Opening Session (Agenda Item 1)
Future CGIAR Research Agenda (Agenda Item 2)
External Programme and Management Review of CIP (Agenda Item 3)
1996 Programme and Budget Proposals (Agenda Item 4)
External Programme and Management Review of CIAT (Agenda Item 5)
Systemwide and Ecoregional Initiatives (Agenda Item 6)
Mid-Term Review of ICLARM (Agenda Item 7)
Future Reviews (Agenda Item 8)
Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies (Agenda Item 9)
Redesigning the CGIAR Review Process (Agenda Item 10)
CGIAR Regional Commitments: A Case Study of West Africa (Agenda Item 11)
Future Meetings (Agenda Item 12)
Other Business (Agenda Item 13)
1. The 66th meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was held from 13 to 24 March 1995 at the Centre International de la Papa (CIP), Lima, Peru under the Chairmanship of Dr. Donald Winkelmann. Among the participants were TAC members, the Chair of the Centre Directors Committee, representatives of FAO, CGIAR Centres, and donor agencies; observers, and resource persons, including staff of the CGIAR and TAC Secretariats (Annex I).
2. Dr. Winkelmann opened the meeting by welcoming TAC members, observers, and staff of the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats. He expressed his appreciation to CIP management and staff for hosting the meeting, and for the excellent arrangements they had made. He also announced that in the restructuring process at FAO, Dr. John Monyo, former Executive Secretary of TAC, had been appointed Director of the Agricultural Support Systems Division. A search process for a new Executive Secretary was well underway and in the interim period. Dr. Guido Gryseels, Deputy Executive Secretary was serving as Officer-in-Charge of the TAC Secretariat.
3. Dr. Stein Bie, Director of the Research, Training and Extension Division and the new representative of FAO, replacing Dr. M.S. Zehni who had been appointed Director of the Plant Production and Protection Division, expressed his delight to attend the meeting. He pointed out that by his appointment and that of Dr. Carsalade as Director and Assistant Director General respectively, in the new Department of Sustainable Development, FAO was consolidating its tradition of attachment to the CGIAR, and signalling a new era of an even closer cooperation.
4. Dr. Hubert Zandstra, Director General of CIP, welcomed TAC members and other participants to CIP and Lima. Since it was the first time in 16 years that TAC held a meeting at CIP, he hoped people would take the opportunity to update their knowledge of CIP's activities. He also announced that arrangements had been made for TAC members to interact with NARS representatives of Latin America during they stay at CIP.
5. The report of the 65th meeting of TAC was adopted with minor amendments to Annex I. There were no matters arising from TAC 65 and the provisional agenda for TAC 66 was also adopted without modifications. The Chair then called on Mr. Alexander von der Osten, the Executive Secretary of the CGIAR to give a report on the latest developments in the CGIAR.
6. Mr. von der Osten gave a brief report on the outcome of the Lucerne Meeting. He also brought greetings from Dr. Serageldin, the Chairman of the CGIAR and reported on his appreciation for TAC's contributions to the System and the endorsement at the Lucerne Meeting of the continued role of TAC. He highlighted some of the key issues addressed at the meeting and its major outcome, particularly the recognition of agricultural research as sponsored by the CGIAR as a prime factor in addressing the issues of alleviating poverty, ensuring food security, maintaining biodiversity and sustainable development. Attendance by many representatives of developing countries and their active participation in the proceedings indicated a wider partnership and ownership of the System. Some countries declared increased financial commitments to the CGIAR. An intensive media coverage ensured good publicity around the world.
7. Among the follow-up activities discussed by Mr. von der Osten was TAC's further development of the research agenda adopted at the Lucerne Meeting, especially in terms of the use of matrix, as a framework for articulating Centres' programmes, for monitoring and increasing transparency. An Evaluation Unit would be set up to strengthen impact assessment across the System and to work closely with Centres, the Secretariats, and TAC. Tasks for broadening partnership included the convening of a meeting of the NGOs to improve relations; meeting with private sector organizations to strengthen dialogue; and systematizing the participation of NARS in implementing the research agenda. Mr. von der Osten also reported on the establishment of task forces on the ecoregional approach to research and on sustainable agriculture, and of the CG committee on genetic resources.
8. The item was introduced by the TAC Chair who recalled that he had been requested by the CGIAR Chair to prepare a paper on the future CGIAR research agenda for presentation at the Ministerial-level meeting of the CGIAR from 9 to 10 February 1995 in Lucerne, Switzerland. Because of time constraints TAC had not been able, prior to its submission to the Lucerne meeting, to review the paper which was based on earlier TAC documents and recommendations as endorsed by the Group. A draft of the paper had been discussed at TAC 65 and at ICW'94. TAC Members had also been able to comment by correspondance on a revised draft. The TAC Chair asked that TAC Members would consider the paper on the future research agenda in the light of the deliberations in Lucerne, which had lead to the "Lucerne Declaration and Action Programme" which had also been circulated to the members of the Committee together with the background documents for the Lucerne meeting. He also asked TAC Members to carefully consider the outcome of the International Consultation on the NARS Vision of International Agricultural Research which had been held in Rome, December 12-14 1994.
9. Dr. Uma Lele, who had attended the Rome meeting as a member of the CGIAR Vision Panel and who had served as the rapporteur of the meeting, reported on the outcome of the meeting which she considered to have been very useful. She noted the wide diversity in the capacity and perspective of NARS and that there was a need also for NARS to put their own house in order. From the Declaration and the number of background papers that resulted from the Rome meeting. Dr. Lele also argued that greater attention should be given to developing better linkages between poverty alleviation and agricultural research and between research on human health and on agriculture.
10. Dr. Michael Collinson reported on the progress of the CGIAR Task Force on Ecoregional Research which was studying the merits of the ecoregional approach, its strategic objectives and the implications for partnership. Dr. Stein Bie reported on the progress of the Task Force on Sustainable Agriculture in which he participated and in which concern was expressed about the lack of emphasis given in the CGIAR on soil, water and nutrient research and on IPM. The reports of both Task Forces would be available in time for discussion at MTM'95 and at TAC 67.
11. In the ensuing discussion TAC Members expressed their satisfaction with the paper on the future CGIAR research agenda which had been prepared by the TAC Chair and which adequately reflected the views of the Committee as a whole. The need for NARS to have a greater input in CGIAR priority setting was emphasized. It was noted also that NARS leaders may be more concerned about increasing productivity than in protection of the environment. TAC Members also discussed the structure of a possible matrix of CGIAR activities. In responding to a question from the TAC Chair on how the CGIAR research agenda would need to evolve in the future, it was noted that the CGIAR had to give greater emphasis to upstream research, focus on international public goods, and increase the pace by which resource management concerns would be incorporated into its research agenda. Several TAC Members also considered that the CGIAR would need to give greater emphasis to post-harvest research and food quality issues, and to the link between poverty alleviation, environmental protection, and productivity improvement. A wide ranging discussion followed also on the need to incorporate new opportunities provided through evolving science in the work of the CGIAR. Some of the implications of new developments in biotechnology, environmental ecology, informatics and modelling and biodiversity were also raised. One Member suggested that TAC should organize a "foresight meeting" with the broader scientific community to carefully assess scientific break-throughs and the implications on the CGIAR's work. TAC would need to remain up-to-date with scientific developments so as to be able to assess the implications for the CGIAR research agenda. One Member also noted that in the future different types of partnerships would be required for collaboration between the CGIAR and national research systems.
12. In concluding the discussion, the TAC Chair informed the Members of the Committee that he would need to prepare a paper on the 1996 CGIAR research agenda for consideration at the 1995 Mid-Term Meeting in Nairobi. He outlined the contents of this paper which would be discussed by TAC at the conclusion of its deliberations on the 1996 programme and budget proposals.
TAC Commentary on the Fourth External Programme and Management Review of CIP
13. The item was introduced by the Chair who welcomed the representatives of CIP, Dr. Lindsay Innes (Board Chair), and Dr. Hubert Zandstra (Director General). He then invited Dr. David MacKenzie, who chaired the EPMR, to present his report.
14. Dr. MacKenzie stated that the panel had produced a short report because the panel tried not to be prescriptive but focus on issues that were considered to be the most important for CIP's future performance and integrity. The final outcome was a positive yet critical and unbiased report. He noted that despite the small panel, the standard terms of reference had been followed. This meant that all the important issues were analysed although only those on which the panel had concerns were included in the report.
15. The panel saw CIP to be a well-managed centre to address future opportunities in potato and sweetpotato research. The management problems that were evident at the time of the 1989 reviews had been largely resolved. The panel found that CIP was in a state of transformation and although the change process was not complete, much had been achieved, including: reorganized and improved Board oversight; increased evidence of programme impact; transparency and efficiency in research programme management; and the creation of a culture of collegiality, delegation of authority and participatory management. These improvements had been brought about against a background of political upheaval in Peru and funding uncertainties in the CGIAR.
16. Dr. MacKenzie stated that to position itself strategically for the future and to effectively respond to the CGIAR, CIP must clarify and up-date its institutional vision and operational mandate in terms of its future roles in germplasm research and ecoregional activities for the Andean region. The panel believed that CIP did not have unused capacity that could be applied to additional responsibilities. This implied that if CIP broadened its operational mandate, it must very carefully weigh the resource implication, particularly for its germplasm improvement activity. Further, the panel concluded that by focusing its research capacity on fewer activities, CIP would be more likely to realize its full potential.
17. The genetic enhancement and breeding programme strategy at CIP was in transition, and the panel decided that the programme should undergo a mid-term review in 1997. This would allow CIP time to reorganize its genetic enhancement and breeding effort under the new leadership of the Director of Genetic Resources. The review need not necessarily be commissioned by TAC.
18. Dr. MacKenzie stated that it was important that CIP maintain a balance between relevance, responsiveness and science quality. CIP was created as a centre of research excellence, and the panel endorsed this concept as a guiding principle for CIP in addressing its mandate and in working in partnerships with NARS and advanced laboratories in industrialized countries. For CIP to provide leadership, it must constantly aspire to be a centre of excellence in its own field. In this regard, the panel concluded that CIP needed to improve scientific quality by strengthening its peer review mechanisms.
19. Dr. MacKenzie concluded his presentation by stating that the panel had conducted a comprehensive and thorough review which was in line with the terms of reference. The panel learned a lot from the experience which showed that the process of identifying issues was most important in deciding on the most relevant list of issues in an external review. The process should be participatory and involve the Board. He stated that a short report would not necessarily take less time.
20. In introducing the response of the Board and Management to the report. Dr. Innes first stated that Dr. Zandstra replaced Dr. Sawyer in 1991. At that time Board-level changes were made to include more members and the Executive Committee was strengthened by the chair of the Programme Committee. The Board continued to explore efficiencies and balance. He pointed out that the civil unrest in Peru made life difficult, dangerous and expensive. He expressed tribute to the Director General and staff for getting over this turmoil; CIP was now leaner but in good shape. Dr. Innes considered the review report to be positive and helpful, and the review to be cost-effective. He thanked Dr. MacKenzie for the harmonious and understanding way in which the review was handled.
