TAC Commentary on the Fourth External Programme and Management Review of CIMMYT
11. The report of the Fourth External Programme and Management Review of CIMMYT was introduced by Dr. Graham Jenkins, Panel Chair who recalled that this had been the first full-scale review since 1988 even though an interim review had been conducted in 1993. The latter date had been used as a starting date for the review. At that time, circumstances were particularly difficult for CIMMYT given the funding crisis in the CGIAR, inflation of the Mexican peso, and the resultant need to downscale the organization with a consequent decline in staff morale. CIMMYT had responded positively to the recommendations of the interim EPMR.
12. The Panel's overall impressions of CIMMYT were extremely favourable. The Centre conducted high quality science, had an impressive record of achievements and impact and was well managed. The Panel concluded that CIMMYT's contribution to the mission and goals of the CGIAR was truly outstanding. It was too early for the Panel to fully assess the effectiveness of the newly introduced project management system and therefore had recommended that a CCER be carried out by the year 2000. The Panel had also encouraged CIMMYT to move towards a more formal priority setting process. Dr. Jenkins subsequently provided an overview of the Panel's 20 recommendations for both the programme and management of the Centre. He concluded by labelling CIMMYT a jewel in the CGIAR crown. It was conducting excellent work, had strong leadership, and was worthy of full support.
13. Dr. Wally Falcon, Chair of the Board of Trustees, and Dr. Timothy Reeves, Director General, presented the response from the Board and management. Dr. Falcon considered the CIMMYT EPMR report to be the best he had ever seen. He expressed particular appreciation for the fact that the body of the report had been completed several days before the end of the main phase in order to allow for screening by management for factual errors. The Board fully agreed with the Panel's recommendations. Dr. Falcon expressed a word of caution on the fiduciary responsibility of a Board which, in his mind, had changed considerably in recent years, and particularly since the introduction of the new financing arrangements. The current restricted nature of much of the CGIAR's funding had substantial implications for the way Centres operated.
14. Dr. Reeves also expressed satisfaction with the review report which he found very useful and stimulating. He referred to the continuing global and important role of CIMMYT as a leader in wheat and maize research, and the ever-increasing importance of biotechnology in its crop programmes. He acknowledged that there was a need for CIMMYT to give attention to the large area still sown with unimproved varieties of maize. He also referred to CIMMYT's new paradigm for crop improvement which involved the interface between genotype, environment, management and people.
15. The discussion was opened by Dr. Lucia de Vaccaro who thanked the Panel for the enormous effort put into the review and for an excellent report. She was pleased that CIMMYT remained a flagship in the CGIAR and strongly supported the recommendation for full project costing. She also agreed with the Board's comments about the changing role of the Board. She asked the Panel Chair for clarification on the Panel's request for a more formal priority-setting process. Questions were raised by other TAC Members regarding the changes in the nature of training, future plans for barley and triticale, and the current financial status of CIMMYT.
16. In his response, Dr. Reeves pointed out that priorities can change during a year as a result of fluctuations in funding but that all activities undertaken by CIMMYT would be from within the agreed agenda. He stressed that it was increasingly difficult to raise funds for wheat research. In its training programme, CIMMYT was moving towards more specialized training courses and gave much more emphasis to sustainability issues. As a result of funding cuts during the mid 1990s, CIMMYT had to reduce its activities in agronomy but strategic aspects of this work were now being restored. CIMMYT would continue its work on triticale and barley, the latter jointly with ICARDA, even in the light of funding cuts.
17. Other speakers also referred to the high quality of the report and pointed to the need for the Economics Programme to move towards a real social science programme. Questions were also raised about the division of labour between IPGRI and CIMMYT and how release of germplasm would be affected by reduced funding of wheat and maize. On the latter, Dr. Reeves pointed out that CIMMYT did not release finished varieties as that was the responsibility of national programmes. Dr. Vyas, member of the CIMMYT EPMR Panel, considered the Economics Programme to be exemplary in developing cross-programme links and that its staffing comprised a broad range of social scientists, not just economists.
18. A question was raised about how much advantage CIMMYT had gained from Systemwide Programmes. It was noted by the Panel Chair that this would be the subject of a separate TAC review during 1999. It was also pointed out that participatory research was very important at CIMMYT and that much adaptive work was conducted by NGOs in collaboration with CIMMYT. One donor representative pointed to the need for additional work on impact assessment at CIMMYT. The Panel Chair noted that it was beyond the capacity of the Panel itself to assess impact.
19. In concluding the discussion, Dr. Winkelmann thanked the Panel Chair as well as the Board Chair and the Director General of CIMMYT for an excellent discussion.
20. After further consideration, TAC prepared the following commentary.
Overall Statement
21. TAC is grateful to the Chairman, Dr. Graham Jenkins, and Members of the CIMMYT Fourth External Programme and Management Review Panel for a comprehensive and constructive report. The Panel chose the 1993 IER as the starting point for this Review, considering that the last EPMR was conducted in 1988. The Committee notes with satisfaction the Panel's extremely favourable view of the Centre, that it conducts high quality science, has an impressive record of achievements, and is well governed and managed. TAC also notes the projections of high demand for maize and wheat in developing countries and the implications this has for the expansion of CIMMYT's work.
