Previous Page Table of Contents

Session 6. Conflict management case study: Dr Agadir

Session guide: Dr Agadir
Case study: Dr Agadir



FORMAT Small-group discussions and plenary participatory lecture



At the end of this session, participants should be able to apply to a case situation various concepts pertaining to management of conflict, and understand them better.




Case study: Dr Agadir




Overhead projector and chalkboard

Session guide: Dr Agadir

The third cocoa project
Dr Agadir
Dr Swanson's dilemma
Annex 1: The Cocoa Research Institute of Savana

The case of Dr Agadir provides an opportunity to understand causes of conflict situations in research organizations, and ways and means of managing such situations. The conflict discussed in the case is not uncommon in a research organization. Often such conflicts remain unresolved, creating adverse organizational effects. They influence team-work and affect research outputs. While management would like to resolve such conflicts, they are often difficult to resolve.

Using the reading note on Conflict management from Module 4 - Session 5, participants should first discuss the case in small groups. During the case discussion in the plenary session, the resource person should use, at appropriate places, the concepts discussed in the reading note.

To initiate discussion on the case, the resource person should ask participants about various types of conflict which arise in research organizations, their causes, and the manner in which they are resolved. What has caused the conflict in the case situation? Could it have been avoided? Has it been managed properly? Would participants handle it differently? How? At the end of the session, the resource person may wish to emphasize that conflicts are not necessarily bad. If managed properly, they can be used to reinforce commitment to the organization.

Case study: Dr Agadir

The letter from the plant pathology department was very strong. It concluded by observing:

"If this is the attitude of the biochemistry department, we shall have no research in collaboration with them as of now. Not only do they lack a healthy attitude towards collaborative work, they have often refused to share achievements. Now they want to stifle our work on cocoa swollen shoot virus, notwithstanding the fact that we have been working on it for over a decade. We would of course continue our work in this area, but without the biochemistry department."

Dr (Mrs) Swanson, Executive Director, Cocoa Research Institute of Savana (CRIS), put down the letter and was quite annoyed. She had known that there was trouble between the biochemistry and plant pathology departments, or rather between two senior scientists of these departments. She had not expected it to reach this level. There had been several instances of conflicts between the scientists and their divisions, but the conflicts had never reached boiling point. They were usually resolved amicably, even before the executive director took note of them. Mostly the conflicts arose over allocation of plots for experiments, budgetary allocations and participation in international conferences.

Scientists designed their experiments in consultation with the statistician. They would then apply for a plot of land, providing a drawing of the area for laying out the experiment. The request would be considered by the plots committee, consisting of the heads of the research divisions and head of the plantation division. Each division had a certain land area allocated to it, and it could use that land for its experiments as agreed upon within the division. The plots committee simply took note of that. Difficulties arose when the land belonging to some other division was sought, and in particular when the other division did not want to release its land. In the recent past there were some problems with the plant breeding department over a large piece of land on which a cocoa plantation had stood from the very beginning of the institute. The plantation had to be destroyed because of a large-scale disease infestation which was impossible to cure. When the land was cleared, almost all other divisions put in a request for parts of the land for their experiments. The plant breeding department resented these requests, and there were heated discussions in the plots committee. The issue was somehow resolved satisfactorily within the plots committee. The plant breeding department retained most of the land, although a small part was temporarily allocated to other divisions for their experiments.

Objections were often raised by scientists when an area proposed for use in an experiment was considered by them to be unsuitable. For example, all experiments on virus studies had to be conducted on land at the edge of the experimental farm so as to isolate them from other experiments, otherwise they might be a source of infection and spread the virus diseases. In such cases, a scientist had to give up a preferred location. Frequently the scientists asked for a larger area than was necessary for their experiments. In those cases, the statistician - who was a permanent invitee to the meetings of the plots committee - was asked to review the experimental design with the scientists. When the plots committee denied the request for allocation of a particular plot, for whatever reason, it helped find another plot.

Occasionally a proposed experiment might not be appropriate for a particular purpose, even though the scientist proposing the experiment might insist on it. Such cases were also resolved through peer intervention within the division concerned.