21. Dr. Zandstra expressed his gratitude for a positive review and for the constructive recommendations as well as for the participatory way the panel worked to understand the problems CIP was facing. He agreed that CIP must put on paper precisely what its updated mandate was and this would be attempted once the current changes in the CGIAR had become clear. In this regard, CIP considered the relationship between productivity research and ecoregional activities to be synergistic. He pointed out that CIP was highly responsive to NARS' needs while at the same time maintaining substantial linkages with advanced institutions. However, he agreed that some strong NARS could assist CIP, although this was a Systemwide issue.
22. Dr. Zandstra expressed agreement with the notion that CIP needed to manage scientific quality, relevance and responsiveness in a balanced way so that the Centre was able to provide leadership. He also expressed agreement with the panel's recommendation that CIP's impact assessment work should cover impact on welfare, gender and the environment. With regard to CIP's crop improvement programme, the centre was continuously refining its breeding strategy, and Dr. Zandstra suggested that the recommended mid-term review could be managed by CIP. He agreed that the cleaning up of the germplasm was a priority but CIP would focus on its core collections first.
23. The discussion was opened by Dr. Muchnik, TAC Liaison Scientist for CIP, who noted that it would have been useful if the report had described the process and criteria used to select the issues. She stated that the relative effort spent on potato vis-à-vis sweetpotato was an issue which the panel had not addressed. Similarly, while the panel had raised the mandate issue, it did not take a position. She queried about the role of the Board in ensuring scientific quality and leadership. Other questions that were raised related to the role of stronger NARS, gaps in knowledge which could justify investments, and gains to be had from merging programmes.
24. In his reply. Dr. MacKenzie stated that the criteria and process used by the panel to identify issues was through panel consensus. The 60:40 split in effort between potato and sweetpotato was examined by the panel in several ways and the split appeared reasonable. However, there were opportunities for exploring strategic partnerships with China which had not been possible earlier. Also there were peer scientists in stronger NARS who could work more directly with CIP. With regard to the mandate, the panel saw the issue in terms of the germplasm responsibility vis-à-vis the additional ecoregional responsibility. The panel concluded that given CIP's current strategy, its mandate would need to be rewritten at some stage in the future.
25. Dr. Innes pointed out that the Board had given considerable thought to the question of commodity improvement and ecoregional responsibility, and it did not see these as mutually exclusive. It was an evolving situation. Dr. Zandstra stated that CIP's aim was not to become an international centre for management of upper watershed, but to possess effective capacity in analyzing the impact of different land uses and inputs in the mountain areas. Both Drs. Innes and Zandstra stated that the 60:40 split between potato and sweetpotato research came about as a result of a combination of factors, including the recommendations of the previous external review and CIP's priority setting exercise. Dr. Peter Gregory, Deputy Director General Research, pointed out that one knowledge gap which was a top priority issue at CIP was the gap at the molecular level and efficient ways of utilizing CIP's world germplasm collections for genetic enhancement. Normally, the process of identifying and utilizing the required gene was a slow one, and this process could be significantly improved through molecular techniques.
26. The Chair drew the discussion to a close by recognizing the usefulness of the review report and the TAC discussions. He thanked Dr. MacKenzie for a clear presentation and CIP representatives for their frank response.
27. After further discussion, the Committee offered the following commentary:
28. TAC expresses its appreciation to Dr. David MacKenzie and the members of the External Programme and Management Review Panel for a frank and forward-looking assessment of CIP.
29. TAC notes that instead of reviewing every aspect of the Centre in detail, the Panel focused on CIP's achievements and a limited set of issues considered by the Panel to be the most important for CIP's future performance and integrity. This approach has allowed the Panel to produce a short and focused report, although it would have been useful for the report to spell out the process by which the Panel identified and selected the issues, and the full list of issues that were analysed. The above notwithstanding, the Panel has conducted a rigorous review that is constructively critical.
30. The Committee endorses, in general, the recommendations of the Panel, and is encouraged that the Centre's response indicates satisfaction and broad concurrence with the Panel's findings and recommendations.
31. TAC expects that important additional issues, such as the balance of effort across CIP commodities in relation to their relative importance as food and feed crops, will be covered by the inter-centre review on roots and tubers research which is scheduled to be completed in July 1995. TAC offers the following commentary, which was prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat, to supplement the work of the Panel.
Recent Evolution
32. The Committee is pleased to note that the Centre has responded well to the recommendations of the Third External Review held in 1989. The Panel sees CIP as a well-managed Centre to address future opportunities in potato and sweetpotato research. The management problems that were evident at the time of the 1989 Reviews have been effectively resolved.
33. TAC is encouraged by the transformation of CIP which the Board and management has set in motion. Although the change process is not yet fully complete, much has been achieved, including: reorganized and improved Board oversight; increased documentation of programme impact; transparency and efficiency in research programme management; and the creation of a culture of collegiality, delegation of authority and participatory management. These improvements have been brought about against a background of political upheaval in Peru and funding uncertainties in the CGIAR. TAC recognizes the hardship CIP and its staff have endured during this period of institutional down-sizing and difficult security conditions in Peru.
Mandate of CIP
34. The Panel has recommended that CIP should identify its future roles in germplasm research and ecoregional activities for the Andean region. The Committee concurs with this recommendation and notes that the Panel considers CIP to have spread its efforts too thinly over the years. The Panel also points out that CIP does not have spare capacity that could be applied to additional responsibilities. This implies that if CIP broadens its operational mandate, it must very carefully weigh the resource implications, particularly for its germplasm improvement activity. In this regard, TAC notes and agrees that CIP has included the CONDESAN initiative within the CGIAR global programme on Sustainable Mountain Agriculture Development, with CIP as the global convenor.
Research Focus
35. TAC commends CIP for recognizing dangers inherent in overstretching the limited resources at its disposal, and is pleased to learn about CIP's continuing efforts to reduce the spread of its activities globally. TAC agrees with the Panel that there is a need to continue to enhance research focus and move to more strategic-type research. In this regard, CIP is strongly encouraged to develop its formal strategic planning process to identify and address the most important strategic research problems. However, TAC cautions CIP against moving into too few high risk strategic research activities.
Science Leadership and Quality
36. TAC is in agreement with the Panel that CIP's ability to provide global scientific leadership is closely linked with the quality of the Centre's scientific work. TAC notes that the Centre concurs with the need to continue to strengthen scientific quality at CIP, and encourages CIP to ensure that its research processes fully capture the needed scientific quality objectives. In this regard, the Committee fully endorses the need for CIP to assess the overall adequacy and rigour with which internal programme and staff performance reviews are conducted and, specifically, to strengthen its peer review mechanisms to enhance the quality of CIP's research, both at CIP-Lima as well as in the regions.
Genetic Enhancement and Breeding
37. The Committee agrees with the Panel's recommendation that the genetic enhancement and breeding strategy for potato and sweetpotato at CIP should undergo a mid-term review in 1997, but proposes that the Board of CIP mount an internally managed external review in 1997 and share the review's results with TAC. This would allow the Centre time to reorganize its genetic enhancement and breeding effort under the leadership of the Director of Genetic Resources who is expected to take over the programme in May 1995.
Germplasm Responsibility
38. TAC is concerned at the slow pace at which research germplasm is cleaned for international distribution to users. The Committee agrees with the Panel that CIP accelerate the clean-up and pathogen testing of potato and sweetpotato germplasm so that the work is completed before the year 2000. This course of action is crucially important for CIP's responsibility as a trustee of selected global genetic resources.
Partnership with NARS
39. The Committee notes CIP's close collaboration with NARS. TAC further notes that the Panel has highlighted the need for this relationship to evolve away from technical assistance activities and non-research technology adoption activities, and for CIP to divest some of its current research and training activities to NARS. TAC concurs with this view and joins the Panel in recommending CIP to increase its strategic partnership for collaborative research and training with stronger NARS.
Financial Resource Management
40. TAC is pleased to note that CIP has been able to overcome its financial difficulties and notes the improvement in the financial health of the Centre. The special assistance of the CGIAR in 1994 combined with solid financial management has enabled CIP to start to rebuild its reserves.
41. The item was introduced by the Chair, who recalled that centres are required annually to submit their programme plans and funding requirements to the CGIAR and that these plans are first reviewed by TAC. In the process of renewal of the CGIAR launched by Mr. Ismail Serageldin, CGIAR Chair, centre proposals and the CGIAR research agenda would now be considered by the Group at their annual Mid-Term Meeting (MTM) in May, rather than at International Centres Week (ICW) in October which had required centres to advance their planning process by six months. The guidelines to prepare proposals had been submitted by the CGIAR Secretariat to the centres on 15 December 1994 with a deadline of end February 1995 for submission of proposals to TAC. The principles involved included:
· that the CGIAR 1994-98 MTP remain valid as a planning framework, and that the 1995 funding targets would be maintained in 1996;· that centres could propose changes in their 1996 funding envelope if either: there were new scientific breakthroughs with an impact on the centre's activities; or if shifting priorities of national systems and the development assistance community introduced changes in the research environment and hence had an impact on the centre's work.
42. Dr. Guido Gryseels then provided an overview of the specific centre proposals, as the Systemwide initiatives and programmes would be the focus of a separate discussion of TAC. Of the 16 submissions, six centres adhered strictly to their 1996 funding targets and appeared to be programmatically within their MTP: CIP, ICARDA, IITA, IRRI, ISNAR and WARDA. A further ten centres asked for increases in their funding envelope. CIAT asked for an adjustment of US$ 4 million to compensate for the effects of inflation and revaluation and an additional US$ 1.5 million for six new research programmes. CIFOR requested US$ 400,000 additional on the basis of expectations on continued growth and willingness of donors to provide additional funding. CIMMYT asked for US$ 900,000 additional for five new research initiatives. ICLARM asked for an additional US$ 4.6 million of which US$ 1 million was for a fisheries research fund based on a positive outcome of the Mid-Term Review, US$ 1 million following the Lucerne meeting and the recommendation to increase priorities to aquatic resources, US$ 2 million for start-up of the new Egyptian facilities during 1996, and US$ 600,000 for Systemwide initiatives of fisheries in coastal environments. ICRAF asked for US$ 1 million additional for additional work in social sciences and System ecology. ICRISAT asked for transfer of US$ 1.3 million of complementary into its core programme. IFPRI asked for a transfer of US $ 6.5 million of complementary into its core programme. IIMI asked for US$ 600,000 in programme increases for more work in research, training and institution building. Finally, IPGRI asked for US$ 1.1 million of programmes increases to expand its work on conservation and coconut genetic resources, forest genetic resources and for an expansion of the work of INIBAP in Africa.
