA. Indeed, ICRISAT's own socioeconomic research, which is commended by the Review, is likely to have an influence on the rate of change in the semi-arid areas of tropical Africa. In these circumstances, the enhancement of soil fertility to more fully realize the genetic potential of improved crop cultivars and other opportunities in NRM research could open up.
Strategic Partnership
41. The EPMR Panel placed strong emphasis on a strategic partnership model for the future research of the Institute. TAC supports this recommendation which is consistent with the concept of a global partnership in agricultural research adopted by the Group at ICW 96. ICRISAT has good working relationships with a number of NARS, but mainly through complementary rather than integrated cooperative relationships. The adoption of the more closely integrated type of partnerships, in which the partners contribute and receive credit according to what they are best able to contribute, will probably require some changes of attitude. These changes will be helped by further development of the visiting scientist programme.
42. The Committee notes that ICRISAT has developed good partnerships with ARIs in advanced genomic sciences and applications of GIS, but there appears to be scope for more collaboration with other CGIAR Centres, for example with CIMMYT on molecular markers. Similarly, chickpea mapping would be useful to both ICARDA and ICRISAT.
Governance
43. The EPMR report contains four recommendations on matters of governance and organization and management. All have been accepted by the Board. In its discussions with the Board Chair and senior management of ICRISAT at TAC 72, the Committee was impressed with the Institute's assurances of willingness to deal constructively and quickly with the problems identified by the Review. Many of the internal management difficulties seem to have been exacerbated if not caused by the stresses of making structural changes in a time of decreasing, unpredictable funding levels. In most cases the changes were warranted; indeed, some were overdue, like the introduction of an effective system of project management, and it was a matter of "too much of a good thing" as the Panel put it.
44. It is likely, in TAC's view, that these difficulties could be overcome within a relatively short time by the actions that the Board has set in train. For this reason and because of the danger that continued uncertainty may make it difficult under the new arrangements for the Centre to secure the funding that it should get, TAC wishes to reserve judgment on the need for a Mid-Term Review, as proposed in the EPMR's final recommendation. Instead, TAC recommends that a briefing on actions taken in response to the EPMR should be sought from the Board of ICRISAT this September, before TAC 73, in order for the matter to be considered in the context of the progress of the financing plan for 1998. This would allow the Group to be kept informed at ICW 97. Based on the Board's response and other considerations, a decision can be made on the need for further follow-up.
Organization and Management
45. Although no specific recommendation or suggestion was made, the Panel canvassed organizational options for the "new" ICRISAT. A key issue is what is decided in future for SSA. A balance needs to be achieved between institutional coherence on the one hand, and on the other, sufficient authority and autonomy for the senior "manager" in Africa to be able to negotiate effectively with NARS partners and members who wish to concentrate funding in that region.
46. While some project leaders are based in Africa, TAC senses a reluctance to assign global leadership responsibilities to senior managers based in Africa. Yet, before the end of the next MTP period, just over half the Institute's total research resources will be committed to Africa. There seems to be no reason, in principle, why the Director General of this Centre should not be based in Africa. This point is raised to illustrate how the thinking at ICRISAT should change and broaden. It would certainly overcome any perception that ICRISAT is an "Indian" institution. In raising this issue, TAC emphasizes that the global integrity of ICRISAT is not in question.
Impact
47. Finally, TAC offers a comment on the prospects for success in Africa. Ten countries in SSA achieved very satisfactory rates of growth in food production over the last decade, as reported at the World Food Summit. Also, somewhat in contrast to the impression created by the TAC Report on West Africa, ICRISAT's MTP shows a rapid increase in the number of its cultivars being grown by African farmers, though the impact on total production is still modest and not yet comparable with the achievements with pearl millet in India that led to the Centre receiving the King Baudouin Award recently. While there is still much to do to improve the working of input and (potentially) product markets in SSA, which would be likely to significantly improve the chances of ICRISAT's outputs being used, TAC tends to agree also with the EPMR's conclusion that the Institute's current achievements are not sufficiently known and that it should be more assertive in publicizing them.
CGIAR Support for ICRISAT
48. TAC recommends that it is timely for the Group to re-confirm the vital role that this Centre and the SAT Region must play in achieving the CGIAR goals of poverty alleviation and protection of the environment. Unfortunately, ICRISAT, like some of the other older Centres in the System, has experienced reduced funding during a period of generally strong support for the agreed research agenda of the CGIAR. TAC urges the members of the CGIAR to renew their support to ICRISAT and its change effort, which ultimately is geared towards sharpening its overall impact.
TAC Commentary on the ISNAR External Programme and Management Review
49. Dr. Samuel Paul, Chair of the Panel that conducted the Third External Programme and Management Review of ISNAR, presented the findings and main recommendations of the Review as outlined in the Panel's report which consisted of a brief main report with the detailed discussion of programmes and management being confined to annexes. Dr. Paul noted that the main phase of the Review had to be conducted over a very short period but that the Review had benefited from a number of internally commissioned external reviews requested by ISNAR beforehand.
50. The Panel had focused its attention on areas of strategic importance for the future of ISNAR rather than on project detail. Overall, the Panel was positive about ISNAR and considered that its performance had improved substantially since the last EPMR. The Centre had produced many major outputs which were generally of good quality and stakeholders and NARS were on the whole very positive about ISNAR's activities. The Centre was well administered with a good financial management. Nevertheless, major directional changes were required for ISNAR in the future, and were primarily due to changes in the external environment which necessitated an adjustment in ISNAR's strategic directions.
51. The Panel made four main recommendations: first, that ISNAR needed to define and interpret a niche for itself to guide its own future planning; second, that ISNAR needed to move towards the research-based end of the service spectrum; third, that the Centre should move up the capacity building ladder and therefore concentrate more on building institutional capabilities; and fourth, that ISNAR reformulate its strategy in the light of the changes in its external environment and its assessment of the emerging challenges and carefully consider the mix of activities it ought to undertake in the future. The Panel also made a number of more specific recommendations on ISNAR's programmes and management.
52. The response of the Board and management to the Panel's report was introduced by Dr. Amir Mohammed, Chair of the ISNAR Board of Trustees. He acknowledged the efforts made by the Panel which he considered to be insightful and useful. ISNAR broadly concurred with the analysis made by the Panel and their recommendations. Dr. Mohammed promised that ISNAR would change in the directions proposed by the Panel. The Board also agreed that there was a need for ISNAR to move more towards the research end of the research-service spectrum and about the need to move up in the capacity building ladder, but had reservations about the strategy appropriate to reach that goal. ISNAR encouraged the development of SPAAR and APAARI and other regional organizations and preferred that route rather than through the developments of mini ISNARs. Finally, Dr. Mohammed expressed disagreement by the Board with the statement in the report that the Director General had not been evaluated by the Board. He pointed out that the Board annually provided feedback to the Director General about his performance.
53. Dr. Stein Bie, Director General, expressed his gratitude for the Panel's report which was particularly useful to him as an incoming Director General. He paid tribute to the outgoing Director General, Dr. Christian Bonte-Friedheim, for his leadership to ISNAR and the support he had given to NARS as also indicated by the Nyle Brady Award that he had recently received. Dr. Bie acknowledged that it was time to revise the strategy and to change some of the programmes. ISNAR would have to carefully consider its comparative advantage and give considerable thought as to the implications of globalization of research for ISNAR's activities. He acknowledged the need for a skill mix and to have more staff with management expertise but noted the competitive nature of this field and the high cost associated with recruitment of management experts. While he agreed with the Panel's recommendations, he also pointed out the two divergent views on the future ISNAR between donors and NARS.