Conflicts over allocation of funds were not unusual, with every division trying to get more so that its research programme could proceed smoothly. Participation in international conferences also led to some conflict among the competing scientists. Conflicts over sharing of scientific material and equipment were not uncommon. But all such conflicts were temporary, and had never affected the work culture of the institute.

However, the conflict between the plant pathology and biochemistry departments was different. It was a conflict between two departments which had always collaborated in the past. It was a conflict between two senior scientists who had worked together on the same problem over a decade, and had jointly published their work in respected journals. For some strange reason, friends had become foes. In the process, they had vitiated to some extent the research environment of the institute (see ANNEX 1).

The third cocoa project

In 1984, the institute was preparing a five-year plan of activities to be included in the third phase of the World Bank-assisted Savana Cocoa Project. In the context of CRIS, the project aimed to enhance CRIS's capacity to carry out research on which to base expanded production of cocoa and coffee. The sub-components of the project were:

· upgrading the Tofa station and central services, and improving basic services at the substations,
· establishing a CRIS off-station-trials unit, and
· staff development.

Some investments to start new trials were also contemplated. The total proposed cost of the project was a modest $US 6.5 million. This investment was intended to be catalytic.

Each division had submitted its plan of activities to the research committee. The research programme on virus purification and detection appeared in the work plans of both the plant pathology and the biochemistry divisions. That would not have been a problem but for the ensuing discussion. The head of the plant pathology division had qualified his division's programme by stating that they would work on the cocoa swollen shoot virus problem 'as and when they found time.' While this was being discussed by the members of the research committee, several other issues also cropped up. The head of the plant pathology division had to respond to several queries on the proposed research programme of his division. He had many answers to give, but could provide only a few clarifications. Yet he had very strongly questioned the proposal of the biochemistry department to work on cocoa swollen shoot virus problem. He contended that this was an area in which his department had been working for almost a decade, and, while the biochemistry department was involved in some small measure, this was not a major activity, neither in the past nor could it be in the future. This was essentially phytopathological work. On hearing this, the head of the biochemistry department was stunned. He could not keep quiet, but reacted rather angrily. In the acrimonious debate which then took place, both heads had lauded the role of their own department while belittling the other department. The other members of the research committee knew well that the work had been, in fact, a collaborative research activity between Dr Agadir, a biochemist, and Dr Ouadda, a plant pathologist, under the auspices of their respective departments. Somehow this relationship had gone sour.

The research committee had subsequently written to the head of the plant pathology department seeking an explanation from him as to what was meant by the qualification that they would work on the cocoa swollen shoot virus problem 'as and when they had time.' The research committee never received a reply. In one of the meetings, the research committee approved research on cocoa swollen shoot virus as a major activity of the biochemistry department. No decision was taken on the request of the plant pathology department as the committee was still waiting for a reply to its earlier communication. Meanwhile, the two departments were exchanging acrimonious letters.

Dr Agadir

(as narrated by Dr Agadir)

Dr Agadir joined CRIS as a Research Assistant (now re-designated as Assistant Research Officer) in 1965. That was soon after he had obtained his first degree in biochemistry. He was put in what was then the chemistry division, which comprised both soil science and biochemistry. The biochemistry wing was at that time mainly engaged in research on cocoa swollen shoot virus, in collaboration with the pathology division. Collaboration between various research divisions was part of the culture of the institute, as it was always necessary, particularly so between plant pathology and biochemistry. There had been close collaboration between the virologists, breeders and biochemists in the study of screening techniques, detection of infection, symptomatology, etc., for research studies on cocoa swollen shoot virus.

Dr Agadir was asked to work on various aspects of the cocoa swollen shoot virus purification problem. His work during the period 1965-66 was published in a respected professional journal. In September 1966, Dr Agadir went to the University of Sheffield to do a doctoral programme. He successfully defended his research thesis in 1969, was awarded his PhD, and returned to the institute. He was then promoted to research officer. Dr Asmera, the then director of CRIS, suggested several research problems to Dr Agadir. He selected four problems:

(i) pesticide residues in cocoa beans,

(ii) cocoa bio-products (pectin and cocoa husk),

(iii) cocoa swollen shoot virus purification, and

(iv) nutrition of mealy bugs.