43. In the general discussion TAC Members agreed that the justification for programme increases could only be made if it involved new science or new priorities of the development assistance community or of NARS. Transfers from the complementary to the core programme could only be justified if the activities involved could be considered as international public goods. TAC also considered that centre Systemwide activities should be funded through the convenor of the respective Systemwide initiative or programme. TAC's deliberations were facilitated by further in-depth discussions of each of the proposals and working groups that met both in open and in closed sessions. After further consideration, TAC made the following recommendations with respect to each of the centre budgets.
CIAT
44. The Committee has endorsed CIAT's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal at a level of US$ 27.5 million, i.e. the level provided in the guidelines issued by the CGIAR Secretariat. The inflation component of the budget will be considered by the CGIAR Finance Committee. TAC prepared the following additional commentary:
45. TAC endorses CIAT's budget at the guideline level. TAC considers that the joint venture with the private sector in irrigated rice is innovative and should be included as core activity but with no net increase in the budget, as CIAT proposes to reduce the position of the irrigated rice breeder. Further, TAC endorses the new activity in soil biology (US$ 250,000) in line with the recommendation made by the CIAT EPMR but requests that CIAT create the new staff position from an existing position.
CIFOR
46. The Committee endorsed CIFOR's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal at a level of US$ 7.6 million, i.e. at the level of the guidelines issued by the CGIAR Secretariat. TAC carefully considered CIFOR's request for an increase of US$ 900,000 over the guidelines. Of this amount, US$ 400,000 was intended for programme expansion, justified on the basis of increased donor interest and promises for funds. TAC found insufficient programmatic justification to respond positively to this request. The remainder of the proposed increase, i.e., US$ 500,000 was for CIFOR's proposed ecoregional initiative on forest ecosystem management for which TAC prepared the following commentary:
47. TAC reiterates its earlier conclusion that much of the work proposed should be a central part of CIFOR's core programme and does not qualify as a Systemwide programme. TAC reiterates its hope that CIFOR will become more closely involved in the ASB project. TAC, therefore, recommends that US$ 100,000 be allocated during 1996 to CIFOR to participate in this ASB initiative. The Committee hopes that in the future such allocations would be made through the lead centre, ICRAF.
48. Furthermore, in considering IPGRI's programme and budget proposal, TAC also noted that there was a possible overlap between CIFOR and IPGRI in activities related to forest genetic resources. TAC recommends that IPGRI and CIFOR submit a joint proposal for US$ 350,000 to establish an activity for forest genetic resources within the context of the Systemwide programme on plant genetic resources, in time for consideration at TAC 67 in July 1995 in Rome.
CIMMYT
49. The Committee endorsed CIMMYT's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal of US$ 26.65 million. This includes the basic funding guideline amount of US$ 26.5 million and an additional amount of US$ 150,000 requested by CIMMYT for the testing of new selection techniques in wheat breeding.
50. With respect to CIMMYT's other requests for budget increases, TAC considered that the funds requested to meet commitments in ecoregional research should be allocated through the particular initiative, while the other activities were not seen as meeting the criteria TAC had set for allocating increases, i.e., new priorities of the development assistance community or NARS, or new developments in science.
CIP
51. TAC has endorsed CIP's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal at the funding level of US$ 17.85 million which includes the guideline amount of US$ 16.2 million and a transfer from core to complementary programmes for a total of US$ 1.65 million. This is consistent with TAC's recommendation that CIP's Condesan work should be considered as a core activity within the CGIAR global programme on Sustainable Mountain Agricultural Development. The activities on Andean root and tubers crops (biodiversity project) are also being transferred from the complementary to the core programme.
ICARDA
52. TAC has endorsed ICARDA's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal at the requested funding level of US$ 17.6 million, as being consistent with the Centre's Medium-Term Plan and the Funding Guidelines issued by the CGIAR Secretariat. TAC reaffirmed that ICARDA's complementary programmes could be classified as core, with the exception of the Iran project, and considered part of the agreed core research agenda, even though some projects contain technical assistance components.
ICLARM
53. The Committee endorsed ICLARM's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal at a level of US$ 5.8 million, including the reserve fund of US$ 1 million which was subject to the positive outcome of the mid-term review. With respect to the additional request for US$ 1 million, TAC concurred that increased priority should be given to aquatic resources research in the CGIAR. However, the programmatic rationale provided in support of the additional request was considered insufficient. TAC therefore requests ICLARM to provide it with two alternative proposals, one for US$ 500,000 and the other for US$ 1 million, in time for consideration by the Committee at TAC 67 in July 1995.
54. With respect to the US$ 2 million requested for operating the Egyptian facility, TAC regarded the information available as being insufficient to give this request due consideration. The Committee will consider the matter after ICLARM's technical evaluation of the Abbassa site.
ICRAF
55. The Committee endorsed ICRAF's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal at a funding level of US$ 16.8 million, i.e., the funding guideline of US$ 16.2 million and programme increases for US$ 600,000 to strengthen ICRAF's capacity in the social sciences. TAC considers that this increase is merited in view of the increased interests of the development assistance community in this type of work.
ICRISAT
56. TAC endorses ICRISAT's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal at a funding level of US$ 26.9 million as being consistent with the Centre's MTP and the Funding Guidelines issued by the CGIAR Secretariat.
57. With respect to the request for a transfer of complementary programmes into the agreed core research agenda for 1996, TAC endorses a transfer with respect to the following restricted core projects:
· The Genetic and Physiological Basis of Resistance to "Striga Hermonthica" in Sorghum funded by GTZ (US$ 160,000/year);· "Preservation of Wild Arachis Species" funded by the Common Fund for Commodities (US$ 71,000/year). TAC further recommends that this particular project be incorporated under the Systemwide programme for plant genetic resources.
IFPRI
58. The Committee endorsed IFPRI's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal at a funding level of US$ 14.5 million, which includes a reclassification of US$ 5 million of complementary programmes to support the agreed core research agenda. TAC supports this reclassification as being in the spirit of the guidelines sent out by the CGIAR Secretariat.
59. TAC found it difficult to comply with IFPRI's request to reclassify an additional $1.5 million of projected complementary funded activities for which funding may be considered uncertain at this time, and acted instead on the basis of IFPRI's projections for 1995 complementary funding for the research agenda.
60. IFPRI also requested funding on an emergency basis to increase its capacity to respond to requests from other centres to participate in collaborative policy research. Further consideration of this request should await completion of TAC's strategic study on policy and public management research in the CGIAR System.
IIMI
61. The Committee endorsed IIMI's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal at a level of US$ 7.6 million, i.e. at the level of the Guidelines as issued by the CGIAR Secretariat. The Committee could not endorse IIMI's requests for additional core allocations as they did not meet the criteria TAC had set for allocating increases, i.e. new priorities of the development assistance community or NARS, or new developments in science.
IITA
62. The Committee endorsed IITA's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal at a level of US$ 23.3 million, i.e., the CGIAR Secretariat's Guideline level. The Committee was in favour of the proposed new activities in natural resources management research (US$ 500,000 - 2 positions), and the strengthening of IITA's social science capacity (US$ 250,000 - 1 position) dealing with commodity research, as they were in line with the new priorities of the development assistance community and the NARS. However, TAC requests that IITA create these three new staffing positions through redeployment of the three positions which are being eliminated. The additional post of an IPM economist was not endorsed by TAC.
ILRI
63. TAC has endorsed ILRI's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal at the requested funding level of US$ 25.1 million as being consistent with the Guidelines issued by the CGIAR Secretariat.
IPGRI
64. The Committee endorsed IPGRI's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal at a level of US$ 12.9 million. TAC thereby prepared the following commentary:
65. Given the new emphasis on the preservation of biodiversity and genetic resources conservation in the CGIAR research agenda, as well as in the global biodiversity and development agenda, TAC considers that there is even greater justification for supporting IPGRI's research on biodiversity, forest genetic resources, in situ conservation and socioeconomic and ethnobotanical aspects of conservation.
66. IPGRI's budget request is US$ 1.2 million higher than the guideline level of US$ 11.9 million to be applied as follows:
· One additional international staff position to the INIBAP programme in sub-Saharan Africa, where currently INIBAP has no outposted Musa scientist (US$ 200,000);· In situ conservation work on agriculture (US$ 330,000);
· In situ conservation work on forest genetic resources (US$ 350,000);
· An increase in the coordination and implementation of the Coconut Genetic Resources Network (US$ 120,000);
· An increase for research on socio-economic and cultural aspects of genetic resources conservation and use (US$ 200,000).
67. TAC notes that the savings arising from the INIBAP/IPGRI merger have now been overtaken by cost increases so that the additional core staff position for INIBAP could only be supported with an increased budget. However, the Committee considers that there is still a lack of reconciliation between INIBAP and IPGRI, and recommends that a decision on the additional INIBAP staff position in sub-Saharan Africa be deferred until the next external review of IPGRI.
68. TAC approves the remaining budget request of US$ 1 million above the guideline level for in situ work and for the Coconut Network. However, the Committee notes that CIFOR has also submitted a programme and budget proposal for work on forest genetic resources. Consequently, TAC recommends that IPGRI and CIFOR submit a joint proposal for US$ 350,000 to establish an activity for forest genetic resources within the context of the Systemwide programme on plant genetic resources, in time for consideration at TAC 67 in July 1995 in Rome.
IRRI
69. TAC has endorsed IRRI's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal at the requested funding level of US$ 29.4 million, as being consistent with the Institute's Medium-Term Plan and the Funding Guidelines issued by the CGIAR Secretariat.
ISNAR
70. TAC has endorsed ISNAR's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal at the requested funding level of US$ 6.8 million, as being consistent with the Centre's Medium-Term Plan and the Funding Guidelines issued by the CGIAR Secretariat.
WARDA
71. The Committee endorsed WARDA's 1996 Programme and Budget Proposal at the requested funding level of US$ 7 million, as being consistent with the Centre's Medium-Term Plan and the Funding Guidelines issued by the CGIAR Secretariat.
TAC Commentary on the Fourth External Programme and Management Review of CIAT
72. The item was introduced by the Chair, who recalled that the initial phase of the CIAT External Review had been chaired by Dr. Grant Scobie of New Zealand. However, Dr. Scobie resigned from the panel when he opted to be considered as a candidate for the vacant post of Director General of CIAT, for which he was subsequently selected. The TAC Chair, in close collaboration with the Officer-in-Charge of the TAC Secretariat, the Executive Secretary of the CGIAR, the interim Director General of CIAT and the CIAT Board, moved quickly to develop a short-list of candidates who could take over the work from Dr. Scobie and finalize the External Review at short notice. Dr. Winkelmann expressed his gratitude to Declan Walton for accepting to chair the Review at such short notice under very difficult circumstances. Furthermore, the panel secretary of the Review, Dr. Vivian Timon of the TAC Secretariat, fell ill just prior to the main phase of the Review and was unable to participate and to travel to Colombia. Dr. Winkelmann expressed his profound gratitude to Dr. Mike Collinson, Science Advisor at the CGIAR Secretariat, for so willingly and ably taking over Dr. Timon's duties.