54. In opening the discussion, Dr. Lucia Vaccaro, Chair of the TAC Working Group I for the ISNAR EPMR, expressed her gratitude to the Panel for an excellent report. She also expressed appreciation for the innovative format of the report comprising a brief main section structured around the major terms of reference for an EPMR. She referred to the recommendations of the TAC Strategic Study chaired by Dr. Nickel on Institution Strengthening Research and asked for clarification on the nature of the research in which ISNAR should get involved. Dr. Vaccaro wondered how the Centre's collaboration in the global system, other than with CGIAR Institutes and NARS, was likely to evolve. She also requested more detail on the issues involved in the recommendation relating to moving up the capacity building ladder. Finally, she asked for further information with respect to ISNAR's role in poverty alleviation, as one should not assume automatically that support of NARS has direct consequences for poverty alleviation. Other TAC Members pointed to the lack of a formal priority setting mechanism at ISNAR and recalled the Centre's long-standing difficulty in coming to grips with the balance between research and service. More information was also requested as to the quality of research. While the Panel's report provided a quantitative statement of ISNAR's outputs in refereed journals, it was without an assessment. Clarification was requested as to why ISNAR appeared to have few strategic alliances with other institutes and on the timetable for initiating the strategic planning exercise.
55. In his response, Dr. Paul noted that some of the important changes in the external environment which needed careful attention were the new role of the private sector, the effects of deregulation and the emergence of regional research institutes. He also noted that there was relatively little collaboration between ISNAR and other CGIAR Institutes other than IFPRI. Finally he addressed the issue of poverty alleviation and recommended that ISNAR's services should only be provided to the poorer countries. Dr. Paul also noted the uneven quality of internally commissioned external reviews and the fact that research could not be separated from services in the same way that it could not be separated from extension.
56. Dr. Howard Elliott, Deputy Director General, had doubts about the proposal that ISNAR work with intermediary organizations as past experience had not been very positive. The Centre had expanded its collaborative activities with regional research institutions and universities and had also considered its potential role in ecoregional initiatives. In the development of master plans, ISNAR had given highest priority to the poorest countries. Dr. Bie reiterated his strong commitment to engaging in a strategic planning process and expressed the hope that the strategic plan could be developed in draft form within six months. He indicated that expansion of collaboration of ISNAR with other institutes would be prominent in these discussions. Dr. Bie acknowledged that ISNAR would need to learn to say no more often but would certainly never do so to requests from the poorest countries. He also pointed out that some of ISNAR's work was of very high quality and was widely used. The TAC Chair wound up the discussion by thanking all those who contributed to it. TAC then prepared the following commentary with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat:
57. TAC expresses its thanks to the Chair, Dr. Samuel Paul, and the members of the panel for a forward-looking, concise and analytical report that focuses on the main strategic issues regarding ISNAR. The Committee appreciates the innovative format and structure of the report in which each of the chapter headings reflects a major thrust of the terms of reference for the CGIAR review process. It consists of a brief main report with details on programme and management confined to annexes. TAC cautions readers of the EPMR report against focusing their attention on the main body only, as much of the discussion of the programmes is only in the annexes.
58. TAC endorses, in general, the recommendations of the pane! and is pleased to note that the Board and management of ISNAR in their response also agree with the major directions and recommendations proposed by the panel. The Committee is pleased that ISNAR was found to be well managed, that its outputs have increased considerably over the last five years, both in terms of quality and quantity, and that NARS and other stakeholders have indicated high satisfaction with ISNAR's work and services. Nevertheless, TAC supports the Review's finding that some important directional changes are required to help ISNAR respond effectively to a rapidly changing external environment and to develop a more coherent research agenda. The Committee offers some further comments, which have been prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat, to supplement the views of the panel.
Priority Setting and Strategic Planning
59. TAC strongly endorses the recommendation that ISNAR should develop a new Strategic Plan in the light of changes in its external and internal environment and an assessment of the emerging challenges. In this regard, TAC would strongly encourage ISNAR to carefully review its priority setting process. The Committee urges ISNAR to develop a more systematic approach to priority setting which also attempts to more directly link ISNAR's outputs and activities to CGIAR goals. TAC endorses the panel's views on the need for ISNAR to shift towards the research-based end of the service spectrum, gradually leaving the less research-based parts to other service providers. ISNAR should attempt to be more proactive in the development of a coherent research agenda. In this respect, the Committee is pleased to note that the panel's views are consistent with those expressed by TAC earlier in relation to its strategic study on the future of institution strengthening research and service in the CGIAR. TAC thereby also appreciates ISNAR's concern that such a shift should not be at the expense of a loss of financial integrity.
60. In its strategic planning process, ISNAR should also carefully consider the nature of its research, which ranges from the development of tools to research on the policy environment. This should also include a careful consideration of the research organizations active in the field of policy and management in view of the need for strategic alliances in order to maximize the returns from the restricted resources ISNAR has at its disposal. In this regard, TAC notes the limited attention given in the panel's report to the collaboration between ISNAR and other CGIAR Centres, and between ISNAR and FAO. ISNAR should carefully assess opportunities to expand such collaboration in the future. Also, the Centre should give more emphasis to the possibility of alternative suppliers, particularly for its service activities. In carefully defining its niche, as recommended by the panel, ISNAR will clarify many of the issues raised above. On that basis, ISNAR will also be able to better consider the mix of skills it requires to effectively address the new challenges. As the panel recommends, ISNAR should have at least a minimum nucleus of enhanced expertise in management, supplemented, as necessary, with part-time expertise obtained from external centres of management excellence.
Capacity Building
61. The panel recommends that ISNAR move up the capacity building ladder, concentrating more on building institutional capabilities. This recommendation has been subject to a number of interpretations ranging from building "mini ISNARs" around the world, to developing tools others can use to strengthen NARS capabilities. TAC supports the spirit and intent of the recommendation and encourages ISNAR in its strategic planning process to give even greater emphasis to multiple avenues in implementing its work.
Quality of the Research
62. The panel found that ISNAR's work is of varying quality and that maintaining consistency in quality should be an important Centre goal. Given the shift of emphasis towards research, it is doubly important, as the panel says, that management focus more on quality control. As the Centre will need to increasingly shift the balance of its activities towards more research, TAC urges that ISNAR maintain stronger coherence in its research agenda and ensure that mechanisms are in place to monitor quality in all its work. ISNAR has made a promising start in initiating internally commissioned external reviews. TAC considers that this process should be further enhanced and that by the time of the next external review, all of the Centre's work should have been subjected to a rigorous external peer review. TAC further notes that while the panel has made a quantitative estimate of the number of ISNAR publications, this assessment is not accompanied by further analysis as to the adequacy of this publication record.
Board of Trustees
63. The Committee notes that there is a difference of opinion between the ISNAR Board and the panel on whether the Board conducted formal evaluations of the Director General. This seems to have resulted from different interpretations of what constitutes a "formal evaluation". In the future, the ISNAR Board could make use of the more formal assessment instruments that are available.
64. TAC encourages the ISNAR Board of Trustees to give more leadership in providing guidance on strategic issues, and to take an active role in the forthcoming strategic planning exercise.
65. Overall, TAC agrees with the panel that ISNAR would benefit from significant changes. The Committee is encouraged that the incoming Director General will initiate a strategic planning process as soon as possible. The Centre should keep TAC and the Members of the CGIAR informed of the progress made.
TAC Commentary on the IPGRI External Programme and Management Review
66. The Report of the Fourth External Programme and Management Review of IPGRI was presented by its Panel Chair, Dr. Calvin Qualset, in the presence of the Chair of the IPGRI Board of Trustees, Dr. Wanda Collins, and the Director General, Dr. Geoffrey Hawtin, who presented the Centre's response.