The last problem was in fact suggested by a Swedish biologist who was interested in rearing mealy bugs artificially and feeding them on a liquid diet. He was keen to know the most desired composition of the diet. The interest in mealy bugs arose because they are the vectors of cocoa swollen shoot virus.

By 1972, Dr Agadir had published in several scientific journals. His work on mealy bugs and pectin was well received. These were independent publications. By then, Dr Agadir was working as the main biochemist since Mr R.H. Wode, who was part of an Overseas Development Administration (ODA) technical team from the United Kingdom, had left for Rustberg at about the time Dr Agadir returned from Sheffield in 1969.

Dr Agadir recalls that his collaborative work with Dr Ouadda began in 1969 when the latter suggested a research project on factors which affected virus multiplication and symptom development in cocoa. This problem was originally suggested to Dr Ouadda by the chief of the ODA team. Since this involved research in biochemistry, both Dr Ouadda and Dr Agadir teamed up. Together they published some research papers.

Dr Ouadda left for the University of Dublin to do a PhD. From 1971 to 1974, while Dr Ouadda was away, Dr Agadir continued to work on cocoa swollen shoot virus purification. The plant pathology department was providing infected material, such as cocoa beans and leaves, but no pathologist was involved directly in the research work.

Dr Agadir faced several impediments in his work. He felt that the head of the ODA technical team, himself a plant pathologist, did not want him to work on cocoa swollen shoot virus. The ODA team had been working on cocoa swollen shoot virus for many years without making much progress. In contrast, Dr Agadir was already claiming remarkable progress. The ODA team brought back Dr C.H. Cantor to continue work on cocoa swollen shoot virus. Dr Cantor came as a plant pathologist and not as a biochemist.

Dr Agadir recalls various impediments that were put in the way of his work during this period. He was no longer easily receiving supplies of infected material from the plant pathology department. One morning he found his experimental boxes thrown out of the greenhouse. Notwithstanding these difficulties, Dr Agadir continued his work with the help of a technician in the biochemistry department. He even published two papers in the Savana Journal of Agricultural Sciences. Dr Agadir had sent the draft of these papers to Dr Ouadda, who was still in Dublin doing his PhD. Dr Ouadda was a junior author of both these papers. The paper on pectin had another co-author, from the University of Savana at Zaka.

Dr Ouadda returned to CRIS in 1974 after gaining his PhD. At about that time, in 1974, Dr Agadir went to Munich, together with the then director and head of the plant breeding division, to attend an international conference on Cocoa Fermentation and Quality. One of the conference papers was presented by Dr Barling, on using the electron microscope to study fermentation. Dr Agadir wondered if the same technique could be used for studying virus multiplication in cocoa beans. Dr Barling suggested that the best person to answer this question would be Dr Lizzermann, an electron microscopist at Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtshaft (BBA), at Braunschweig, Germany. In fact, they travelled together to Braunschweig. Dr Agadir was disappointed to learn from Dr Lizzermann that cocoa swollen shoot virus was difficult to study as it did not attain a high concentration in cocoa beans and therefore detecting it with the electron microscope would be difficult.

Although Dr Agadir returned to Tofa a bit disappointed, he did not give up. With Dr Ouadda, he wrote a proposal to develop a sensitive method to detect virus in cocoa tissues. Dr Agadir needed a sensitive method to continue his work on the biochemical basis of cocoa swollen shoot virus disease resistance, and Dr Ouadda needed a sensitive method for detection of the virus in the field for his studies on the epidemiology of outbreaks and their control. Since they had a common interest, they teamed up. Besides, they had already worked together on this problem. Apart from that, the plant pathology department would be the one to provide infected material for study. The proposal was sent to the director of BBA.

In the meanwhile, Dr Agadir was travelling. First he went to Malaysia on a Commonwealth Fellowship to visit cocoa estates and study bulk fermentation of cocoa. In September 1979 he was at the Tropical Crops Research Institute, London, on a fellowship from the International Atomic Energy Agency to work on pesticide residues in cocoa beans. In January 1980, Dr Agadir went to Braunschweig at the invitation of Dr Pavlo, Director of the Institute of Virology in BBA. Dr Agadir convinced Dr Pavlo that he indeed had a good method for purifying the virus in substantial quantities, which was a necessary prerequisite for developing a sensitive method. By August 1980, Dr Agadir was in BBA on a prestigious fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Stifftung, working to develop the much-needed sensitive method, later known as the Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent Analysis Technique (ELISA). In August 1980, Dr Ouadda sent the necessary infected material (cocoa beans and leaves) to Braunschweig for Dr Agadir to continue his work.