73. In introducing the panel's report, Mr. Walton recalled the series of problems CIAT had faced during the last three years. In view of the recent management crisis, CIAT's greatest need right now was for a period of stability under inspiring leadership. He expressed his thanks and paid tribute to Mr. Robert Havener for restoring morale over the last few months and for so effectively steering the centre through a period of crisis. Mr. Walton then provided a quick overview of the main issues addressed in the Review. CIAT had almost completed the transition to a centre with natural resources management as a major part of the research agenda. The process had sometimes been painful but was broadly successful. The panel believed that the current balance between commodity research and resource management research is appropriate and a further expansion of natural resources management research should only occur in a situation of increasing resources and not by further cuts in the commodity programmes.
74. The downsizing exercise was done in a human way and had gone as far as it should go. In the commodity programmes an interesting experiment was taking place in the transfer of responsibilities for irrigated rice research through farmers and private sector organizations. The financial and administrative systems of CIAT were found to be sound and the centre had warm relations with the host country. The panel expressed some concern about the over-enthusiasm of CIAT in participating in the Systemwide Initiatives. In concluding his presentation, Mr. Walton stressed that the quality of CIAT's science remained good and that the panel had suggested only minor adjustments in the work of the various programmes. CIAT was in a period of transition and had successfully overcome its period of crisis, largely due to the loyalty of its staff. The panel was convinced that CIAT was a healthy centre which merited continued support.
75. Dr. Lucia de Vaccaro, Board Chair, presented the response of the Board and Management to the recommendations of the Review. She expressed very particular thanks to the chair and the members of the panel for the distinct and professional manner in which the Review had been conducted. CIAT accepted all of the recommendations and had learned much from the panel's suggestions for change. Dr. Vaccaro noted that the Review took place at an awkward time, when the former Director General had just left and when the centre was in the middle of developing ecoregional research proposals. However, she also was very optimistic about the future of the centre.
76. Dr. Havener, interim Director General, added his thanks for the work of the panel and introduced the detailed response of the centre to the report of the Review. He also introduced CIAT's Deputy Director General, Dr. Bill Scowcroft, the Associate Director, Dr. Gerardo Habich, and the Head of the Forage Programme, Dr. Peter Kerridge.
77. The discussion was opened by Sir Ralph Riley, TAC Liaison Scientist for CIAT, who expressed his thanks to Mr. Walton for an excellent report. He noted that many of the issues that the panel had addressed with respect to CIAT really were issues that applied also to many other centres and to the System as a whole, such as the future of ecoregional research and the nature of natural resources management research. He expressed some concern that the report suggested that support units did not conduct research, as several of the units were intensively conducting research. He also asked about future options for agricultural development of the Savanna's and the implications for CIAT's work on the environment. Finally, he asked about the weight and meaning of expressions like "urge", "encourage" and "recommend".
78. In the ensuing discussion, TAC Members asked for clarifications on relations between CIAT and IITA, particularly with respect to cassava research, the complementarity between ecoregional and productivity research and the quality of CIAT's science inputs in the Review report, and the limited attention given to gender issues. Clarification was requested on the recommendation to establish a soils unit. Other questions related to CIAT's relations with NARS, the future of biological nutrient research, and the CIAT management structure. Concern was expressed that the panel kept adding work to CIAT's plate without saying what could be deleted from CIAT's portfolio. A donor representative asked for CIAT's approach to impact assessment.
79. In responding to the comments, Mr. Walton acknowledged the limited work done by the panel on social science research because of the absence of such expertise on the panel after the resignation of Dr. Scobie. CIAT had a good record on gender issues and the collaboration with IITA on cassava was excellent. CIAT had made a good start in internal programme reviews but there was a need to more clearly define their objectives. With respect to the weight and meaning to be given to expressions like "urge", "encourage" and "recommend", this was to illustrate the importance for follow-up by the centre when there was no need for a formal follow-up by TAC.
80. Mr. Havener addressed the issue of social sciences in CIAT and the continuing debate on whether social scientists should be put together in one cluster or spread around in the groups. In response to a comment that CIAT may have moved too far in resource management, he acknowledged that perhaps CIAT had implemented these things too fast and without adequate consultation with the NARS. He also agreed with Mr. Walton that the solution should not mean divorce.
81. Responding to a charge that there was inadequate representation of NARS on the CIAT Board, Dr. Vaccaro noted that half its members came from the region. She also stressed that an involvement in ecoregional research by CIAT was crucial for Latin America.
82. Mr. Havener further stressed the close collaboration with the new international livestock centre, as CIAT was heavily involved in forage research. On impact assessment, Mr. Walton noted the high costs of such activities, but stressed that CIAT had a unit dealing specifically with impact issues. Studies conducted by CIAT had shown very high rates of return.
83. In concluding the discussion. Dr. Winkelmann once again thanked Mr. Walton for an excellent report. After further consideration, TAC offered the following commentary.
84. TAC expresses its thanks to the Panel for a balanced, well written report, and particularly to Declan Walton for taking over as Chairman at short notice and completing the Review on time. The Report shows that CIAT, after a good deal of turbulence due to programme and management reorganization, aggravated by downsizing and insecurity, has begun to move into a calmer, more constructive period. Here TAC recognises the important contribution of Robert Havener, the Interim Director General. It also recognises the effectiveness of the Board in handling the programmatic aspects of downsizing and the management crisis in a humane way. TAC endorses, in general, the recommendations of the Panel. It is also pleased to record the Panel's view that the Centre has remained an exciting place to work, and can make a significant impact during the years ahead, both in its new arid traditional fields of research. TAC offers the following commentary, prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat, to supplement the Panel's Report.
Research Focus
85. The 1991 Strategic Plan of CIAT aimed to rebalance its portfolio towards natural resource management research over the decade 1991-2000. Despite the subsequent financial downturn, the Centre made a heroic commitment to build up its Natural Resources Management (NRM) research capacity. Even with the transfer of resources from commodity research, the NRM programmes remain understaffed. The Panel encourages CIAT to focus the resources invested in NRM and recommends a reduction in the number of sites being studied as a means to this end. TAC agrees that the effectiveness of the multidisciplinary ecoregional approach will be jeopardized by spreading scarce resources too thinly even when working in partnership, at each site, with scientists from other organizations.
86. In this context TAC endorses the Panel's recommendation to establish a Soils Unit made up of existing staff. TAC acknowledges that there may be a need for a soils biologist in the Unit to complement existing specialists and that such capacity might be obtained by the redeployment of existing posts as vacancies occur.
Social Science
87. TAC notes that the Review was unable, because of the resignation of the original Panel Chair, to give the social sciences as much attention as warranted. It is the view of the Committee that the comprehensive, integrated nature of NRM research demands a high social science input, and consequently TAC emphasises that the way in which CIAT's social scientists are deployed will be important to the success of the NRM programmes.
Genetic Resources
88. Given the heightened profile of genetic resources in the CGIAR and the wider role to be assumed by genetic resources units (GRU) at the IARCs, TAC strongly endorses the recommendation of the Panel for the urgent recruitment of a leader for the GRU. If the Centre is to play a full role in the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme it is in its own interest, and in the interest of the Group, that this position is filled as soon as possible.
89. TAC gives high priority to continuing the long-term conservation and improvement of tropical forages germplasm. It is TAC's hope that the capacity of the Tropical Forages Programme for work in Asia and Africa would be fully weighed in the course of establishing global priorities on feed resources through the Systemwide livestock initiative coordinated by ILRI. TAC appreciates the importance of the work of the Tropical Lowlands Programme in the use of crop rotations to enhance the recovery of degraded pastures on acid soils.
Partnerships
90. TAC welcomes the setting up of the Fondo Latino Americano para el Arroz de Riego (FLAR), an initiative supported by farmers' and private sector organizations from five LAC countries, to fund research on irrigated rice in the region. It provides an opportunity not only to widen the financial resource base for research in LAC, but also for encouraging alternative suppliers, as appropriate, for other CIAT commodities.
91. The Panel identified the lack of consultation on downsizing as a factor aggravating CIAT's relations with some NARS. There was criticism of the reduction in training opportunities during 1992/3 and here TAC commends the Centre on recovering its level of headquarters training in 1994. The accelerated devolution of networks and withdrawal of technical support also prompted a reaction from NARS, which highlights the distinction between 'devolution and divorce.
92. The IARC role as a bridge to NARS for science from advanced research institutions will be a continuing part of CIAT's role in LAC even though the region has some strong NARS. The increased demand for training based around the CIAT Biotechnology and Virology Units demonstrates how the Centre is able to play this role. In the future it will be important that CIAT's pioneering work in NRM also acts as a catalyst to NARS reinforced by training.
Centre Management
93. TAC notes the Panel's commendation of the general administrative procedures of the Centre and of the efficient progress made in scientific information despite a reduced budget. The increasing sophistication of information technology demands a coherent approach to this function, not only within each centre, but across the System as a whole and with the System's institutional partners. TAC endorses the Panel recommendation that CIAT develop an information strategy for the Centre as a whole. TAC strongly believes that information needs should be research driven and, consistent with this, endorses the need to relocate the central information unit within the research management line at CIAT.
94. The challenge provided by the Systemwide and ecoregional initiatives is closely linked to that of rejuvenating the CGIAR System. Yet TAC sees the centres as the continuing anchor points for international agricultural research. In this context it is important to balance the attention of CIAT management between Systemwide and Centre needs. The long list of various initiatives in Annex 6 of the Review Report prompts TAC to echo the Panel's worries over external activities preoccupying management at a time when the Centre's internal needs require particular attention.
TAC Note on Systemwide and Ecoregional Concepts
TAC Commentary on Systemwide and Ecoregional Programmes and Initiatives
95. The item was introduced by the TAC Chair, who recalled that over 20 proposals had been received through convening centres for Systemwide and ecoregional initiatives and programmes. He considered that given the myriad of proposals and the variability that appeared to exist among the concepts of terms and points, TAC would need to seek to establish clear principles and criteria to underpin its analysis and recommendations. It was thereby assisted by the report of an inter-centre consultation held in Rome in December 1994 at IPGRI. The report of this meeting was introduced by Dr. Geoffrey Hawtin, Director General of IPGRI. Dr. Hawtin noted the confusion between initiatives and programmes and pointed to the need to draw narrow boundaries in the terminology. The working group that had met in Rome had tried to set some light on the terminology and had also distinguished between host, lead and convening centres.
96. Dr. Collinson recalled some of the findings of the CGIAR Task Force on the Ecoregional Approach to Research. In the ensuing discussion, TAC Members widely agreed that "ecoregionality" referred to an ecoregional approach which:
· links research on productivity and natural resource management;· integrates research on social science and policy with than on physical and biological themes;
· provides a framework through which complementarities can be realized and competition reduced among relevant research entities; and,
· serves as a vehicle for identifying important research programmes and forming research teams which manifest the first three characteristics.