67. Dr. Qualset began by acknowledging that the Review team was of good quality, and by expressing his appreciation on behalf of the Panel for the support of IPGRI and the TAC Secretariat in the conduct of the Review. The Review process was characterized by excellent interaction with Centre management and staff at all levels, substantial documentation, and extensive interaction with national programmes and other partners.
68. It was pointed out that, with the recent changes in the global environment in relation to plant genetic resources, the setting up of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), FAO's Global Plan of Action which was prepared in collaboration with IPGRI, and FAO's close relationship with IPGRI, and the CGIAR environment IPGRI has to deal with, the Centre has been placed in a pivotal position and has responsibility for the whole CGIAR System. The external Review therefore examined IPGRI's work on plant genetic resources (PGR), as well as IPGRI's role in the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP) and INIBAP.
69. Dr. Qualset explained that the PGR conservation framework was composed of: survey priorities, inventorying and monitoring, conservation strategy, conserved genetic resources (with a feedback to survey), and application. To operate such a framework required inputs from conservation biology, technology, agriculture and human resources development, as well as policy, information/documentation and finance. To enable the conservation framework to operate, IPGRI had a facilitation role which required collaborating with national agricultural research systems, international agricultural research systems, and specialized research organizations.
70. It was pointed out that IPGRI should work on the methodology of inventorying and monitoring which will then lead to PGR conservation. With regards to SGRP, IPGRI needed help to deal with Centre Directors to see where to go in the future, including the question of fisheries and livestock genetic resources. INIBAP was a networking programme which was going through rejuvenation with new facilities and new leadership, and was making a difference. It should be fully integrated into IPGRI. INIBAP represented a good model as an international network, and included a conservation network, although it must be careful to avoid involvement in too many activities which it cannot properly support. Dr. Qualset highlighted the fact that US$ 4 million worth of PGR research and related activities were being outsourced. There could be a more effective basis for managing outsourcing. IPGRI could call for proposals and decide on a competitive basis, to ensure quality of research.
71. The Panel found that the regional authority was not clearly defined and that regional activities should be integrated with thematic work. NARS want to be part of the regional planning process, and IPGRI can serve as a silent partner to facilitate this. Dr. Qualset noted that IPGRI had grown rapidly making staff very busy; it was necessary to consolidate. He pointed out that while the focus of the regional activities was on gene saving, there were functional PGR national programmes. This meant that the regional programme needs must be clarified. Dr. Qualset concluded his presentation by stating that, overall, the Panel gave IPGRI a clean bill of health, but IPGRI needed to be sharply focused on its targets.
72. In responding to the Panel's report, Dr. Wanda Collins stated that the Board was pleased with the Panel and considered it to have been successful in understanding IPGRI and its being somewhat different from other CGIAR Centres. She stated that the Board had accepted the Panel's recommendation that the Executive Committee increase to five, including the Chair of Audit and Finance. The Board had also agreed that the link between institutional strategy and operational activities should be strengthened, and this would be done with staff. Dr. Collins concluded by stating that the suggestions and comments of the Panel to improve the performance of the Board were valuable and accepted.
73. Dr. Hawtin pointed out that major changes had occurred in the external environment since the last EPMR in 1991. UNCED led to the Agenda 21 and the CBD; the TRIPS Agreement under the WTO has emerged; the Leipzig meeting provided a baseline report on the state of the world's plant genetic resources, and a global plan of action; and there have been developments in molecular techniques, GIS and information systems. Alongside the above external changes, the internal environment has changed. IBPGR was transformed into IPGRI; INIBAP was added to IPGRI; SGRP was created with IPGRI as the Programme Coordinator; new programme areas have been accepted such as forestry, in situ/on-farm conservation, human aspects of conservation, policy; and there have been changes in staff and funds. Dr. Hawtin stated that IPGRI mode of operation made the Institute different from older CGIAR Centres: IPGRI was a catalyst/facilitator, and worked in partnerships. Its operations were decentralized, and networks played an essential role. IPGRI outsourced most of its research and related activities, and outsourcing had increased to 23% in 1996 from 14% in 1991. Contracts were not only for conducting scientific research, but also as a means to form partnership, creating opportunities, etc. IPGRI was not a donor organization but uses its partnership to achieve institutional objectives. IPGRI was therefore somewhat hesitant about responding to the Panel's recommendation on improving the effectiveness of the outsourcing process.
74. Dr. Hawtin then went on to describe the various elements of IPGRI's strategies. He stated that IPGRI would be revising its basic strategy document "Diversity for Development", and the SGRP was also undergoing a strategy revision. He agreed with the Panel's conclusion that a main weakness is in the regional strategies, and IPGRI will focus on this. Here, the Global Plan of Action will be a good basis for discussion at the regional level to revise the existing strategies. Dr. Hawtin expressed agreement with the recommendation that COGENT should focus on smallholders, as well as with the integration of INIBAP. INIBAP's links with IITA were extremely strong, and both had worked closely in the development of the Global Musa Improvement Programme. There were opportunities for further development in the programme in Africa and elsewhere. Dr. Hawtin concluded by raising some issues with regards to the future of SGRP which he stated was a Centre-managed programme with multi-centre partnership activities: the role of the Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources, with different levels of authority in its membership, in decision-making; funding at Centre level and at multi-centre level through SGRP and for coordination because SGRP was not fully funded which directly impacts on multi-centre work. These issues needed to be addressed in the forthcoming EPMR of SGRP.
75. The TAC Chair then turned to Sir Ralph Riley, Chair of the TAC Working Group II for the Review, to open the discussion. Sir Ralph raised the following questions: Should IPGRI become a different organization, e.g. conservator? Should IPGRI carry out hands-on research? How many national programmes of quality is IPGRI serving? How does IPGRI set regional priorities? Is IPGRI's unlimited and undirected growth expected to continue? Dr. Qualset replied that IPGRI could not be a conservator; and also others would not buy this. IPGRI had a facilitator role. IPGRI should not do hands-on research because the topics change from year-to-year. IPGRI should go forward in its current mode and find competent people to do the work in a three-way partnership - AROs, IPGRI and NARS.
76. Dr. Hawtin stated that regional priorities were set through networks incorporating key people from the region, e.g. ASARECA, SADAC, LANET, etc. IPGRI has been active in promoting priority-setting. Also, IPGRI was involved in developing country studies for the Leipzig conference and was involved in regional and subregional meetings which led to the Global Plan of Action. There was also an internal mechanism of regional directors doing the work as well as the programme planning committee of IPGRI, and then the Board signs off on the longer-term strategy. Each region had a single project serviced by IPGRI. Dr. Collins stated that the Board monitored the regional priorities through the Centre Commissioned External Reviews. When it came to the question of quality of programmes at the national level, there was no easy answer because the national programmes were extremely heterogeneous. With regards to the question of conservation vs. preservation, Dr. Hawtin said that purposes of ex situ work were different from in situ, and not comparable. The global in situ project of IPGRI involves nine countries asking common questions of what is being conserved, geneflow, what is farmers' involvement etc. There is, therefore, a dynamic relationship between conservation of particularly important characteristics within the farming genepool and how the farmers manage them for the future for their own needs where the formal sector is not taking care of these needs. On the issue of growth, Dr. Hawtin said that it was wrong to say that growth has been unlimited and undirected. IPGRI has been successful in responding to donor preferences; and Dr. Collins stated that the growth had been controlled with the Board looking at programme balance once a year to ensure that the growth was in the right place.
