100. The Chair called upon Dr. John Nickel to present the draft report of the Panel which he chaired on the Stripe Study of Public Policy, Public Management, and Institution Strengthening Research/Service that was commissioned at TAC 66. A copy of the report, dated June 1995 was made available to TAC Members.
101. Dr. Nickel began by gratefully acknowledging the substantial input of his colleagues on the Panel and his thanks to TAC Members, Dr. Eugenia Muchnik de Rubinstein and Dr. Gregersen, as well as Dr. Gryseels, for the technical assistance they provided, and to the TAC Secretariat for excellent logistical support.
102. Dr. Nickel noted that the study being presented was one of two components of the stripe study being conducted by separate panels, one for public policy/management and the other for institution strengthening research/service. The latter report presented here examined the activities and modalities employed by the Centres to strengthen research and service of the National Agricultural Research Systems, with a view to identifying options for improved operations, gaps in the CGIAR portfolio, activities to be deleted from that portfolio, and a set of sub-questions dealing with the appropriate division of labour between the CGIAR, the national systems, and other entities. The role of ISNAR figured significantly in the study. (The questions which the Panel addressed are contained on p. 2 of the report.).
103. The Panel concluded that the Centres have made and continue to make a major contribution to the strengthening of NARS. While there was room for improvement, the Panel did not perceive the need for radical changes. The Panel adopted an output approach to the study, i.e., to consider what should be the impact of the strengthening inputs of the Centres. It began by identifying the principal steps in the agricultural research process and the principal stakeholders that influenced this process. It then elucidated the characteristics that might be found in an effective, efficient, and sustainable research system and its components, along with the negative consequences that occurred when such factors were weak. This approach served to identify the chief factors that must be addressed and highlighted the fact that the term "strengthening" encompasses a large and complex set of issues. These could not and should not all be addressed by the CGIAR System. The Centres should focus on those areas in which they had special competence and could serve as catalysts to engage others in the global system to contribute to these efforts.
104. The Panel reached five principal conclusions: (1) There was need for "research on research" to identify what constituted a strong NARS over time and what kinds of external interventions were most effective in achieving this goal. Chief responsibility for such research should fall on ISNAR, but should involve other institutions with special competence in institutional development. (2) The development of generic methodological and training tools to improve management represented a valuable international public good. As these tools were adapted to local conditions, they would improve the process of institutional development. (3) Many Centres had provided NARS with assistance in research management beyond mandate-related capacity building. The establishment of ISNAR and its growing competence in research management brought continued emphasis by other Centres on this area into question. The Panel was concerned over the number of Centres that plan to continue or even expand these activities on their own, i.e., not in collaboration with ISNAR. (4) The emergence of regional groupings of NARS, while a positive development, could have negative consequences by diverting scientific manpower to administrative work and introducing another layer into the research bureaucracy. The CGIAR should explore how it can best help these regional groupings become truly effective and efficient. (5) The Panel did not adequately address the issue of what proportion of CGIAR resources should be allocated to strengthening NARS and what the balance should be of the components of this activity. TAC should probably reconsider these components. The proportion of resources currently allocated to it was probably overstated because the subcategory "information and communications" contained activities not directly related to NARS strengthening. If TAC wished, the Panel could attempt to recommend a revised classification scheme, but would not have the time, knowledge, or resources to recommend specific percentages of allocation.
105. Dr. Nickel closed by saying that the report was still considered a draft which needed considerable improvement. He would welcome the comments of TAC and also await input from the NARS and Centres to help the Panel complete its task.
106. In the ensuing discussion, TAC Members raised a number of questions and made suggestions for the Panel's consideration in preparing the final report. Advice was sought as to the level of involvement of the Centres in strengthening NARS and whether the current overall effort needed to be maintained, increased, or reduced. It was observed that the strength of NARS varied considerably by country and region. Sub-Saharan Africa was identified as a region possibly having less research impact, because NARS were weaker there than in Asia and Latin America owing to insufficient funding by national governments. The Panel's advice was sought as to the regional priorities which should govern the CGIAR's activities in this area. It was noted that the Panel's study showed there was scope for increased cost-efficiency within the System in terms of the need for Centres to collaborate more with each other and with ISNAR and other entities. It was also suggested there was need for balance within ISNAR between its service and research functions. The Panel's advice was sought on what indicators the TAC might employ to monitor trends in the NARS which would assist the Committee in weighting resource allocation to strengthening activities. The role of the CGIAR in assisting NARS with their own priority setting function and in helping them to rationalize government policies was also stressed. Consideration might also be given to treating universities as part of the National Agricultural Research Systems, thereby bringing them into the CGIAR's field of action. There was a specific suggestion that because NARS were often not equipped to deal with socioeconomic aspects of agricultural development, perhaps this could be a priority for the Centres. The question was raised as to whether there were specific NARS which had progressed to the point where the CGIAR could withdraw its resources for strengthening and reallocate them to weaker systems. The corollary to this question was whether there were advanced NARS which were prepared to take over IARC research in their own countries.
