4.17.1. Summary of the MTP Proposal
4.17.2. Interim Comments and Programmatic Issues
4.17.3. Centre Response
4.17.4. Evaluation
4.17.5. Recommendations
In 1992 INIBAP had its first external review after joining the CGIAR. This led to the creation of a CGIAR Task Force on Banana and Plantain Research, as recommended by TAC. The Task Force presented a draft report to TAC in March 1993 and its final recommendations to the CGIAR at MTM'93. After considering the report and TAC's comments on the report, the CGIAR decided that its support to banana and plantain should focus on Musa germplasm-related activities, and information, documentation and training. The CGIAR agreed to sponsor a global programme on germplasm improvement and related research to be carried out by a consortium of leading research institutions within and outside the CGIAR, including INIBAP, under the governance and administrative structure of IBPGR.
By mid-June 1993, INIBAP had revised its original draft MTP proposal in the light of the CGIAR decisions at MTM'93 on future priorities and institutional mechanisms for banana and plantain research. Under the revised proposal, INIBAP will have the following activities during the MTP period: (i) Musa germplasm conservation, management and improvement (comprising Musa germplasm collection, conservation, characterization and evaluation; safe movement of Musa germplasm; and improvement of Musa germplasm); and, (ii) institution building (comprising training and conferences; and documentation, publications and dissemination of information).
The MTP proposals were formulated under three different funding scenarios: a scenario at the level of the base indicative envelope (US$ 2.1 million); a scenario at 110% of the base envelope: and a scenario which INIBAP calls the "Full Programme" requiring US$ 2.8 million. INIBAP proposed to have a minimum set of core activities within each of the three scenarios, and which would include conservation of Musa diversity, virus indexing and safe exchange of germplasm, collaborative arrangements among breeding programmes (requiring 5 SSY), and information and documentation services (requiring 2 SSY). Reductions on INIBAP's administrative costs, once the transition towards association with IBPGR is completed, are indicated under all three budget scenarios.
At the level of the base resource envelope, INIBAP states that it will be unable to contribute to the Consortium's global research activities. It would be short of one core specialist position and would have to discontinue its regional information/documentation node in Latin America. Training would be restricted to the elements provided by a UNDP project for the International Musa Testing Programme (IMTP). In this scenario. INIBAP would also have difficulty in covering the costs of the IMTP testing sites.
Even with funding at 110% of the base. INIBAP considers that it would still be unable to fill one key position to reach critical mass, and no resources would be available for the IMTP testing sites. However, at this level, a limited amount of research resources would be available to the Consortium members and the Latin American information node would be retained.
Under the "Full Programme" scenario INIBAP considers that it would have a critical mass and adequate resources could be made available to Consortium members and for training purposes. A limited amount of resources would also be used to cover, in part, the costs of the IMTP testing sites.
INIBAP has not included the 90% scenario in its revised MTP proposal because in its view it would mean further erosion of its critical mass, and impose severe limitations under which it would not be able to comply with the Task Force recommendations and CGIAR expectations on Musa research.
The TAC interim commentary on the original draft MTP raised a number of programmatic issues. Some of these are still relevant to the revised MTP proposal, while others are no longer applicable in light of the CGIAR decision at MTM'93 that INIBAP should, in the future, operate under the administrative umbrella of IBPGR.
Among the major issues raised by TAC and the CGIAR were: the priority for global germplasm related work relative to regional research and training; how INIBAP would maintain its scientific viability at the level of the base resource envelope; and, INIBAP's concept of minimum critical mass.
INIBAP admits that the most important factor at the global scale presently is the development and dissemination of improved germplasm. However, it is also convinced that it would have a role and advantage to address selectively needs in the fields of information and communications, agronomy, socioeconomics and postharvest technology, if and when, complementary funding becomes available.
While regional research and training activities have not been retained as a specific programme in the revised MTP proposal, INIBAP is still planning to have a presence in the regions through Germplasm Officers in order to conduct and organize collecting missions, characterization, testing and evaluation of germplasm, information and communication systems and training and linkage with national programmes.
INIBAP considers that it would have difficulty in meeting the scientific staffing need at the level of the base resource envelope, and that it could not contribute to the Consortium's global research activities at that base level. However, INIBAP would be able to address a significant, albeit limited, number of issues, important to researchers at every level, and, therefore continue to fulfil a unique function in the Musa community.
In its 1992 review of CGIAR priorities and strategies, TAC stressed the importance of banana and plantain in developing countries, especially for smallholders, and the need for CGIAR support to research on this crop.
TAC notes INIBAP's claim that 9.5 SSY would be the base minimum core critical mass required to implement the recommendations of the Task Force and to meet CGIAR expectations on Musa research. To achieve this level of operation, INIBAP considers that it would require funding at the "Full Programme" Scenario. At both the 100% and 110% scenarios, INIBAP states that one key position will not be filled. However, the position has not been specified, and the MTP proposal does not state the programmatic implications of not filling this position.
Further, TAC notes INIBAP's plan to maintain its presence in the regions through the outposting of Germplasm Officers. Given the projected resource constraints. TAC considered that INIBAP should explore alternative mechanisms for such outposting, such as working through IITA in sub-Saharan Africa and closer collaboration with field staff of IBPGR's regional groups. One Germplasm Officer posted at headquarters could coordinate germplasm collection, characterization conservation and improvement activities in collaboration with the proposed global consortium of research institutions. This would also release more funds for the Consortium's activities. Similarly, most of the training could be done in partnerships with the Consortium members.
TAC recommends that, in 1998, INIBAP - by then a programme entity operating under the umbrella of IBPGR/IPGRI - he assigned a resource envelope of US$ 1.8 million (in 1992 dollars), equivalent to 86% of the indicative resource envelope assigned, in March 1992, to INIBAP as an autonomous institution. In view of the CGIAR decision at MTM'93 to integrate INIBAP within the administrative structure of IBPGR/IPGRI. TAC's recommendation on INIBAP's allocation refers to INIBAP's programme and not the INIBAP institution. TAC agrees with the CGIAR decision to maintain the level of resources allocated to banana and plantain at current levels. It notes, however, that savings of some US$ 300.000 could reasonably be expected from the proposed integration of INIBAP and IBPGR/IPGRI, mainly through pooling of resources for institution building, information, documentation and communications, and a net saving in total cost of administration and governance. TAC notes further the likelihood that the Montpellier facilities will he retained as a major sub-station of IBPGR/IPGRI without compromising the priority accorded to the Banana and Plantain Programme. TAC does not recommend changes in the allocation of core resources to banana and plantain research at the US$ 280 million vector.
For 1998. INIBAP projects complementary funding of US$ 800,000 which, by that time, will concern the INIBAP programme entity.
For 1994, TAC recommends core funding of the INIBAP programme in the amount of US$ 1.7 million in 1992 dollars, or US$ 1.9 million in current values. Together with complementary funds projected at US$ 0.9 million, INIBAP total funding in 1994 would amount to US$ 2.7 million.
INIBAP: FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (US$ million & percentages)