77. Other TAC Members raised questions about INIBAP's future; IPGRI's legal and policy role at global and national levels; SGRP's weaknesses and its future; impact of IPGRI's work; and research quality. With respect to INIBAP, Dr. Hawtin said that the whole CGIAR needed to address the issue of what banana and plantain programme should be supported. INIBAP has a supplementary role as it is not a research organization, and the INIBAP method adopted to tap the global programmes is done well. Dr. Emile Prison, Director of INIBAP, pointed out that INIBAP's mode of operation was similar to that of IPGRI. INIBAP had a role firstly in the area of conservation, and secondly in the distribution of virus free material, in collaboration with IITA, which focuses on sub-Saharan Africa. This second area is important; IITA has two programmes, one based at Onne and the other at Namulonge. INIBAP and IITA expect to meet to prepare a joint programme. Thirdly, INIBAP has a role in the area of information dissemination. Global dimensions of this role would involve the facilitation of regional networks under regional fora, and with IITA playing a different role from that of INIBAP. Dr. Qualset added that INIBAP has proposed an expansion into other areas, e.g. IPM, but the Panel could not reach a consensus on this although it recognized its importance in project networking.
78. On the question of SGRP, Dr. Hawtin stated that the SGRP's structure involved himself as Programme Leader, a Programme Coordinator and one programme assistant at the headquarters. The way business was done was that there was a lead Centre for each activity. IPGRI was also a member for its component and the Director of Research at IPGRI was the representative for IPGRI in SGRP. The structure at IPGRI was, therefore, that of a secretariat, involving correspondence work, public awareness, etc. Dr. Qualset added that the main weakness had to do with the question of how Centres maintain their permanent funding base so that they can do research together. However, this weakness was not related to IPGRI's role but rather is in SGRP as an emerging concept. IPGRI has a mechanism in place, Centres' responses were very positive about IPGRI's role, but the Panel recommended that a higher level of attention be given to the SGRP. The forthcoming EPMR of the SGRP should address the question of where it can go in the future.
79. In responding to the legal and policy issue, Dr. Hawtin stated that the CBD was supposed to play the role at global and national levels but the Commission comes to IPGRI for advice on technical analysis of a policy alternative. Within IPGRI, policy had two broad functions: advice to national programmes, and to the CGIAR, and through CGIAR advice to broader bodies such as CBD and the FAO Commission. There was a need for expertise on the technical side on which IPGRI was being called upon. FAO has a legal unit but they could not do more than react to what IPGRI "throws" at them. IPGRI needs to respond to legal ownership and material transfer issues, and has in fact been addressing these with outside experts. IPGRI was focusing on access and ownership issues, and not on trade or economic policy issues.
80. The Chair drew the discussion to a close, thanking Dr. Qualset and the members of the Panel for their report. He noted that the Board and management of IPGRI had already begun implementing some of the Review recommendations. After further consideration and discussion in the working group, TAC offered the following commentary with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat.
81. TAC expresses its thanks to the Chair and members of the Panel for a constructive report which was discussed at TAC 72, in the presence of the Panel Chair, Dr. Calvin Qualset, the Chair of IPGRI's Board, Dr. Wanda Collins, and the Director General of IPGRI, Dr. Geoffrey Hawtin. TAC endorses, in general, the recommendations of the Panel, and notes that IPGRI has responded favourably.
82. TAC is pleased to note the progress made by IPGRI during the period under review, in both its management and programmes. However, the Committee draws the readers attention to the fact that while the Report is strong and rich in describing and analysing IPGRI's work and progress, the full measure of the assessment given in the text is not always reflected in the summary and recommendations. Also, some of the most valuable comments in the text of the Report refer to matters of importance well beyond the Centre under review. TAC offers the following commentary, prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat, to supplement the Panel's Report.
The Role of IPGRI
83. The Panel stresses that IPGRI is not principally a research but a catalytic and facilitator institution. However, the Panel did not analyse how IPGRI could further strengthen the way it carries out such functions. As IPGRI is the only Centre in the CGIAR System which functions predominantly as a catalytic and facilitator institution, it would be useful to examine further the skills and competencies that are needed to operate most effectively in this way. IPGRI should include such an analysis as part of its strategic planning exercise scheduled to take place during 1997.
84. TAC notes that IPGRI's commitment to hands-on-research is through its partnership and its own in-house research is limited. TAC wonders whether IPGRI's ability to keep abreast scientifically, and the perception of the Institute as a leading institution in the field, would be further enhanced by undertaking more bench and field research in-house. In particular, TAC considers that much in situ conservation requires an understanding of the long-term ecology of plant communities, whether natural or agricultural communities. This will require ecological genetic research and IPGRI should consider how this can be included among its responsibilities, keeping in mind that such research would be of interest to several other CGIAR Centres. TAC noted IPGRI's sense that much of what is learned through such research will have broad application and reasons that this should give IPGRI the opportunity to work with other Centres on CGIAR commodities in such efforts.
IPGRI's Focus
85. IPGRI has a very broad subject matter and geographical mandate. Also, the global interests in genetic resources conservation are driven by international political anxieties of the world community as reflected in the Global Plan of Action. Consequently, there is a particular challenge for this Centre and for the System in setting priorities and in getting coherent action across a number of Centres. However, to ensure that IPGRI's agenda and activities are closely linked to CGIAR goals, rigorous priority setting is essential so that the Institute can carve out from the global agenda a subset of concerns, in accord with the Global Plan of Action, that is at the heart of CGIAR's interests. TAC concurs with the Panel that IPGRI's work is not focused because priorities are set at a broad institutional level that are not adequate to guide strategic decisions about programme priorities. Also, there is a need to strengthen the linkages between strategic programme planning and the resulting operational aspects, especially for the rapidly expanding regional activities. TAC is concerned that inadequate focus in IPGRI's activities could lead to a scattering of the Institute's efforts.
Research Quality
86. During the Review period, IPGRI has significantly increased its contract research activities. However, the Panel pointed out that the selection of the contract partner institution generally appeared to be less than systematically done: the contract partner being approached because the IPGRI staff member taking the initiative knows the partner he or she considers up to the task. Although the Panel did not directly criticize the validity of this approach, it did point out that a more open process in the identification of a contract partners would provide opportunities for systematically sourcing the highest possible quality; and noted that the introduction of competitive elements in this process would enhance cost-effectiveness of the research undertaken and strengthen the catalytic role of the Institute in the global genetic resources research system.
87. TAC does not agree with the Centre's reservation about the recommendation for IPGRI to develop a mode of subcontracting for part of its research programme through the issuance of calls for proposals for designated research topics, because of IPGRI's concern that it should not be seen by its partners as a funding agency. TAC believes that there are a number of ways by which subcontracting of research can be effectively organized and managed without IPGRI appearing to be a funding agency. Further, the quality control inherent in the recommended approach would help IPGRI to further enhance the scientific quality of its professional performance.
Impact Assessment
88. TAC notes that the Panel did not address the issue of impact of IPGRI's work. IPGRI is a young institution in its present form, and the impact of some of IPGRI's work is likely to be difficult to assess because of the service nature of its activities. However, IPGRI does engage in a number of activities whose impact should not be too difficult to assess, and TAC was informed in the discussion that impact assessment activities are underway at the Institute. TAC urges IPGRI to continue to give attention to this important aspect of its work, and looks forward to seeing the results.
Banana and Plantain
89. TAC notes the Panel's conclusion that the integration of INIBAP into IPGRI has been successful and the recommendation that INIBAP be considered fully integrated into IPGRI. TAC endorses this recommendation and applauds both groups for their effort. However, for whatever formalities remain, TAC requests IPGRI to develop a timetable for full integration in collaboration with the INIBAP Support Group, and keep TAC informed on progress.