97. TAC subsequently prepared a note on Systemwide and ecoregional concepts:
98. Over the past five years, the CGIAR System has developed various new types of intercentre activities which have been referred to generically as SYSTEMWIDE INITIATIVES, PROJECTS AND PROGRAMMES. These involve the totality of CGIAR activities within a given, often broad subject area. These activities are defined either globally, or ecoregionally. (This interpretation of the concept is in keeping with the 1993 analysis and recommendations of "CGIAR Medium-Term Resource Allocation 1994-98", and the 1994 Guidelines for the Preparation of Proposals for Systemwide Initiatives).
Evolution of Terminology
99. The terminology involved in Systemwide activities has been evolving. Here we propose a further simplification - one which is basically consistent with the concepts that came out of the recent Rome consultation on Systemwide initiatives, with the exception of the use of the term "initiative", as explained below.
100. The Systemwide consultation report entitled "Management of Systemwide Programmes and Ecoregional Initiatives" defined a "Systemwide programme" as "the totality of the CGIAR's activities within a given, often broad subject area." A "Systemwide initiative" was defined as the "specific collaborative activities to achieve specific objectives, with a specific budget and time horizon." At the same time, "ecoregional initiatives" were seen as "combined NARS-IARC mechanisms for placing factor, commodity and policy research within the context of natural resources management and sustainable land use systems." They saw the ASB initiative as a good example of an ecoregional initiative, the genetic resources activity in the system as an example of a Systemwide programme, and the activities of IPGRI on behalf of the Systemwide programme as an "initiative".
101. However, it is important to note that the Consultation considered ecoregional and global or "Systemwide" activities to be the same in principle (see Systemwide Consultation report).
102. With this in mind, TAC is suggesting a slightly modified and simplified terminology consistent with that used by the Committee at the CGIAR in the MTP process: The term Systemwide is used to refer to both globally and ecoregionally defined intercentre activities, or combinations of the two (e.g., the ASB programme, or the mountain initiative, which are globally defined, ecoregionally focused). These activities all to a greater or lesser extent involve organizations outside the CGIAR System.
103. TAC notes the consistency in applying the term "Systemwide" to ecoregional activity in the sense that an activity focused in a single ecoregion should include related activity in that ecoregion by all centres, i.e., Systemwide in the context of the Rome Systemwide Consultation report.
104. The term Systemwide Initiative is used to refer to the startup (initiation) design phase of an ecoregionally or globally focused Systemwide activity. TAC suggests the use of the term Systemwide programme to refer to work now underway.
Principles and Criteria that Justify Development of Systemwide Initiatives
105. What matters, of course, is not agreement on exact definitions, since in most cases we are dealing with a continuum. Rather, the key need is for agreement on the principles and criteria that guide the establishment and justification of activities of substance, whether they are called ecoregional or global or Systemwide activities on initiatives or programmes. Such principles and criteria are what guide TAC in its recommendations for support for Systemwide initiatives and programmes.
106. As mentioned, a key point from the Systemwide Consultation report is that the principles and criteria that guide all initiatives, whether ecoregional or global are the same (see p. 4 of the Systemwide Consultation report).
107. A Systemwide initiative and/or programme, whether globally or ecoregionally focused, is justified on the basis of, and established to achieve, one or more of the following:
· take advantage of potential COMPLEMENTARITIES(e.g., 1) among CGIAR centres; 2) among centres, NARS and other research suppliers; 3) between productivity and natural resources management research; and 4) among disciplines, e.g., the social sciences and the physical/biological sciences);
· AVOID DUPLICATION of activity
(e.g., Centre X and Centre Y no longer duplicate each other's activities on slash and bum agriculture in West Africa;)
· encourage SPECIALIZATION among centres and take advantage of ECONOMIES OF SCALE in activities
(e.g., in the context of the goals of developing more sustainable alternatives to slash and bum agriculture, one centre works on economic models for looking at slash and bum farmer decision making; another centre concentrates on weed management alternatives in programmes to increase the attractiveness of alternatives to slash and bum; and, at times, centres work on the topic in different regions, but using common methodology);
· INTERNALIZE EXTERNALITIES
(e.g., the cost to one centre of developing a sophisticated computer system is not covered by the benefits to it alone; thus the centre does not undertake the development. However, it might be that, if several centres join together in a Systemwide effort the total benefits outweigh the aggregate costs involved).
108. TAC's rationale for recommending activity in a Systemwide initiative or programme (whether ecoregionally or globally focused) depends on how these criteria can or will be met. Thus, centres involved need to show that the value added in relation to the above criteria outweighs the additional transactions and management costs involved in making an activity Systemwide rather than leaving it as a series of centre activities. This rationale has been consistently applied by TAC since the first proposal was received for Systemwide work.
109. TAC then proceed in considering the Systemwide initiatives and programmes that had been submitted by the centres. The Committee's deliberations were facilitated by further in-depth discussion of each of the proposals in working groups that met both in open and closed session. After further consideration TAC prepared the following commentary on each of the proposals that were submitted.
A. SYSTEMWIDE PROGRAMMES
1. Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme
110. With respect to the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme, TAC endorsed the request for US$ 1.6 million during 1996 and thereby offered the following commentary:
111. This is an approved multiyear programme, in line with the recommendation of the stripe review. The Committee points out that the Programme should ensure that there is no duplication of effort in the proposed work on in situ conservation and the in situ work of IPGRI and other centres.
112. The Committee notes that the Inter-Centre Working Group is elaborating the means by which it will be able to help TAC and the CGIAR to receive better information regarding developments of this Systemwide Programme.
2. The Indo-Gangetic Plains Rice-Wheat Programme
113. TAC considers this to be an excellent proposal and in general endorses the proposed programme and budget as being part of the CGIAR core research agenda. The Committee notes, however, that some of the budgetary information is broad, lacks specificity, and needs clarification. TAC is pleased about the substantial resources committed to this programme by the partner national research institutes.
114. While TAC is pleased about progress in implementing this exciting programme, it asks that the proposal incorporates clear milestones for progress as well as a "sunset clause". TAC would also appreciate receiving evidence of a formal agreement of the partners of the programme and budget proposal, and to be kept informed about progress in the implementation of the integrated research programme.
115. TAC recommends that this programme proceeds as planned and, subject to its comments, recommends that resources of US$ 200,000 be allocated during 1996 to support the organization of the facilitation unit for this programme. The budget for human resource development should be provided through project funds from the participants in this programme.
3. Alternative to Slash and Burn Programme (ASBP)
116. ICRAF's budget request for the management of this programme is US$ 0.5 million which is part of its core programme request. TAC at TAC 65 recommended US$ 0.4 million for this programme, subject to receipt of an acceptable proposal for use of the funds. ICRAF has provided such information. The breakdown includes the appointment of a global coordinator, modality for research, and communication through steering and working groups. TAC recommends the requested amount of US$ 0.5 million of which US$ 0.1 million should be assigned to CIFOR to allow the Centre's participation in this programme. No additional funding for other partners is requested for this programme.
117. TAC would appreciate more information from ICRAF on the distinction between aspects of the regular research agenda which are exclusive to the original ASB programme, as well as complete funding requirements for the other partners in the ASB. (The present P&B document only provides GEF funding requested.)
4. Global/Cross-Ecoregional Programme on Sustainable Mountain Agricultural Development
118. TAC notes with interest the progress CIP and its partners, in particular ICRAF and ICIMOD, are making in developing an ecoregional programme for mountain agriculture. TAC considers that this programme merits support in view of Agenda 21 and should therefore be part of the agreed CGIAR core research agenda. CIP is planning a series of consultations during 1995 to enable development of a research action programme as from 1996. TAC would encourage CIP to give greater focus to the proposal as it proceeds with the consultation and notes that no specific NARS have been identified yet to participate in the initiative. TAC recommends continuation of support for programme design during 1996. For this purpose, it endorses the allocation of US$ 150,000 to CIP for activities associated with its convening role, subject to submission of an acceptable workplan and detailed budget proposal to TAC.
B. SYSTEMWIDE INITIATIVES
1. An Ecoregional Approach to Research and Development in the Humid/Subhumid Tropics and Subtropics of Asia
119. With respect to IRRI's ecoregional proposal for the humid and subhumid tropics and subtropics of Asia, TAC prepared the following commentary:
120. TAC had reviewed the proposal for this ecoregional activity earlier and had requested information related to four aspects of the activity, namely: evidence of agreement by the various partners; indication of the roles and responsibilities of each partner; indication of the contributions of the proposed GIS facility to the ecoregional initiative relative to IRRI's own research; and information on the mechanisms for resource allocation among partners. Based on IRRI's answers to these questions, TAC recommends the requested funding of US$ 0.7 million for this activity. It appears that IRRI is well underway in the planning of this programme.
2. Ecoregional Programme for the Warm Humid and Subhumid Tropics of Sub-Saharan Africa
121. With respect to the proposed ecoregional initiative for the warm humid and subhumid tropics of sub-Saharan Africa, TAC tentatively endorsed the allocation of US$ 500,000 to this initiative and prepared the following commentary:
122. At TAC 65, the Committee reiterated its tentative recommendation of US$ 500,000 in 1995 for an ecoregional programme for the warm humid and subhumid tropics of sub-Saharan Africa pending a satisfactory response to the issues raised regarding: the determination of priorities among the three agroecosystems; the basis for the proposed allocation of resources between IITA and WARDA; and the monitoring and evaluation of the programme. TAC also requested an explanation of how the research grants to NARS would be used, and evidence that all the CGIAR Centres participating in this initiative were involved in the planning process.
123. TAC considered that the response provided by the Convening Centre addressed the issues only partially and requested further information in time for discussion at TAC 67 in July 1995. In particular, no indication is provided on how priorities among agroecosystems have been determined, and the rationale for the proposed allocation of funds to the three agroecosystems is unclear. The Committee would like further explanation from the Convening Centre regarding these aspects, as well as regarding the participation of other CGIAR Centres.
124. The Committee recommends that the request for US$ 150,000 for the Inland Valley component for 1995 for WARDA be approved. Of the US$ 350,000 requested by IITA, US$ 200,000 should be endorsed to enable IITA to proceed with the process of designing an ecoregional proposal for the humid forest and moist savanna components. The balance of US$ 150,000, requested for programme coordination could be endorsed, subject to receiving an acceptable response from the Convening Centre by July 1995 regarding the issues raised at TAC 65.
125. For 1996, WARDA has requested US$ 382,000, and IITA US$ 350,000. Further information will need to be provided as to how the above budget allocations were made. Also, IITA has not yet submitted a firm proposal. The Committee considers that WARDA's competitive bid proposal for research contracts with NARS can qualify as a core activity, but the resources requested need to be prioritized within the total funds (i.e. US$ 500,000) TAC tentatively allocated for 1996 to this ecoregional programme.
126. TAC therefore requests the Convening Centre to submit a comprehensive proposal covering all three agroecosystems in time for consideration at TAC 67. It should thereby provide a breakdown of how the US$ 500,000 provision would be used, as well as a rationale for proposed resource allocation among agroecosystems.