Dr Agadir returned to Tofa in November 1981, after having had some initial success in developing the ELISA technique. Of course, a considerable amount of work remained to be done, but he was elated with the success already achieved. That was when Dr Ouadda became jealous. He knew that after the virus was detected, using the sensitive method, it would open the way for genetic engineering and cloning, and all that would ultimately lead to development of cocoa varieties resistant to cocoa swollen shoot virus. Once the virus was detected it would be possible to determine the genome structure and then find out what part of viral nucleic acid coded for the viral protein. Scientists could then transfer that part of the gene into the plant so that the plant could make the viral proteins and develop resistance to cocoa swollen shoot virus.

On his return from the Humboldt fellowship, Dr Agadir felt the need to have the assistance of a junior scientist. His proposal was approved and a junior scientist was recruited, who was subsequently trained in molecular biology, virology and genetic engineering.

Dr Agadir was in charge of a staff seminar series before he left for Germany. Since the series had been started by Dr Agadir and Dr Ouadda jointly, Dr Ouadda took over this responsibility. Dr Agadir had expected to be invited to give a seminar on his work in Braunschweig, but he was not and this angered him very much.

In the meantime, one Dr Ollenu joined the institute. He had a PhD in plant pathology. Dr Agadir persuaded him to collaborate with him. But he too backed out after some time, presumably under pressure from his fellow plant pathologists.

Dr Agadir was flabbergasted. This negative attitude was delaying his work. He could not understand the reason for this. The roles of the two departments were clearly marked. The plant pathology department had simply to provide the infected material. Instead, it wanted to monopolize all research on cocoa swollen shoot virus. Even though the research committee had not approved the research programme in principle, the department was continuing with it. Instead of using the ELISA technique developed by Dr Agadir, it was using some other method to isolate cocoa swollen shoot virus. The feud between Dr Agadir and Dr Ouadda assumed alarming proportions. For some time they did not even look at each other. Afterwards they started greeting one another, although grudgingly. Things became quiet after Dr Ouadda left for Saudi Arabia on sabbatical leave. However, the two departments continued to exchange acrimonious letters, and collaborative research suffered.

Dr Agadir continued his research on cocoa swollen shoot virus, in collaboration with BBA, where part of the genetic engineering work had been done.

Dr Agadir had a nagging feeling that Dr Ouadda was not the primary cause of all this trouble, and suspected that he had been provoked into this by other colleagues, who were jealous of Dr Agadir, since Dr Agadir was often praised by the director as a good, hard working researcher, at times - to Dr Agadir's embarrassment - in presence of others.

Dr Swanson's dilemma

Although the feud between Dr Agadir and Dr Ouadda had quietened down with the latter's departure to Saudi Arabia, all was not over. The after-effects were alarming. The two departments continued to exchange hostile letters. Each was trying to be fully self-sufficient, such that all collaborative research had been virtually abandoned. Worse, other departments were also moving in that direction and shunning collaborative research. Earlier, all such conflicts were resolved in the research committee; now they were being directly referred to the executive director, bypassing the research committee.

Dr Ouadda was expected to rejoin the institute in another month. It was common knowledge that both Dr Agadir and Dr Ouadda had not buried the hatchet.

Dr Swanson knew that something had definitely to be done to stem the vitiating atmosphere in the institute.

Annex 1: The Cocoa Research Institute of Savana


The Cocoa Research Institute of Savana (CRIS) was originally established as the Central Cocoa Research Station of the Department of Agriculture, in 1937, upon the recommendation of the Agricultural Advisor to the United Kingdom's Secretary of State for the Colonies. This followed his observation, during a visit in 1935, of a marked decline in cocoa yield in the Eastern Province, the cradle of Savana's cocoa industry. Farms which had been highly productive had become derelict and were gradually being abandoned. Production in the region fell from 120 000 t/year in 1931-37 to a little over 40 000 t/year in 1953-54.