90. IITA has a global mandate in the CGIAR for research on crop improvement and on productions systems development and management of plantain and banana. It would be unwise for IPGRI/INIBAP to also initiate similar research, and TAC was pleased to receive assurances from IPGRI management that its banana and plantain programme will not engage in hands-on breeding or in research related to production systems. TAC expects that the banana and plantain programme of IPGRI will develop in a manner consistent with the Institute's mandate.
91. TAC is concerned about the effectiveness of the co-ordination in banana and plantain effort in the CGIAR System where the responsibility of the effort is shared between IITA and IPGRI/INIBAP. TAC considers that there is a need to develop greater coherence in CGIAR's banana and plantain agenda and its implementation in the different regions, and agrees with the Panel's recommendation that IPGRI/INIBAP and IITA should undertake a joint strategic planning exercise at the earliest possible date to: (a) define the CGIAR's total effort in banana and plantain, taking into account other major breeding programmes, and the CGIAR's input into the Global Musa Improvement Programme; and (b) agree upon a MOU between IPGRI and IITA that would ensure complementarity and operational effectiveness. In this regard, TAC notes that recently IPGRI/INIBAP was identified to serve as the executive secretariat of the Musa Improvement Programme. IPGRI should carefully explore the long-term institutional implications of entering into such a commitment in the light of the concerns mentioned above.
COGENT
92. TAC was pleased to note IPGRI's claim that COGENT operates for the benefit of smallholders. However, TAC urges IPGRI to be sensitive to the fact that research may not always reach small-scale growers and keep a watching brief to ensure that benefits do flow to the poor.
System-wide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP)
93. The Panel has raised several important questions about the coherence and direction of the genetic resources commitment in the CGIAR System as a whole, and thus its visibility and weight in the global scene. TAC concurs with the Panel that there is an urgent need for this situation to be addressed more proactively by all those concerned, and concludes that, in view of the increased interests at the global level as reflected in the Global Plan of Action, the external review of the SGRP will also address the issues raised, including those related to animal and aquatic genetic resources, in a System-wide context.
Policy Research
94. The Panel touched very briefly on IPGRI's work on policy, which to date, has been only a small fraction of its output. As a result of changes brought about by the Convention on Biological Diversity, the CGIAR has expressed the view that IPGRI should develop in-house capacity for genetic resources policy research and advice. IPGRI wishes to appoint a legal expert in addition to having available the part-time services of a Senior Honorary Fellow for policy work.
95. TAC has some reservations about the decision to hire the legal expert, inasmuch as IPGRI enjoys extremely good relations with FAO with whom it has a MOU whereby FAO assumes the leading responsibility in legal and policy matters regarding plant genetic resources. Where IPGRI feels the need to have further legal advice, TAC considers that such service can be easily and probably more efficiently outsourced.
96. One of the many areas in which policy work would be useful in international fora, to the CGIAR itself as a key player in plant genetic resources, and to national governments who depend on IPGRI's advice, is in drawing out the economic consequences of different policy options with respect to plant genetic resources. In this work IPGRI can draw upon the burgeoning work in economic evaluation of biodiversity being carried out in many advanced research institutions. This work may well be extremely useful in view of the prevalence of a wide range of opinions concerning the value of genetic resources - opinions which are inadequately backed by good quality data and analyses.
97. TAC notes with satisfaction that there are plans for IPGRI and IFPRI to conduct joint work on economic issues relating to plant genetic resources, and hopes that this work will enable IPGRI to deepen its policy research. TAC's view is that much such research should be incorporated in the SGRP.
Governance
98. The Report comments extensively about the functioning of the Board. The Panel notes that the IPGRI Board has been operating without standing committees (except for a small Executive Committee), and has made an insightful analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of this novel arrangement. The IPGRI Board has been creative in the development of unconventional work patterns. TAC encourages the Board to continue to operate creatively but agrees with the Panel that, for this model to succeed, the Board must ensure that its arrangements allow for the continuity and stability of key Board functions, including monitoring of the implementation of Board decisions.
99. The agenda item was introduced by the TAC Chair who recalled that the development of medium-term plans (MTPs) for 1998-2000 was motivated by the discussions at Lucerne in 1995 and the efforts to revitalize the CGIAR System. It was felt that the System needed to revisit its MTPs to ensure their conformity with the current sense of CGIAR goals and with the spirit of renewal. To this end, TAC immediately began an examination of CGIAR priorities and strategies which led to a draft paper presented at MTM96 and the development of a new framework for preparation of the MTPs. Guidelines for preparing new MTPs were issued in mid 1996 by the CGIAR Secretariat. TAC also provided a briefing note for Centre Directors on the programmatic criteria by which MTPs would be assessed as well as a checklist of the type of information the proposals should provide. It was requested that MTPs be prepared on the basis of the budget associated with centres' 1997 financing plans. Proposals were also expected to be developed on a project based agenda. In order to facilitate the process, TAC Members together with staff from the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats visited each centre between November 1996 and March 1997 to interact and provide comments on initial drafts, and to collate information required by the Committee to finalize its report on CGIAR priorities and strategies. After each visit, a note was prepared with observations on the draft MTP and suggestions as to how it could be brought into greater conformity with the MTP guidelines and with evolving CGIAR goals and priorities.
100. Centres had been requested to submit a final draft of the MTP by 1 March 1997 for consideration at TAC 72. The plans were to be introduced to the Committee by the Director General of the Centre and senior management staff as was deemed necessary. Discussions commenced in open plenary session and then continued in working groups which met both in open and in closed session. The criteria by which the plans were to be judged, as well as a proposal on how the Committee should proceed with its analysis, were distributed to the participants.
101. Subsequently, presentations were given by the Directors General of each centre. A summary of each centre proposal, together with TAC's commentary that synthesizes the discussion, are provided in TAC's report Medium-Term Resource Allocation 1998-2000: Centre Proposals and TAC Recommendations (SDR/TAC:IAR/97/6). This document also provides the Committee's recommendations with respect to each MTP. Recommendations on the endorsed funding levels could only be made by TAC upon finalization of its views on priorities and strategies. (See agenda item 6.) A summary of TAC's funding recommendations is reproduced in the table below.
102. TAC's view is that support should be available from Member and centre sources to permit total expenditures of US$ 400 million (in nominal dollars) by the year 2000. Assuming that the present modest rates of inflation continue to prevail, this is an increase of 2% per year in real terms over the expenditures estimated for 1997.
103. TAC's recommendations for 2000 were first written in terms of percentages (with the idea of subsequent translation into dollars) of total expenditure by the System. For some centres the proportion of total funding increased while for others it decreased. An immediate question is the rate at which centres move from their current position to the position recommended for the year 2000. TAC agreed that, in order to more effectively accommodate the changes envisioned, the rate should accelerate over the period, leading to the recommendation that the movement be 10% of the total change by 1998, an additional 30% of the total by 1999, and the remaining 60% in 2000.