3. Ecoregional Initiative for West Asia North Africa
127. ICARDA submitted a 1995 workplan that included the organization of a workshop to inform TAC how it is proceeding in developing a revised proposal for an ecoregional initiative for the WANA region. TAC is concerned that ICARDA only intends to play a coordinating role in the initiative, which appears to be developed around a series of "mini projects" for which a lot of information is already available, without a strategic research component. TAC looks forward to hear of the outcome of the workshop and would welcome an opportunity to interact with ICARDA when a concrete proposal for action is submitted for consideration by the Committee. TAC reiterates its earlier recommendation that US$ 100,000 be allocated to ICARDA during 1995 to facilitate planning and preparation of this proposal.
4. An Ecoregional Approach to Enhancing Agricultural Research Effectiveness in Tropical America
128. At TAC 65, the Committee reaffirmed its recommendation of US$ 150,000, subject to receiving an acceptable revised proposal, including a workplan for 1995 in order to support the consultation process that would be required for the full development of the proposal along the lines that had been presented to TAC in August 1994, and at TAC 65.
129. Instead of responding to the above request, CIAT has submitted a new and different proposal. Although the proposal includes a linkage to CIAT's hillsides research sites, its main focus is on the much narrower field of modelling and GIS. TAC considers that the former proposal that had been presented in August 1994 and at TAC 65 was more suited to CIAT's role as a Convening Centre for an ecoregional programme. The Committee considers that the new proposal could create confusion among the proposed consortia participants, as well as in the region generally.
130. TAC reaffirms its recommendation to allocate US$ 150,000 in 1995 to assist in the further development of a revised proposal, mainly along the lines followed in the proposal presented to TAC in August, pending a satisfactory response by July 1995 to the information requested by the Committee at TAC 65. This response should include a workplan for 1995, and an explanation on how the ecoregional hillside activities would be different from the Centre-based core activities in the Hillside Programme.
5. Systemwide Water Resources Management Programme
131. At TAC 65, the Committee recommended that IIMI be provided in 1995 with a one-time allocation of US$ 200,000 to develop a Systemwide proposal. IIMI plans to submit a detailed proposal to TAC later in 1995, and expects that, in 1996, a full-time coordinator and supporting secretariat will be required to implement the workplan and raise funds for the programme. Consequently, IIMI has requested that an initial amount of US$ 2.5 million be allocated in core support of these activities in 1996.
132. The Committee has no basis to make a decision on the requested US$ 2.5 million for 1996. It reaffirms an initial provision of US$ 1 million made by TAC for the Systemwide water management programme which could be approved subject to receiving an acceptable proposal after the envisaged workshop in 1995.
6. African Highlands Initiative (AHI)
133. See commentary on Sustainable Mountain Agriculture Development.
7. Forest Ecosystem Management Initiative (FEMI)
134. See commentary on CIFOR Programme and Budget Proposal.
8. Desert Margins Initiative (DMI)
135. This proposal was developed following a major workshop held in Nairobi during January 1995 involving NARS, CGIAR Centres, donors and representatives of the broader research community. It proposes to broaden the original focus of this initiative from desert margins to dryland management, thereby considerably widening its scope. TAC is somewhat concerned about the technical, logistical and management implications of such a widening in scope. The Committee notes thereby various difficulties and costs of seeking solutions "in situ" in all of the target environments. While welcoming further discussion on the proposal, the Committee hopes that lower rainfall areas in arid and semi-arid areas would continue to be the focus of the initiative, and that any expansion beyond this agroecological zone would emphasize the study of the inter-relationships between rainfall zones (including population migration issues) rather than shifting the focus of the initiative to the specific problems of sub-humid areas.
136. TAC notes that this proposal is a draft which will now be developed further in a process of wide consultation with the partners in this initiative. TAC looks forward to be kept informed about the development of this proposal. The Committee endorses the allocation of US$ 500,000 during 1996 to continue planning and coordination of this initiative, subject to receipt of an acceptable workplan.
9. Systemwide Coastal Environment Initiative
137. TAC endorsed ICLARM's proposal for an ecoregional initiative for coastal environments and recommended that US$ 300,000 of seed money be assigned during 1996 to help ICLARM develop the proposal. TAC thereby prepared the following commentary:
138. The Committee is positively impressed with the idea of a coastal environment initiative, and considers ICLARM to be well-placed to take such an initiative. The Committee suggests that ICLARM consider developing the initiative with a watershed management perspective. TAC has no basis to make a decision on the requested funds until it has examined a fully defined proposal, and recommends tentatively that a provision for US$ 300,000 be made for an initiative in 1996.
10. Systemwide Livestock Initiative
139. ILRI has developed an innovative proposal that would involve a process of competitive bidding for resources, but TAC hopes that this process would involve not only ecoregional consortia but also CGIAR Centres and other interested partners. TAC recalls its earlier observation that the strategic planning and priority exercise of ILRI should precede the development of proposals. The Committee therefore considers the timetable as too optimistic and notes that there is no need to initiate projects in all regions and programme areas simultaneously. TAC would also like some assurance that the so-called "seed money" should primarily be assigned as programme funds to conduct research and should not serve to largely cover transaction costs. The Livestock Planning Group is currently composed of representatives of CGIAR Centres only, and TAC would like the Group to explore the opportunity to widen its membership to include non-CGIAR partners.
140. TAC reaffirms that in due course and starting from 1996, up to US$ 4 million can be assigned to Systemwide initiatives on livestock. TAC would appreciate if ILRI could keep TAC informed about progress in developing clear global priorities. ILRI will need to submit to TAC further programme and budget information about how it intends to allocate the US$ 4 million. Finally, while TAC agreed that the general focus of the initiative would be on feed resources, it recalls that a dominant theme is the enhancement of crop-livestock interactions.
11. Property Rights and Collective Action
141. With respect to IFPRI's proposed Systemwide initiatives TAC prepared the following commentaries:
142. As indicated earlier by TAC, it considers this to be an important Systemwide subject and one that appears in a number of other Centre, Systemwide, and ecoregional proposals. TAC recommended US$ 0.2 million for this activity, with the focus of CGIAR expenditure being on forging linkages and a collaborative approach with other centres and non-CGIAR partners. IFPRI has responded with a detailed proposal; and TAC recommends support for the programme at the US$ 0.2 million level.
143. TAC re-affirmed the importance of the property rights and collective action initiative but did not find enough concrete evidence of IFPRI having operational linkages with other centres. Therefore, TAC considered that the proposed initiative was still in the "initiative" and design stage and had not yet moved on to the full Systemwide "programme" stage (in terms of the new terminology). Thus, TAC recommended allocation of another US$ 200,000 during 1996 to let IFPRI develop concrete linkages with other centres, in particular in the context of the water initiative. TAC also hoped that the forthcoming strategic study of public policy and public management research in the CGIAR would further clarify responsibilities in this area.
12. Increasing IFPRI Capacity to participate in Systemwide Programmes and Ecoregional Initiatives
144. See commentary on IFPRI Programme and Budget Proposal.
13. Breeding for Staple Food Crops with Micronutrient-Dense Seeds
145. TAC notes that this is not a Systemwide initiative for which it had solicited proposals. TAC does not fully understand the role of IFPRI in this project and considers that the breeding work, if seen as a high priority, should be part of the core activities of the commodity centres involved. On the basis of available information, TAC could not support this proposal as a high priority Systemwide initiative.
14. Agricultural Research Indicators Initiative
146. An earlier scaled down version of this proposal was submitted by ISNAR. At the time, TAC recognized the importance of the subject matter, but suggested that the activity as originally defined belonged as part of ISNAR's core programme. In fact, ISNAR and IFPRI are both now contributing core resources to the proposed activity. The new proposal is to develop and maintain an internationally comparable set of R&D indicators and to undertake policy assessments of these data from an international and regional perspective. TAC considers this as an international public good.
147. Further, TAC believes that the activity should be linked to the data and information requirements for the expanded impact assessment work intended within the CGIAR System. Also, TAC urges the partners in this initiative to actively explore the role of FAO and other potential partners outside the CGIAR System. TAC supports the activity at the requested 1996 funding level of US$ 670,000, subject to further details on use of funds, the contribution to be made by each participant to the programme, and evidence of their agreement to the proposal.
15. Systemwide Integrated Pest Management Initiative (SIPMI)
148. TAC considered the proposal for a Systemwide Integrated Pest Management Initiative. It thereby issued the following commentary:
149. TAC concurs in the importance attached to enhanced communication and interaction on IPM related activities within the CGIAR and applauds the formation of an Inter-Centre Working Group (ICWG) on IPM. TAC notes that other pest management themes are also relevant to IPM and encourages their addition to the list of themes initially provided. TAC also notes the importance of the broad integration of pest management themes in an IPM framework.
150. TAC recommends some US$ 200,000 support of a joint ICWG and TAC workshop planning meeting to occur during 1996 in order to involve CGIAR scientific and advanced institute staff to focus on: new developments in topics related to IPM, the possibility of complementarities between and among the various important groups working in IPM, and the potential for generic products via research in IPM which meet the System's concerns for international public goods. Based on the findings of such a meeting, the System will be in better position to decide on how to further support work in IPM.
16. Soil, Water and Nutrient Management (SWNM) Proposal
151. TAC recognizes the proposal as evolving out of the Zschortau plan of 1994, and welcomes the efforts of the scientists and donors involved in developing this proposal to strengthen natural resources management research in the CGIAR. TAC also recognizes that this is not a proposal for adding new research themes to the System, but to strengthen ongoing work on these themes in the centres. The proposal annexes provide an overview of the six themes proposed. They are discussed further below.
152. TAC views the six identified SWNM themes as being part of the overall set of globally important NRM themes that should be integrated into ecoregionally based programmes at sites that can serve as "laboratories" for strategic research in NRM. At the sites, the development of technologies in collaboration with local NARS and farmers, and their adoption by local communities, will validate the strategic research.
153. All priority SWNM themes need to be researched within the ecoregional framework and to include off-site linkages, externalities, and policy and institutional themes and dimensions. The six identified (mainly on-site soils oriented) SWNM themes need to become an integral part of the ecoregional approach to research, rather than becoming a separate layer of research activities cutting across the ecoregional initiatives.
154. TAC considers that administrative, review and coordinating structures for SWNM should be minimal and preferably be set up within the ecoregional approach. A priority need is for exchange of ideas, data and information among those working on particular SWNM themes in different ecoregions (and in other programmes in the System). TAC believes that such linkages can be established in most cases through user-friendly networks without the creation of additional formal project structures that could incur further heavy transactions and management costs.
155. The themes identified in the SWNM initiative fit within the framework that TAC has developed in its paper "Study of Strategic Natural Resources Management Issues and Research Needs in the CGIAR" (SDR/TAC:IAR/95/6) for its ongoing stripe study of NRM research in the CGIAR. More specifically, the paper provides a framework for linking soil and water aspects of NRM research within the broader concept of ecoregional approaches to organizing research programmes. Further development of the SWNM themes should be consistent with the outcomes of the TAC Study.