22. The Committee considers the organization of the Review to have been exemplary, and is satisfied that the Centre was given the opportunity to check factual aspects before the report was finalized. The report must be read in full because references to the same theme are in some cases found in different chapters and the many useful suggestions are not highlighted or grouped together in the text. In the course of planning future reviews, TAC will lake into account the Panel's opinion on the use of consultants, and on the earlier interim and centre-commissioned external reviews.
23. TAC notes that the Panel made 20 recommendations, 17 of which have been endorsed by CIMMYT and action already taken in many cases. The three others were endorsed with qualification. TAC, in general, endorses the Panel's recommendations and offers the following additional commentary which was prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretarial.
Priority Setting and Resource Allocation
24. The Review has suggested that priority setting processes be improved at CIMMYT, with better information provided to the Board and a more active role of the Economics Programme in this area. TAC encourages the Centre to clarify its priority setting procedure and looks forward to seeing the more explicit links between priorities and resource allocation, which CIMMYT is proposing to make.
Research Programme
25. TAC strongly supports the Centre's transition from a programme - to a project-based approach to management, which was also encouraged by the Panel. It concurs with the Panel on the need to finalize the project write-ups and include precise and realistic milestones. The Committee particularly looks forward to seeing the synergies resulting through the projects from closer collaboration within CIMMYT in areas noted by the Panel including biotechnology, breeding, economics and natural resource management research.
26. The Committee concurs with the Panel's recommendations that a global monitoring Programme for rusts be established by CIMMYT and that breeding strategies are developed to incorporate durable resistance trails. TAC notes that the Centre has made significant progress along these lines and that it is firmly committed to this goal which is essential to the sustainability of wheat.
27. TAC is impressed by the leadership of CIMMYT in its move to incorporate biotechnological tools such as molecular markers, developed by the Applied Biotechnology Centre in its maize and wheat breeding programmes. TAC notes that such work on wheat lags that on maize and encourages CIMMYT to press further the integration of biotechnology in the Wheat Programme also.
Partnership with NARS
28. The Committee notes the Panel's observation that CIMMYT serves many audiences (e.g. NARS, host country, the scientific community, partners and the CGIAR System). It is recognized that CIMMYT has successfully involved NARS in the development and implementation of its research, training and networking programmes. TAC shares the Panel's concern that some weaker NARS will deserve special attention and support. The Committee is impressed by the role of CIMMYT's outreach staff, in the four regional locations, as excellent conduits between the regions and headquarters. TAC encourages CIMMYT to consider stronger NARS as full partners in the implementation of its activities, particularly in areas which NARS have a comparative advantage.
Training
29. TAC observed CIMMYT's initiative to expand its investment in training for 1998 and beyond. This would allow NARS scientists working on wheat and maize to gain cutting-edge knowledge in their specific disciplines and research interests. TAC urges CIMMYT to give special attention to specialist training to meet the growing needs of NARS in areas such as biotechnology, genetics, economic analysis of research, impact assessment methodologies, GIS and modelling for natural resource management.
Management
30. The Panel gave relatively little attention to the dramatic implications of domestic inflation and the rising value of the Mexican peso for the Centre's operation which, together with a simultaneous reduction in CGIAR funds, necessitated substantial downscaling and led to declines in staff morale in the recent past.
31. TAC notes with satisfaction the Panel's very favourable opinion of CIMMYT's management. The Committee fully agrees on the importance of optimizing financial and information management and encourages CIMMYT to continue its efforts in these areas. TAC is particularly pleased that, in the Panel's view, CIMMYT shows strong leadership in the area of management of intellectual property rights, because of the current importance of the subject to the System as a whole.
Governance
32. In Us response to the recommendations of the EPMR, CIMMYT has made observations regarding the implications of new finance arrangements in the CGIAR for the management and governance of the Centre. TAC has considered these observations with great interest and agrees with them in general. Active involvement of the Board in formulation of strategy and priorities is essential to provide the framework within which management would have greater operational flexibility. Board performance should be considered in the light of these funding realities. TAC commends CIMMYT's Board of Trustees for responding positively to the Panel's recommendations on its operation.
Monitoring Progress
33. TAC concurs with the Panel that it is too early to assess the effectiveness of the new project-based approach to research management and endorses the Panel's recommendation that a CCER be conducted by mid-2000 to assess progress in its implementation. The Committee expects to be kept informed of the outcome of this review.
System Issues
34. The Committee considers that one of the important contributions of this Review, and CIMMYT's response, was to draw the attention of the CGIAR to the urgent need for Centres and members to ensure full cost recovery, especially in view of the rapid proportional increase in restricted funding. TAC concurs fully and notes that the CGIAR's existing general policies call for full cost recovery. The CGIAR Guidelines for preparing allocation proposals require centres to fully allocate all costs to project budgets.