104. In concluding the discussion, the TAC Chair noted a number of generic themes relevant across all centres. First it was quite clear that all centres had encouraged widespread consultation in the preparation of their plans including virtually all classes of stakeholders. Second, the MTPs presented to TAC were discernibly better than those of the past. Third, the TAC Chair voiced his disappointment that so few of the MTPs provided a clear line of cause and effect between the CGIAR goals of poverty alleviation and protecting the environment and the resources ultimately assigned by the centres. While he recognized the difficulty in obtaining the information, he hoped that more progress could be made in this area in the future. Fourth, TAC had asked the centres to treat the budget for the year 2000 as if all of the funding were fully fungible. Only a few centres did so making it difficult to ascertain to what extent the proposed allocations were resting on the centres' sense of priorities or of funding opportunities. Finally, it was generally acknowledged that the interaction between TAC and Centre Directors on the development of the draft MTPs had been greatly appreciated.
|
Table 3.1: TAC Recommendations on Centre Expenditures by 2000 |
||||
|
|
1997 Financing Plan 1) |
2000 Target |
||
|
$m |
% |
% |
$m |
|
|
CIAT |
31.1 |
9.2% |
8.2% |
32.7 |
|
CIFOR |
11.3 |
3.3% |
4.1% |
16.5 |
|
CIMMYT |
32.4 |
9.6% |
8.8% |
35.3 |
|
CIP |
23.1 |
6.8% |
6.1% |
24.3 |
|
ICARDA |
25.1 |
7.4% |
7.3% |
29.2 |
|
ICLARM |
11.7 |
3.5% |
4.2% |
16.8 |
|
ICRAF 2) |
17.2 |
5.1% |
6.1% |
24.3 |
|
ICRISAT |
28.6 |
8.4% |
7.6% |
30.2 |
|
IFPRI |
17.3 |
5.1% |
5.2% |
21.0 |
|
IIMI |
9.9 |
2.9% |
3.2% |
12.8 |
|
IITA |
28.1 |
8.3% |
8.5% |
34.0 |
|
ILRI 3) |
30.3 |
9.0% |
9.3% |
37.0 |
|
IPGRI |
19.5 |
5.8% |
6.1% |
24.4 |
|
IRRI |
30.9 |
9.1% |
9.1% |
36.2 |
|
ISNAR |
10.9 |
3.2% |
3.1% |
12.3 |
|
WARDA |
11.1 |
3.3% |
3.3% |
13.1 |
|
TOTAL |
338.5 |
100.0% |
100.0% |
400.0 |
Notes:
1) CGIAR Secretariat, Financial Summary of 1998-2000 Centre Medium Term Plans, revised 9.4.97, Table 2.2) ICRAF expects significant increases of their actual 1997 financing plan by about $ 5 million.
3) Recent information indicates that actual 1997 funding of ILRI may be $ 3.5 million.
below that figure. This would reduce ILRI's share to 8.0% of total.
105. The discussion was introduced by the TAC Chair who recalled that a draft report on CGIAR priorities had been presented to the Group at MTM96 and that it had also been discussed at each of the NARS regional fora. While the document had preliminary recommendations with respect to priorities by activity, it was noted that the development of views on priorities by commodity and production sector would benefit from further active exchanges with the centres. In particular, it was clear that the centres represent the System's best source of information on alternative sources of supply for centre products, changes in science that had influenced the probability of successfully solving constraints on agriculture, forestry and fisheries and developing and implementing appropriate solutions. The development of recommendations on commodities and production sectors was, therefore, deferred until the discussion of MTPs. When visiting the centres in association with the MTPs, TAC Members were asked to compile the information required in this regard to arrive at recommendations. Overall, the Group had broadly endorsed the draft report and its tentative recommendations but asked TAC to carefully revisit the recommendation to reduce the CGIAR efforts in training and strengthening NARS.
106. The discussion was opened by Dr. Henzell who raised a number of cross-cutting themes that would need to be carefully considered before TAC could finalize its views. These included issues related to poverty and the extent to which alternative investment decisions could contribute more to poverty alleviation, the impact of NRM research, the CGIAR role in biodiversity, the need to expand the scope of training to include professional development, gender issues, and the implications of restricted funding. Other TAC Members provided an overview of the implications of new science and chances of success based on information compiled during their visits to the centres. Staff from the CGIAR Secretariat also presented a tentative analysis of the implications of the draft 1998-2000 MTPs for resource allocation in the CGIAR. This analysis included a review of 1997 allocations among activities, commodities and centres.
107. With respect to activities, TAC Members noted that the 1997 allocations conformed better with TAC's MTM96 commentary than did the allocations of 1996. After discussion, TAC largely reaffirmed its 1996 recommendations but with three important changes: the recommended proportion for pre-breeding activities was increased, for crop production systems was further reduced, and that for strengthening NARS was increased, especially that dealing with professional development and training. On the last point, TAC noted the response by the Group and NARS at MTM96, centre reactions in the MTPs, and the recent experience of some TAC Members. TAC reaffirmed its special concern for investments in germplasm improvement, especially for work aimed at expanding the genetic base, and its sense that work on natural resource management requires careful attention to the development of improved research paradigms or guidelines.
108. TAC's deliberations then moved to consider commodities and two pivotal decisions were made. The first was that the entire budget of the 13 centres engaged in research on commodities would be distributed across those commodities, unless there was clear evidence that projects and activities were less oriented to that Centre's commodities and more targeted to generic goods applicable to all commodities. The second was that, as a general rule, priorities and resource allocations should move from current shares in allocations half way towards the poverty weighted share, unless there was evidence (e.g. new science, alternative sources of supply, etc.) that argued for something different.
109. Extended discussion suggested that the projected poverty weighted shares of fish and forest products were overestimated, because of the way their prices were developed, as contrasted with the estimates for crop and livestock products. It was also noted that, in spite of several strong recommendations by TAC, investment in research on livestock lagged well behind the sector's projected poverty weighted share. These two considerations suggested that TAC set aside the general rule in the case of the fish, forestry, and livestock sectors.
110. In the case of fish and forestry, TAC endorsed increased portions of the overall budget, but less than those which would have emerged from the data and with a sense that the resulting shares would not exceed the true poverty weighted share. That is, the resulting share is not as large as that implied by the exaggerated price data but thought to be not larger than a more reliable forecast of price data would imply. For livestock, TAC endorsed an increase of 1.5 percentage points over the portion actually realized in 1997. This was still well below the level suggested by a priority analysis, but TAC recognized that donors appeared to be hesitant in funding livestock research to the extent necessary. TAC will review this perception with members in the near future. Alternative sources of supply and new science figured in these sector wide conclusions. For the last, TAC noted that new science is affecting the probability of success of all of the work going on in the CGIAR - making the CGIAR an even better investment than in the past - but that the greatest gains are for centres engaged in germplasm improvement and characterization along with animal health, the next largest for centres in work on natural resource management (including aquatic, forest, and water resources), and the least for centres whose work rests mostly on informatics, largely because informatics affect all work being done by the centres.
111. Turning to crop commodities and given the first of the pivotal decisions, these made up some 55% of the CGIAR budget. One implication of the earlier discussions about activities and the fish, forest, and livestock sectors was that the crop portion of the total budget had been reduced in comparison with its 1997 proportion. In reviewing individual commodities it was immediately evident that the 1997 share of some were well above their poverty weighted shares. This is especially the case for beans, cassava (especially outside of SSA), maize, and potato. At the same time, for two commodities - rice and wheat - the 1997 share is well below their projected poverty weighted shares. TAC also noted that special circumstances apply to some of the commodities, e.g., work on soyabean is pursued only in SSA, where the poverty weighted share is quite low but the crop shows promise, and work on groundnuts is focused on the more arid areas which themselves contribute about 50% of the projected poverty weighted share. The implication was that, in the case of soyabean and groundnut, the difference between current and poverty weighted shares was more apparent than real. Compensating adjustments were made in the analysis.
112. TAC then considered other factors that should influence the relative level of investment in the various crop commodities, in particular the availability of alternative sources of supply and the impact of new science. While, it was recognized that new science has something to offer on all of the commodities, it appeared that some (cereals, livestock) had been favoured more than others. Further reflection, however, suggested that these are probably transitory advantages, that over the next decade it is likely that all commodities will benefit in roughly similar ways from new findings in basic science. However, the unfolding impact of late blight in potatoes, which has effectively erased much of the progress of earlier years and increased the importance of recent research findings, brought TAC to conclude that added relative emphasis should be given to potato, which is to say that potato research should decline by less than the initial indicators implied.