156. TAC finds each of the six themes presented to be quite different in terms of relevance, importance, and level of development. In general, they all address CGIAR goals. Thus:
· Theme 1: Combating Nutrient DepletionThe activities proposed under this theme are important, yet they are very wide in terms of technologies available and research results expected. Also it is necessary to address their interface with the other themes. In other words, while there is information available on enhancing soil fertility under different cropping patterns and in different ecoregions, the linkages with related issues is lacking. This is highly recommended as a starting activity for this proposal, as many of the other five themes could, and perhaps should, complement the research conducted under this theme. The last two activities proposed for this theme, On-Farm Adaptive Research and Policy Intervention are crucial for achieving the output anticipated.
· Theme 2: Optimizing Soil-water Use
There is a large amount of research information already available in this area, and the basic processes underlying soil-water-plant relationships in the semi-arid tropics of sub-Saharan Africa are reasonably well understood. What is needed is the application of this knowledge within the context of location-specific agricultural environments. The international nature of this theme is doubtful in view of extreme technical, social and economic differences existing in diverse sub-regions. TAC is not yet convinced that the CGIAR should assign a high priority to this theme.
· Theme 3: Managing Acid soils
There has been a good deal of production systems research in this area and more recently crop improvement work in some crops has shown the possibility of breeding acid tolerant cultivars. However, the enhancement of soil fertility of acid soils and production intensification requires an integrated research approach involving technological, socioeconomics and policy research. This can be achieved within an ecoregional framework. TAC suggests that a relatively higher priority be given to this theme (together with Theme 1).
· Theme 4: Controlling Soil Erosion
It is widely accepted that soil erosion is a major cause of degradation of steep and sloping lands and that inappropriate forms of land use and land management practices are the primary causes. The consortium of this theme aims to promote soil conservation methods amongst farmers, but also proposes several different types of research. In TAC's view, these objectives would only be achievable if soil scientists were to work in close partnership with CGIAR Centres and other research institutes dealing with agricultural production systems, forestry and agroforestry. The focus should be on prevention of soil erosion, not just studying the process itself. TAC also seeks clarification from the Consortium for this theme how it proposes to integrate research on controlling soil erosion into ecoregionally based programmes, and whether it has plans to study erosion in a watershed framework.
· Theme 5: Carbon Sequestration
Carbon sequestration is only one of a number of soil fertility factors that need to be considered in developing integrated research projects (focusing on natural resource management within the ecoregional approach) for major natural and managed ecosystems in Asia, Africa and South America. However, TAC notes that this theme could help to address concerns about emissions of greenhouse gases from food production systems of great interest to the CGIAR.
· Theme 6: Soil Quality Indicators
The relevance of the development of soil quality indicators as indices of site (growth) potential to the objectives of research using the CGIAR's ecoregional approach is quite unclear to TAC. Although the empirically derived site indices are used in forestry land evaluation procedures, it is not clear how such indices including the proposed vegetation indicators can make a strategic contribution to the understanding of sustainability of production systems and their impact on environment.
157. The proposed SWNM initiative would need to analyze the effect of the impact of policies and institutions on resource use and their productivity. By influencing resource allocation among commodities, crops and livestock, domestic and export agriculture and the rest of the economy, exchange rates, pricing and subsidy policies have an impact on land and water use and factor productivity. Similarly tenurial policies, including particularly property rights, influence land and water use and their productivity. Markets exist in resources for land, water and nutrients. Whether they operate competitively and whether government intervenes in these markets influences resources use and its productivity.
158. With regard to the overall coordinating mechanism proposed in the SWNM initiative, TAC finds no adequate justification for supporting it. The proposal provides very little information on this part of the initiative.
159. Given all the above, TAC suggests that the next steps taken by the partners in this SWNM proposal might be as follows:
a. Start with one or two themes and corresponding consortia. Given the above comments TAC suggests starting with theme 1: nutrient replenishment and integrated management of soil fertility; and, theme 3: enhanced crop yields from acid soils (US$ 200 000).b. Develop an explicit strategy for linking to other research activities and actors inside and outside the System, and particularly to policy and public management research needs associated with the themes, within the framework of the relevant ecoregional approaches. Develop monitoring and evaluation procedures so that the System can learn from the development of the first trial consortia ($100 000).
160. TAC would welcome further interaction with the Convening Centre and/or leaders of this initiative at TAC 67 in July in Rome, and would at that time also appreciate receiving clarification of the linkages that are planned by IBSRAM to related CGIAR activities.
161. The item was introduced by the TAC Chair, who recalled that in the 1992 External Programme and Management Review of ICLARM, it had been recommended that a mid-term review of ICLARM should be undertaken during 1995 to assess ICLARM's progress in responding to the recommendations of the review, in implementing an effective research programme and on improving the Centre's governance and management. The Mid-Term Review of ICLARM was conducted by the Panel Chair, Professor E.T. York of the University of Florida (USA), who briefly introduced the panel's report.
162. Dr. York's overall message about ICLARM was a very positive one. The Centre had implemented virtually all of the 1992 EPMR panel's recommendations and significant progress was being made in implementing an effective research programme and improving the Centre's governance and management. The major concern with respect to the future of ICLARM was the lack of resources for the Centre, in particular unrestricted core resources. The panel had also considered the offer by the Egyptian Government to provide research facilities to ICLARM. It had suggested that ICLARM would need to proceed cautiously as the Board had recommended and undertake also an analysis of the technical issues surrounding the feasibility of the proposed sites for ICLARM's research activities, against the framework of ICLARM's strategic plan and the implications for the priorities of ICLARM and the CGIAR. Dr. York also paid tribute to the technical and management skills of the current Director General, but expressed some concern that the programme directors had appeared to not fully consider themselves as being part of the management team.
163. Professor John Dillon, Chair of the ICLARM Board of Trustees, provided an overview of the Board's response to the panel's report. He thanked the panel for a good and honest report and for its open, professional and collegial approach to its work. He noted that ICLARM had changed a lot in recent years and that the integration of different cultures had provided a major challenge to the management. The Board accepted all the recommendations made by the panel. He also expressed severe concern with ICLARM's funding situation and its lack of facilities. The Board had agreed to enter into negotiations with the Government of Egypt on its offer of research facilities but recognizing the need to protect the integrity of ICLARM's programmes and CGIAR's priorities. Dr. Meryl Williams, Director General, also expressed her appreciation for the work of the panel and noted some unique characteristics of ICLARM in managing its programme and budget. It was difficult to operate as a CGIAR centre under its present structure and budget and its heavy dependence on special projects. She also noted that the review report had had a shock effect on some of the staff and that the interactions among senior management had become much more positive and productive. She recognized however that ICLARM still had a long way to go and acknowledged that the panel's report had been perceptive and helpful in this regard.
164. In opening the discussion. Dr. Huisman, TAC Liaison Scientist for ICLARM, expressed regret that he had not being able to participate in the review due to the recent floods in his country. He expressed his gratitude to the Panel Chair for a good and useful report which was written in a very constructive spirit. He stressed the important role that social sciences should play at ICLARM and concurred with the panel that the US$ 1 million fisheries reserve allocated in the medium-term planning process should be assigned to ICLARM. He urged caution about an overly rapid positive response to the offer for the Egyptian research facilities and stressed the need for a technical evaluation of the facilities. Due attention should also be given by ICLARM to the outcome of its own priority analysis and strategic planning exercise. Finally he urged that ICLARM should become a true research centre and that this should be reflected in its name.
165. On behalf of FAO, Dr. Stein Bie expressed his satisfaction that the review had shown that in periods of crises the CGIAR had mechanisms to put things back on course. The Fisheries Department of FAO was very appreciative about the work of ICLARM, but was concerned about the lack of critical mass in science, the under-funding, the smallness of ICLARM's team which was a constraint in developing effective collaboration, and the difficult relations between management at headquarters. While FAO was pleased about the opportunities of the Egyptian venture for strengthening Mediterranean research operations, FAO was also cautious about the representativeness and size of the site and the financial burdens attached to it.
166. In the ensuing discussion, several TAC Members pointed to the problem of high staff turnover at ICLARM, the low priority accorded to the WANA region in ICLARM's priorities, the opportunities for introducing exotic species, and the high costs of administration. Other speakers asked for more information on the external environment of ICLARM, the lack of clear direction in ICLARM's research programmes, and about the significance of a lack of a headquarters agreement. One speaker also expressed concern about the large number of reviews imposed on ICLARM.
167. In responding to the issues raised. Dr. York noted that one advantage of the Egyptian facilities would be that it would give ICLARM a global perspective. On the comment that ICLARM may be exposed to too many reviews, he stressed that these had been necessary in order to get the house in order. He also noted that the external environments and the donor attitudes were very positive. Dr. Dillon informed the meeting that the Board had decided that every aspect of ICLARM's operations would be subject to an internally managed external review every three or four years. As a result of the lack of a headquarters agreement, ICLARM had to pay custom duties and was operating under Philippine law. Dr. Williams recalled that currently ICLARM was allocating 80 percent of its resources to Asia and 19 percent to Africa and stressed the need to have research facilities. Results obtained by organizations such as FAO in the introduction of species from elsewhere had been were discouraging. One other implication of the lack of a headquarters agreement was that local staff had to pay taxes.
168. In concluding the discussion, the TAC Chair thanked Dr. York for an excellent report and complemented Dr. Williams and Professor Dillon for their efforts in overcoming the management crisis and in implementing a more effective management structure at ICLARM.
169. After further consideration TAC produced the following commentary.
170. TAC compliments Professor E.T. York and the team which conducted the Mid-Term External Review of ICLARM for a clear, frank, and perceptive assessment of the Centre's programme and management. TAC endorses the Panel's recommendations and offers the following commentary, which was prepared with contributions by the CGIAR Secretariat on the management aspects of ICLARM's work, to supplement the Panel's report.
171. TAC is pleased with the progress ICLARM has made since the 1992 External Review and the internal crisis of April 1993. The Committee is convinced that ICLARM is well positioned to make a major contribution to CGIAR goals and priorities and that the Centre merits the full support of the CGIAR. The pains associated with the Centre's transformation from a project-driven to a programme-based organization, as well as the turbulence arising from the 1993 internal strife, have been largely overcome and the Centre's research programme is being successfully implemented.
172. The Panel has based some of its conclusions on the outcome of Internally-Commissioned External Reviews (ICERs), which are a welcome development to supplement CGIAR external reviews. In this connection, TAC applauds the Board of ICLARM for its intention to commission ICERs of all ICLARM programmes every four to five years in a staggered fashion.
173. TAC notes with pleasure the progress ICLARM has made in its Inland Aquatic Resource Systems Programme (IARSP). The quantitative genetic breeding programme has been very successful in increasing growth rates of Tilapia up to 60%. Over the last two years ICLARM has integrated its former Coral Reef and Coastal Resource Systems Programmes into a single programme and impressive output has been achieved in the form of databases such as Fish-base, FiDAS and (be it in an initial phase yet) Reef base along side a number of valuable and well-received publications.