Continuing decline in cocoa production in the region resulting from widespread incidence of disease subsequently led to the founding of the Cocoa Institute of Coastal States (CICS) in 1944. The former Central Cocoa Research Station at Tofa was then selected as the headquarters of CICS, on account of its facilities and its nearness to the disease-devastated areas. A team of high calibre scientists and administrators, with considerable experience in tropical agriculture, was recruited. There were entomologists, pathologists, botanists, chemists, agronomists and a research director.

Initially, rented premises in the town served as temporary laboratory and living quarters for the staff. There was neither electricity, gas nor running water. However, by 1944, permanent buildings were ready. These comprised a large, well-fitted laboratory block, an administration block, and smaller ancillary buildings designed as workshops and storage for equipment. A sub-station was also set up at Badan.

CICS was jointly administered as an international research institute serving three adjoining countries. However, it was autonomous within the country of its location. On the attainment of independence and national sovereignty CICS was dissolved in October 1962 as an inter-territorial organization. Each country set up its own institute for cocoa research. Nonetheless, they maintained links with each other, as well as with institutions abroad.

The station at Tofa was re-established as CRIS. In the fifty years of its existence, the institute has had a number of changes in administration. It has passed from local to inter-territorial control, and subsequently to a succession of national bodies, such as the National Research Council (NRC) in 1962, the Savana Academy of Sciences (SAS) in 1963, and the National Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (NCSIR) in 1969.

In the first week of October 1973, barely four years after the formation of NCSIR, the administration of CRIS was changed again and, together with the divisions engaged in the cocoa industry, became a subsidiary of the Savana Cocoa Marketing Board (SOCOBOD). Then, in October 1975, the Ministry of Cocoa Affairs was established, with overall responsibility for the entire cocoa industry, including SOCOBOD. When the ministry was dissolved in 1979, the institute was administered by an interim management committee of SOCOBOD, with a chief executive and two deputies, to be succeeded, in 1981, by a permanent committee.

The focus of the research activities had been on cocoa until 1979, when the functions were expanded to include research and investigations into all problems relating to cocoa, cola, coffee, shea nut and other indigenous and introduced tree species which produce fats similar to cocoa butter. Some of these other crops, such as shea nut and the tallow tree, grew under different environmental conditions, but the methods used in extracting and assessing the quality of their fats were not much different from that used on cocoa. Besides, the demand for shea butter for use on its own and in mixture with hydrogenated palm oil in cosmetics and food preparation was increasing. Even though other crops were added, the functions of CRIS remained unchanged, and much of its attention was focused on cocoa.


The institute was headed by a director, who was responsible for day-to-day management of the institute on behalf of the management committee. The director was assisted by two deputy directors, who were responsible for the coordination of research work and specific administration. In the organizational structure of the institute there were scientific divisions as well as service divisions.

Research Division

Initially, the institute was organized in five divisions: plant pathology, botany, entomology, agronomy, and soil science/chemistry. The botany division was responsible for breeding and physiology. Subsequent expansion of the work necessitated the establishment of separate plant breeding and physiology/biochemistry divisions. The current research areas of these divisions is shown in Table 1.

Since the 1930s, considerable research effort had been directed towards control of cocoa swollen shoot virus disease (CSSV), which was a major limiting factor to cocoa production in Savana1. It was of major importance, considering that cocoa-related revenue accounted for more than 60% of national foreign exchange earnings.

1. Control of CSSV disease in cocoa in Savana depended mainly on removal of infected and contact trees as they were discovered. Eradication of CSSV was not possible because of the difficulty of controlling the mealy bug vector, the severity of the disease in some areas, the presence of latent infection in cocoa and in certain forest trees, the high cost of control by eradicating diseased trees, and farmers' reluctance to embrace this form of control, particularly after the government subsidy for removal of diseased cocoa plants was withdrawn. It appeared that the use of tolerant or resistant cocoa varieties would be the most practical method of controlling the disease. Once the required resistant material was obtained, control of the disease was practically free of charge. For many years, the CSSV resistance breeding programme was dominated by laboratory test methods of various kinds. These helped in selecting many parents relatively less susceptible to CSSV.