113. As for alternative suppliers, it was quickly recognized that none of the commodities have levels of investment consistent with what they would have in developed country-agriculture, nor the array of alternative suppliers that are available there. Even so, TAC's concerns were with relative access to alternative suppliers, that is to say with the comparison among the crops within the CGIAR mandate. On that basis and as contrasted with the average situation, it was concluded that rice, wheat, and maize (outside SSA) have relatively more alternative suppliers while banana/plantain and cassava in SSA have relatively fewer alternative sources of supply. The remaining crop commodities are characterized as being comparable to one another with respect to alternative suppliers.
114. On the basis of these three kinds of considerations, TAC decided on further modifications among commodities. The elements are laid out in Table 6.2 of the Priorities and Strategies report. For example, globally, the 1997 share of cassava was 8.9% of the commitment to crop commodities while its projected poverty weighted share was 5.6%. Other things equal, then, TAC would have set the recommended allocation for 2000 at 7.4%, half way between the two proportions. Science does not seem to favour cassava relative to other crops so no modification in the recommendation could be attributed to science. However, alternative suppliers were judged to be relatively weak in SSA and average for the rest of the world, implying a positive modification in the priority, but only for SSA. The result is that cassava will have a higher proportion than 7.3%, still lower than 8.9%. Furthermore, it implies that cassava in SSA gains relative to cassava elsewhere. This last affects the balance between CIAT and IITA. Finally, the total to cassava was also modestly influenced by TAC's judgements on the overall balance among centres based on recent track records and on the perceptions evident in the medium-term plan.
115. Finally, the Committee reviewed the situation in Systemwide Programmes. Discussion with the Group at MTM96 affirmed the work going on in this arena, noted that two classes of such programmes are operating, and detailed TAC's sense that a steady course should be followed until 1998 or 1999, when a review of the format's utility should be undertaken. TAC Members saw no reasons for changing that plan.
116. The discussion on CGIAR priorities and strategies proceeded in parallel with the one on centre MTPs. Information about the arguments used and the outcome of TAC's deliberations can be found in TAC's report, CGIAR Priorities and Strategies for Resource Allocation During 1998-2000 (SDR/TAC:IAR/96/6.2).
117. In concluding the discussion, Dr. Winkelmann expressed his sincere thanks to TAC Members as well as staff of both the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats and Centre Directors for their active participation in the discussions. The report would be finalized by the TAC Chair in collaboration with the TAC Secretariat in time for MTM97.
118. The agenda item was introduced by the TAC Chair who recalled earlier discussions on the need to revise the CGIAR activity classification scheme. The Government of Germany had offered assistance in addressing this theme by providing conference facilities and the services of a professional facilitator, Prof. Uwe Nagel of the Humboldt University of Berlin. Subsequently, a workshop was held from 25-27 February 1997 in Feldafing, Germany, in which TAC Members, as well as representatives of the broad CGIAR community were represented. A report was prepared on the outcome of the workshop and Prof. Nagel presented it to the Committee.
119. Prof. Nagel provided an overview of the conduct of the workshop which had started with an analysis of the problems of the current planning process as well as with its terminology. Subsequently, a revised CGIAR logical framework had been developed which included a proposed CGIAR strategy logframe and a revised classification of activities. However, the revised scheme was only a first tentative attempt and required further elaboration. Furthermore, there was a need to develop indicators to measure progress and outputs of CGIAR activities. A working group would be established to follow up on the outcome of the Feldafing workshop and the final results were expected to be available at TAC 74 in March 1998 and MTM98 in May.
120. In the ensuing discussion, TAC Members expressed their satisfaction with the progress that had been made. Several requests for clarification were raised regarding the revised activity scheme, particularly with respect to differentiation of production systems on the basis of environmental factors. A question was raised as to why biodiversity conservation was not considered a CGIAR goal. It was also noted that in the revised scheme there was still no provision for introducing water resources management and postharvest research, even though they were considered to be high priority issues. A question was also raised with respect to the intended audience of the logframe.
121. Prof. Nagel acknowledged that much work was still required on the revised activity classification scheme. With respect to a question on the purpose of the logframe, he said that the workshop had expressed the hope that it would be useful as a planning instrument, for priority setting, and in impact assessment for the CGIAR. The audience would be TAC, the Centres and the Members of the Group.
122. In concluding the discussion, the TAC Chair expressed his profound gratitude to Prof. Nagel and the participants of the Feldafing workshop for the excellent progress that had been made. He would seek to establish a working group as recommended by the meeting that could proceed with follow up on the findings of the workshop.
123. Dr. Ted Henzell, the TAC Member closely associated with the marginal lands study, introduced this agenda item by presenting a brief history of TAC's work on this topic. He recalled that during the soil and water study TAC was inclined to focus on the marginal lands which were also emphasized at the Lucerne meeting. However, there was no hard evidence to inform the decision-making process. Hence the marginal lands study was set up.
124. TAC received a progress report of the marginal lands study at TAC 70 which proposed how the study would move forward. TAC liked the proposed framework. The report presented at TAC 71 concluded that what mattered was marginalized or poor people and not marginal lands, and that it was several things which made people marginal. TAC was not convinced by this view but supported the framework composed of a six-celled matrix linking present use value of land to potential for production expansion based on research, and recognized that the framework captured how land can change with time and with research. Also, the report at TAC 71 questioned the conventional wisdom that poor people are concentrated in marginal lands. TAC agreed with the Panel's conclusion that quantitative information on the location of poverty and on degradation of soil and water in relation to poverty was very inadequate.
125. Dr. Henzell stated that the work done on marginal lands, and as presented at TAC 71, was not adequate to help the CGIAR to address issues of poverty. So TAC requested that the panel's report be finalized, and that TAC should take over the process of how to present the material to the Group, and how to proceed with the gaps such as the location of poverty, land and poverty, and degradation and poverty.
126. The ensuing discussion was wide ranging, and highlighted the need to take the CGIAR through the learning process so that the different dimensions of the problems were better understood. It was concluded that there was a need to search for additional information on poverty, and that in the coming months TAC should broaden the analytical process through two separate studies: (i) a study on the relationship between land types and poverty; and (ii) a study on the relationship between poverty and land degradation. In closing the discussion, the TAC Chair proposed that the study now move forward to close the gaps, and that he would make a progress report to the MTM98.
127. Sir Ralph Riley, Chair of the Standing Committee for External Reviews reported on: (a) the preparation for the external reviews of Centres: CIMMYT, IRRI, CIFOR and IFPRI; (b) further planning of the external reviews of Centres: ICRAF, ICLARM and ILRI; (c) study of CGIAR commitments in Latin America and the Caribbean; (d) planning of the external review of the Systemwide Plant Genetic Resource Programme.
128. TAC also discussed the revised Terms of Reference and Guidelines for the Conduct of External Programme and Management Reviews of CGIAR Centres, in the light of the new EPMR model which expects Centre Boards to commission external reviews (the Centre-Commissioned External Reviews - CCERs) which would provide information for the CGIAR external review process.
Centre external reviews: CIMMYT, IRRI, IFPRI, CIFOR
129. The Third External Review of IFPRI will be chaired by Dr. Ammar Siamwalla (Thailand), Research Fellow at the Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation. The initial phase will take place from 6-10 October 1997 and the main phase from 12-28 February 1998. The Panel composition is being firmed up in consultation with the Panel Chair and IFPRI. A consultant to the Panel attended the IFPRI Board meeting in early March 1997. The report of the Panel will be considered at TAC 74.
130. The Fourth External Review of CIMMYT was being chaired by Dr. Graham Jenkins (UK), consultant and former Director of Plant Breeding International, Cambridge. The initial phase will take place from 23 June-2 July 1997 and the main phase during the last two weeks of November 1997. The Panel composition is being firmed up in consultation with the Panel Chair and CIMMYT. The Panel Chair will attend the Board meeting of CIMMYT in Mexico from 3-8 April 1997. The report of the Panel will be considered at TAC 74.