107. The Chair asked Dr. Nickel to respond selectively to these questions and comments.
108. Dr. Nickel responded that the 17 percent share of CGIAR resources now being spent on NARS strengthening seemed about right to the Panel since much of this work is need-driven. The major production-type training of the Centres had now been accomplished and could either be reduced or dropped; other more specialized forms of training could be carried out at less cost. (Annex F of the report contains survey data in support of this conclusion.) There was some evidence of Centres assisting NARS in developing priority setting methodologies and capacity for national level planning, and in setting up management information systems. Centres should, however, try to involve ISNAR in these activities. On the question of regional variation in strength of NARS, the TAC might wish to utilize the agricultural indicators series which IFPRI and ISNAR are developing; this could serve as input to prioritization. Dr. Nickel noted, however, that the question of strength was not necessarily related to size. Some of the larger systems had weaknesses precisely because they were large; thus it may still be necessary to work with them to help them to manage their more complex systems. Finally, he noted that there were NARS strong enough to no longer require assistance from the Centres, and which could take over certain of the Centres' commodity research and serve as the regional service for those commodities in neighbouring countries.
109. The general discussion which followed centred on ISNAR's role in institutional strengthening, the needs which NARS perceived to be their top priorities in this area, the larger issue of maintaining, and in some cases, increasing public financial support for NARS by developing country governments, and how best to tap into management science and public administration so as to enhance the strengthening efforts of the Centres.
110. Dr. Bonte-Friedheim observed that imparting strong science to the NARS did not necessarily create strong institutions; management science was an important tool which the CGIAR should try to integrate into its capacity building activities. ISNAR would prefer not to disengage from NARS that have achieved a strong capacity, but rather to work with them to help transfer their experience to other NARS that were not as advanced. With respect to the balance between research and service within the ISNAR programme, he did not agree that the service function should be reduced or dropped and would prefer, in any case, to have the views of NARS on this subject. ISNAR considered that it was providing research-based service to the national systems and was responding to demand, not only at the national level, but also increasingly from regional NARS.
111. Dr. Ndiritu indicated that NARS felt that development of their priority setting skills was a paramount issue. In this context, many had decided to strengthen their own capacity in this area by consulting at the regional level to be better able to contribute to TAC's priority setting agenda. He counselled that TAC should ensure that the newly created IARC-NARS Working Group and the study panel on institution strengthening coordinate their efforts. A number of participants stressed the need for the CGIAR to support efforts of NARS to maintain financial support of their governments. Examples were given of highly trained scientific staff lacking the facilities to undertake research and collaborate with the international centres. Finally, it was pointed out that special action on the part of the CGIAR would probably be needed to make contact with universities and other organizations having expertise in management science, public administration, and other fields in order to respond effectively to the Panel's recommendation that management science be incorporated into institution strengthening.
112. The Chair expressed on behalf of TAC his gratitude to Dr. Nickel and the entire Panel for a thorough report and stimulating interchange. He looked forward to further interaction with the Panel when the report was finalized.
113. After further consideration, TAC made the following comments on the Panel's interim report with a view to stimulating it to concentrate further or sharpen its views further with respect to certain issues which were of interest to TAC as it proceeded to finalize the report for consideration by the Committee at TAC 68. Therefore most of the comments were provided in the form of questions and in some cases in the form of suggestions.
114. (1) What are the current main instruments used by the CGIAR to strengthen NARS institutions? (2) How can the many demands for institution strengthening activities be prioritized? (3) What are the main NARS' strengths and weaknesses and the reasons for them? (4) What are the feasible options/strategic choices to filling the gaps both in terms of services and research and how can these be evaluated? (5) What is the suggested strategy, both for ISNAR and other CGIAR Centres, for moving ahead in the task of filling these gaps? (6) The document might pull together several of the suggestions in the paper to achieve increased efficiency in the utilization of CGIAR resources allocated to Institution Strengthening research. (7) What is the Panel's view of the anticipated strengths of NARS in the medium- and long-term in the different regions and the implications for the types of and priorities for Institution Strengthening (IS) and public management research? (8) Are there any criteria by which the CGIAR might consider: (a) that a NARS is ready to "graduate" from the IS effort? (b) that the NARS of a country or a regional grouping of NARS could become a vehicle for IS of other NARS in the region? (9) Does the Panel have specific suggestions for IS of small countries with small NARS? Perhaps new ways or structures to help these NARS could be designed by the CGIAR. (10) What type of indicators might help distinguish a "strong" NARS from a "large" NARS? Is it the percentage of staff with Ph.Ds, the number of scientists, the amount of money available for operational research? Are funding and sustainability in the level of appropriate funding the most critical elements in determining strength? What are the trends in these indicators? (11) Is there a need for more social science capacity in NARS, and if so who should provide such IS? (12) The Panel needs to respond to question three of the terms of reference, namely: "Is there a reason to establish a more formal Systemwide initiative in this area, one that creates stronger linkages and lines of responsibility and decision making? What are the alternative organizational modalities that the System might try in this area?" (13) How should the strengthening of needed research management training vis-à-vis technical training be ensured as it is developed by the Centres? Consider that ISNAR is the main (or only) institution dealing with research management training at the moment. Where would its comparative advantage in public management research be? (14) What is the Panel's final recommendation: Should Centres keep their involvement in institution strengthening activities at the present and planned levels? Are there changes to be made? If so, in which direction? (15) Networking among those already trained to sustain the efficacy of previously trained scientists. (16) Explain how greater gender sensitivity can contribute to institution strengthening.