The current approach recognized that CSSV resistance breeding was a long-term aim whose final solution lay in the careful monitoring of growth and yield data of test plants in variety trials under intensive selection pressure. Therefore a series of field trials were planned, include trials where test plants would be observed for growth and yield over three years, after which the test plants would be graft-inoculated with CSSV and growth and yield records continued until the plants would be uneconomic to maintain. The crosses that gave the highest yield within the economic yield period would be regarded as highly resistant and multiplied in seed gardens for seed production to growers. Other trials would be planted in areas where CSSV was endemic, and left for natural infection and spread of the disease in the types. In non-endemic areas, suitable high-yielding types were already available to growers. The aim was to find cocoa types that were resistant or tolerant to CSSV, combined with good agronomic characters, such as high yield.

Table 1 Some current research topics of CRIS


Research foci


Spacing/pruning/herbicide trials in cocoa and coffee.
Intercropping trials in shea nut.
Seed storage of cola.


Mealy bug studies: biology and control in cocoa.
Mirid studies: biology and control in cocoa.
Capsid control.
Pests, pollinators and other insects of coffee, cola and shea.

Physiology and Biochemistry

Pesticide residues in cocoa.
Bulk processing to reduce acidity and off-flavours.
By-products, such as husk and sweating, in cocoa, shea and tallow.
Virus purification and detection in cocoa.
Clonal propagation of shea, cola and coffee.
Analytical methods for assessing flavour.

Plant Breeding

Inter-specific, high yielding, disease-and-pest resistant crosses in cocoa and coffee.
Pest, disease and drought resistance in cocoa.
Germplasm studies in cocoa, shea, coffee and cola.
Mutation breeding using in vitro culture for cocoa.

Plant Pathology (Mycology, Virology and Nematology Sections)

Black pod and other fungal diseases of cocoa.
Leaf rust and other fungal diseases of coffee.
Necrosis virus of cocoa.
Field and laboratory studies on CSSV in cocoa.

Soil Science

Fertilizer requirements in cocoa, coffee, shea and tallow.
Soil nutrient studies.
Use of by-products of cocoa.
Shade, cultivar and fertilizer interactions in cocoa.

Although work was organized in a number of divisions, there had always been an interdisciplinary approach towards fulfilment of the institute's objectives, with close cooperation between different disciplines. It may therefore be said that the divisional organization was more for administrative control than for research organization.

The head of each department was normally the researcher with the longest service in the institute. Each department had a team of scientists, assisted by a number of laboratory assistants and field staff. The total number depended on the establishment approved by the management committee, and was related to the approved budget.

The research programme was drawn up collectively by the team of research workers in each department. A researcher, upon first engagement, was expected to participate in ongoing projects but could, at a later stage, initiate new work if this fitted into the general objectives of the institute. Research work along any particular line usually involved three stages. Firstly, laboratory investigations, requiring skilled technical staff and specialized equipment. Secondly, strictly controlled field experiments followed, putting into test the observations and deductions made in the laboratory. Thirdly, field trials were done on farmers' land in different localities and maintained by farmers or at agricultural stations, with the supervision of agricultural field staff. These were to test the validity of the results in the first two stages, and to observe economic effects and farmers' reaction.

While the research programme was adhered to fairly closely, latitude was permitted in its execution. Occasionally, work on projects had to be suspended because of absence of staff, inability to procure the necessary equipment on time, or inadequate funds.


CRIS's main station was at Tofa which was some 120 km north of Zaka, the national capital, in an area well suited for cocoa production. The station was well provided with offices, a library and laboratory facilities, and with quarters for all senior staff and most junior staff. The station also provided a number of amenities and services, which had probably contributed importantly to its capacity to retain staff. These included a domestic water supply system, a clinic, a primary school, a staff club and even a golf course!

Although many of the buildings were quite old, and maintenance standards had not been kept up, the basic structures were generally sound. The main requirement was for renovation rather than replacement. Recently, a programme of renovation and refurbishment of the buildings and rehabilitation of the roads on the research station had been started, and was expected to be completed soon.