131. The Fifth External Review of IRRI was being chaired by Dr. Bernard Tinker (UK), Senior Research Associate, University of Oxford. The timings of the initial phase and the main phase as well as the panel composition were being firmed up in consultation with the Panel Chair and IRRI. The Panel Chair will attend the next IRRI Board meeting in April 1997. The report of the Panel will be considered at TAC 75.
132. The First External Review of CIFOR was being chaired by Dr. Jeff Burley (UK), Director of the Oxford Forestry Institute. The timings of the initial phase and the main phase as well as the panel composition were being firmed up in consultation with the Panel Chair and CIFOR. The Panel Chair attended the CIFOR Board meeting in February 1997 as an observer in his capacity as the Chairman of UFRO. The report of the Panel will be considered at TAC 75.
Further planning of centre external reviews: ICRAF, ICLARM, ILRI
133. The Committee was informed that the planning of the second external review of ICRAF, the second external review of ICLARM and the first external review of ILRI was progressing. It was agreed that, in addition to having a common member on the CIFOR and ICRAF panels, both review reports should come to the Committee at TAC 75 in September 1998. The reviews of ICLARM and ILRI would be completed in time for the reports to be discussed at TAC 76 in March 1999.
Study of CGIAR commitments in Latin America and the Caribbean
134. The planning of this study by the Secretariat had continued and included intensifying contact with several individuals, CGIAR and non-CGIAR institutions on modalities for effective implementation of the study. These contacts include the LAC NARS, Regional Fora and CGIAR representatives. Presently, Dr. Eugenia Muchnik de Rubinstein of CEPAL had in principle agreed to undertake the desk study envisaged in the terms of reference of the study. The individuals proposed for Panel Chairmanship were approached and one of them had agreed to serve on the Panel.
External review of the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP)
135. It was recalled that the need for an external programme and management review of SGRP was emphasized at TAC 71. It was proposed that the review should be conducted during 1998 and focus on: what has been our experience with the Programme; governance, including what principles, e.g. of accountability, have been used; strategic issues; animal and fish genetic resources; and the relationship with the CGIAR policy committee. The review should examine the extent to which the SGRP has achieved the aims of the Stripe Review of genetic resources. During the brief discussion that followed, Dr. Geoff Hawtin, Director General of IPGRI, wondered whether the SGRP was still relevant in its present form given the significant global developments since the Stripe Review. He agreed that the review should look at management aspects, including to what extent the CGIAR wants to use SGRP as a model. It was pointed out by a TAC Member that the Systemwide programmes were sufficiently different to justify separate external reviews for each programme. The question was raised about the boundary of the reviews of Systemwide programmes. It was felt that the reviews should take the broader emphasis and look at the total activities/picture and sort out the boundary issues.
136. The Committee requested that a proposal, including the terms of reference and the review process to be followed, be considered at TAC 73.
Revised Terms of Reference and Guidelines for the Conduct of External Programme and Management Reviews of CGIAR Centres
137. The Committee considered the revised standard Terms of Reference and Guidelines for the conduct of external reviews of CGIAR Centres prepared by the Inter-Secretariat Working Group on external reviews. The revision was necessary to take into account the new review model endorsed by the CGIAR at ICW95. The new model calls for Centre Commissioned External Reviews to generate information that can be used by the External Review teams to make reliable and rigorous assessments, and to spend more time on issues that are of strategic importance to the future of the Centres.
138. In the ensuing brief discussion, Dr. Wanda Collins, Chair of the Committee of Centre Board Chairs, expressed a concern about the Guidelines, stating that the suggested requirements for the conduct of CCERs was prescriptive, and that IPGRI for example would do its CCERs in a different way. Further, which CCER reports were made available to TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat should be left to the Centre Boards. TAC agreed with the suggestion that as CCERs were Board commissioned reviews, it was up to the Board to decide which CCER reports were shared with the panels. TAC however re-emphasized the need to maintain the externality of the CCER process so that over time the CCERs become a reliable source of information to the Centres as well as to the external review panels and CGIAR stakeholders. The Inter-Secretariat Working Group was requested to finalize the revisions to the terms of reference and guidelines in the light of the discussion (see Annex 4 for the final version).
139. TAC reconfirmed and/or amended dates and venues for the following meetings:
|
TAC 73: |
23-27 September, 1997 |
IFPRI, Washington, D.C., USA |
|
TAC 74: |
23-28 March, 1998 |
ICRISAT, Patancheru, India |
|
TAC 75: |
20-26 September, 1998 |
CIMMYT, Mexico, D.F., Mexico |
140. The TAC Chair, Dr. Winkelmann, reported on the meeting he attended in London from 4-9 December, 1996, organized by the Royal Society in association with the Rank Prize Funds. Dr. Winkelmann presented a paper on "Productivity, Poverty Alleviation and Food Security" at the "International Symposium on Feeding a World Population of more than eight Billion People: A Challenge to Science". The paper aimed at developing connections between food security, poverty and productivity. It impressed that for the poorest countries, where most of the 1.2 billion poor live and where food security is most in jeopardy, productivity increases in agriculture will lead to increased incomes in rural and urban areas. There is now evidence that those increases have beneficial effects on the income of the poor, hence increased incomes enhance food security. Contributing to the discussion Sir Ralph Riley who also attended the conference observed that feeding a world population of 8 billion people presents a challenge to science. He remarked that the Malthusian hypothesis failed because it did not allow science to make a contribution. Even the 2020 vision makes little reference to science. Other participants at the conference observed that human knowledge increases with the increase of population and that there is a lot that science can do. Dr. Ted Henzell as a participant at the conference acknowledged that there were good technical papers but was struck by the lack of coverage in GIS and remote sensing despite the rich mix of disciplines and organizations represented at the conference. In registering appreciation for TAC's representation at the conference, Members expressed a desire to receive the proceedings. The TAC Chair and Sir Ralph indicated their willingness to circulate the published material.
141. Dr. Guido Gryseels reported on the outcome of the case studies workshop organized by the Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group (IAEG) and held at FAO, Rome, between 18-20 February 1997. The TAC Secretariat provided logistical support to the workshop while the staff of the FAO Evaluation Unit participated at the workshop, as well as several CGIAR Centres and selected national programmes. The University of Arizona acted as facilitator and will continue to provide technical back up as the case studies are implemented by the centres and the national programmes. During the discussion the Committee noted that the nine case studies focused on adaptation processes and will run for approximately one year. While the nine studies might not be adequate, they will build on the impact assessment which is already part of the centres' programmes. Nevertheless, TAC noted that there are still real challenges in measuring impact, particularly in NRM and policy research.
142. The TAC Chair informed the Committee that since ICW96, the CGIAR Chair has instituted Science Awards to recognize achievements in four areas:
(i) outstanding locally recruited scientists;
(ii) outstanding locally recruited scientific support staff;
(iii) promising young scientists; and (iv) scientific partnership.
143. In processing the awards the Centre Board Chairs' Committee requested for TAC Members' input in assessing the awards. At this juncture, the TAC Chair recognized Dr. Wanda Collins who elaborated on the modalities of the Science Awards. She indicated that in future a formal involvement of TAC is warranted to establish a transparent mechanism and would draw upon the Committee for suggestions to improve the process. She acknowledged the exchange of views with TAC and appreciated that a small subgroup of TAC have agreed to look at the present docket and will submit comments on this topic. The Committee endorsed that the TAC Chair would communicate future developments regarding the involvement of specific TAC Members in the 1997 Science Awards.