Land available for trials at Tofa included the Old Station (28 ha), and the Square Mile (259 ha), acquired in 1945 to accommodate expansion in CICS's activities. Much of the land was currently occupied by long-term trials, while some areas were not suitable for cocoa because of soil or drainage problems. Most of the experimental areas were well maintained by labourers, many of whom had worked on the station for many years and had acquired the necessary skills.

CRIS operated sub-stations at Suafa, Nobsu and Belo. Suafa (230 ha) was acquired in 1973 to allow trials which could not be accommodated at Tofa. By 1983, about 40 ha had been developed for cocoa trials, 5 ha for coffee museum plots and clonal trials, and some 20 ha for trials on cola, tallow and Simaruka glauca (an oilseed tree introduced from Central America). There was also a cocoa hybrid seed garden and nursery. Over 70% of the cocoa and coffee trials were destroyed by fire in 1983, and replanting was completed in 1987.

The institute had invested heavily in offices, stores and staff housing at Suafa, and there had been a progressive increase in the number of staff employed there (about 200 in 1987) and in related costs. The sub-station suffered because of its distance from Tofa (106 km), which reduced the extent of technical supervision by visiting research staff. According to Tofa staff, the soils and overall conditions were not very suitable for cocoa, and much of the coffee work had already been duplicated at the more accessible station at Nobsu, which was only 18 km from Tofa. Trials involving cocoa, coffee and cola were established by the plant breeding, agronomy and soil science departments, and plant pathology staff were stationed at Nobsu for joint CRIS/CSD trials. Cola, however, appeared to perform reasonably well at Suafa.

The Nobsu sub-station was situated within the much larger area of the CSD Cocoa Station, which also accommodated the training school, seed gardens, field trials, sprayer depot and workshop, and areas allocated to crop introductions.

Soils at Nobsu were variable and there were some rock outcrops, but overall conditions were considered to be good. Much additional CSD land was available, including substantial areas of secondary forest and old, badly neglected cocoa in which swollen shoot virus was rife. CRIS owned various buildings at Nobsu, and plans had already been made for further development there.

The sub-station at Belo was in the savanna area, some 480 km north of Tofa. It had been developed for research on shea nut, which grew wild in that area. Costs of developing this station had been considerable, as buildings, boreholes and a generator had been provided, and roads had been built on the station to provide access to the shea nut areas.

The CSD Cocoa Station at Wadepa, in Eastern Region, was also used as an overflow site, mainly for progeny trials which could not be accommodated at Tofa. Some buildings had been provided there by CRIS, but the scale of operations was smaller than that at the sub-stations.

Off-station trials on CSD cocoa stations and on farmers' land were also conducted in collaboration with CSD. CRIS did not own any facilities at these sites and serious problems had arisen in recent years owing to lack of adequate trials maintenance and recording by CSD staff, and inadequate supervision by CRIS researchers owing to lack of transport.

Currently there were 1 692 employees of the institute, of whom 131 were classified as senior staff. Of these, 30 posts were occupied by graduate research scientists, of whom almost half had PhDs, mainly from universities in the USA or UK. All staff were Savanians and the institute had received no long-term technical assistance since a large British team was withdrawn in 1978.

The institute had not been generating funds, and therefore was not self-financing. Research findings were made available without charge, either through the Extension Service Unit or directly to user agencies. The institute had operated with government subvention under the supervision of a Commodity Board specially set up by the Government. At present, the cost of operating CRIS was fully borne by SOCOBOD. CRIS's recurrent budget was D 281 million, equivalent to $US 3.1 million in 1985-86.

This training manual has been prepared as basic reference material to help national research trainers structure and conduct training courses on research management at the institute level. It is intended primarily for managers of agricultural research institutes in developing countries and for institutions of higher education interested in presenting in-service training courses on research management. The manual consists of ten modules, each addressing major management functions including motivation, leadership, direction, priority setting, communications and delegation. The four structural functions of management - planning, organization, monitoring and control, and evaluation - are covered in individual modules. The manual has been designed to support participatory learning through case-studies, group exercises and presentations by the participants.

Previous Page Top of Page