Response to the 1992 External Review
174. ICLARM has largely implemented the recommendations of the 1992 External Programme and Management Review and TAC commends the Board and Management of ICLARM for successfully steering the Centre after the period of internal crisis in 1993. However, three aspects of ICLARM's evolution continue to concern TAC:
· ICLARM's Science Capacity. ICLARM is a small institute with a global mandate for research on aquatic resources. The Centre's in-house scientific capacity to carry out an interdisciplinary international research programme is limited, especially at the middle level. TAC therefore urges ICLARM to enhance its capacity and to ensure that it maintains and expands strategic alliances with other research organizations to enhance its own research capacity.· ICLARM's Financial Base. ICLARM's unrestricted core resources are the lowest in the CGIAR in absolute terms (US$ 2.7 million in 1993). TAC is concerned about this precarious financial situation as it provides the Centre with very little flexibility. TAC urges the CGIAR donor community to explore ways of ensuring a minimum critical unrestricted funding base, particularly for small centres.
· Legal Status and Headquarters Agreement. ICLARM still does not have the legal standing in the Philippines befitting an international research organization. Although there is a formal agreement establishing ICLARM as an international entity, despite the continuing efforts of ICLARM's Board and Management, the Centre has not yet been able to obtain a host country agreement providing the requisite and customary immunities and privileges to this entity. Currently ICLARM operates as a non-profit corporation under Philippine law. This creates significant inefficiencies for the institution as an international research centre. TAC joins the Panel in recommending that the Board continue to attend to this matter with utmost urgency.
Offer of the Government of Egypt
175. A major limitation to the effective implementation of ICLARM's research programme has been the Centre's lack of facilities. The offer of the Government of Egypt to provide extensive fisheries research and residential facilities could provide good opportunities, particularly in the areas of in-situ conservation, training and experimentation.
176. TAC agrees with the Board of ICLARM that the Egyptian offer will need to be studied carefully by ICLARM with the support of a team of external experts from several perspectives. These should include: first, scientific and technical considerations such as the suitability of the facilities for carrying out scientific research vis-à-vis ICLARM's and the CGIAR strategies and priorities, and the representativeness of the site vis-à-vis ICLARM's total mandate area. Second, there are strategic institutional considerations which will need to be taken into account, such as ICLARM's need for a staging post for its African operations and the opportunity to transform ICLARM from an "office-based" to a "research station-based" operation in the immediate future.
177. Third, ICLARM will need to take into account the long-term financial implications of basing a major part of its operations in Egypt, such as the recurrent cost of operating a sizeable research station and residential facilities.
178. Given the potential implications for ICLARM and the CGIAR, TAC asks to be kept informed of ICLARM's progress in studying this matter.
Conclusion
179. TAC is pleased with ICLARM's progress in implementing an effective research programme and in improving its management. The Centre is now well on the road to success. TAC agrees with the Panel that ICLARM should be allocated the US$ 1 million fisheries reserve which TAC had conditionally recommended based on a positive outcome of this Mid-Term Review.
180. TAC concurs with the Panel that the CGIAR should give higher priority to research on aquatic resources. This will require a gradual expansion of ICLARM's activities and resources. TAC will address this issue in its deliberations on resource allocation and the CGIAR's research agenda.
181. Dr. Hans Gregersen, Chair of the Standing Committee for External Reviews, reported on: the External Reviews of IITA, ICRISAT, IPGRI, IFPRI and ISNAR; the Inter-Centre Review of Roots and Tubers Research; the Strategic Study of Public Policy, Public Management and Institution Strengthening Research and Service; the Study on Strategic Natural Resources Management Issues and Research Needs in the CGIAR; the Inter-Centre Review of Cereals; and the possibility of conducting a study of CGIAR commitments in Latin America.
182. The panel for the Fourth External Review of IITA visited the Centre's
Headquarters from 26 November to 1 December 1994 during which the panel was
briefed, and had interactions with the Board, senior management and staff. This
was followed by sub-panel visits to IITA's field stations and to national institutions
in West Africa (Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, Côte d'Ivoire) and in Central and
Eastern Africa (Cameroon, Kenya, Uganda). The main phase of the review will
be conducted from 10-30 April 1995 as originally scheduled. The Committee noted
the panel chair's request that the two panel consultants, Drs. David Norman
and Samuel Jutzi, should participate in the main phase as panel members.
183. TAC noted that planning of the Fourth External Review of ICRISAT had begun
in consultation with the Centre. The initial phase of the Review was tentatively
scheduled for March/April 1996, and the main phase for September/October 1996.
TAC considered a short list of suitable chairs for the ICRISAT Review and requested
that additional names be considered at TAC 67.
184. TAC noted that planning of the Fourth External Review of IPGRI had started
in consultation with the Centre. The initial phase of the Review was tentatively
scheduled for September 1996, and the main phase for January/February 1997.
A short list of suitable chairs for the IPGRI Review was considered by TAC.
185. The Committee noted that IFPRI was scheduled to be reviewed in 1996. The
Committee agreed that the IFPRI Review be scheduled to begin after the completion
of the Stripe Study on Public Policy and Public Management Research. TAC interpreted
this to mean that the IFPRI Review could be conducted in the second half of
1996.
186. It was recalled that ISNAR had requested that the envisaged change in the leadership at the end of 1996 be taken into account in the planning of the next review of ISNAR. The Committee agreed to the suggestion from ISNAR that the initial phase be conducted before the change in leadership but the main phase be timed after the new Director General had taken over. The Committee interpreted this to mean that the initial phase could be conducted during the second half of 1996, and the main phase during the first half of 1997.
Roots and Tubers Research
Strategic Study on Public Policy and Public Management Research, and Institution Strengthening Research and Service in the CGIAR
Study of Strategic Natural Resources Management Issues and Research Needs in the CGIAR
Cereals Research
CGIAR Commitments in Latin America
187. The panel of the Inter-Centre Review of Roots and Tubers Research would be chaired by Dr. David MacKenzie (USA), with Drs. Evert Jacobsen (Netherlands), Don Plucknett (USA) and Carlos Sere (Uruguay) as panel consultants along with other consultants still to be recruited.
188. The Review would rely heavily on information gathered and experience gained during the external reviews of CIP, CIAT and IITA. The consultants involved would also prepare background papers, and Centres involved would be invited to develop "thought" pieces with their views on future roots and tubers research in the CGIAR. The TAC Secretariat would also prepare a background desk study on the importance of roots and tubers and synthesize existing CGIAR activities.
189. It was proposed to organize a consultation meeting from 30 May to 2 June
in Washington involving the Chairs of the CIP, CIAT and IITA review panels,
the Directors General of CIP, CIAT, IITA, IPGRI and IFPRI, the panel consultants,
and the Secretariat staff. A preparatory meeting or E-mail conference, involving
the Panel Chair, the consultants and the TAC Secretariat, would be held during
April 1995 to agree on arrangements for the consultation meeting in Washington.
The meeting in Washington would be followed by a writing up session to prepare
the panel's report for discussion by the Committee at TAC 67 and by the Group
at ICW'95.
190. It was recalled that a proposal for this Study was considered by the Committee at TAC 66. At that time it was agreed that this would be a TAC-guided study, and that the TAC convenors, Drs. Gregersen and Muchnik, together with the TAC Secretariat would prepare a framework paper defining the scope and the topics of the Study. This was done in Rome in December 1994.
191. In introducing the framework paper, it was stated that the Study was not aimed at major shifts in priorities. Major shifts could only be done as a result of a whole priority study. Centres had conducted such studies, so that at this stage it was probably not necessary to repeat them. Thus, the Study would aim at addressing changes at the margins.
192. The Committee was informed that the two parts in the Study (i.e. policy and management, and institution strengthening) would be conducted with two independent but linked panels. Both parts of the Study will address three questions: (1) what are the centres doing and how is it done?; (2) are there better ways of doing it and what are the options available?; (3) are there gaps in the current CGIAR portfolio and/or are there activities to be deleted from that portfolio?
193. In particular, the issues for both parts of the Study were seen as follows:
· POLICY AND MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: What is missing in the current portfolio (in general terms only)? What is the international public goods nature of such research? How should policy and public management research be organized in the System, and particularly, what should IFPRI's role be at the System level? How should policy research link to the technology research, i.e., should policy research be decentralized such as in the CIFOR case, or should it be centralized with weaker links to the subject matter centres? What are the pros and cons? What does the panel think and why?· INSTITUTION STRENGTHENING RESEARCH: How much and what type of work should the CGIAR System vs. others be doing (what are the others doing)? What are the advantages of this type of work being done in international organizations? Are there international public goods characteristics? If the CGIAR System should be continuing to do it, how should it be organized? Should ISNAR have a more central role, or is much of this kind of work, e.g., related to training and capacity building, done better in a decentralized fashion, or in connection with Systemwide, ecoregionally focused programmes? Is the current balance optimum, or should it be changed? How should the System link to and coordinate with others involved in this type of activity? How should priorities for this type of work be established (e.g., small countries vs. high population countries)?
194. The Committee was informed that a workshop would be held from 27-28 April 1995 at ISNAR in The Hague to brief consultants on the purpose of the review and to provide an overview of issues involved. Centres would be invited to participate in this workshop (or to make an input through a contributed paper) and to provide consultants with their centre's perspective. This would be followed by preparation of working papers on priority topics and a consultation in June. A progress report would be prepared for discussion at TAC 67. Further work would be done during the period July to September 1995, possibly involving another consultation, and a draft report would be shared with the Group at ICW'95 and other stakeholders.
195. In the ensuing brief discussion, it was pointed out that there was an
increasing emphasis placed by all concerned to policy research, and that it
was important to ensure that any increase in research in this area was done
effectively and cost-efficiently. It was highlighted that there were 4 to 5
particularly important policy themes across many agro-ecosystems which the CGIAR
System needed to come to grips with in relation to the way the rising research
resources were assigned to policy research. It was also pointed out that the
new emphasis on policy research was reflecting the changed CGIAR goals which
went beyond the earlier goal of increasing production of food commodities important
for the poor.
196. It was recalled that at TAC 65, the Committee discussed a proposal for this Study. At that time, it was agreed that the Study would be TAC-led, and the TAC Convenors, Drs. Gregersen and Henzell together with the TAC Secretariat would prepare a framework paper to define the scope and the themes of the Study. This was done in December 1994 in Rome.
197. In introducing the framework paper, the Committee was informed that the paper had been shared for comments with all the CGIAR Centres plus IBSRAM, IFDC and TSBF, as well as a number of people outside the System. A lot of useful comments had been received.
198. Dr. Gregersen then informed the Committee about the comments received. It was recalled that the framework took a watershed approach within which various components of the natural resources management study could be linked and organized. One set of responses pointed out that the catchment or watershed study was not the way forward, despite the fact that the framework paper did not talk about conducting catchment studies. The paper used the catchment to provide a framework to capture the linkages e.g. upstream/downstream linkages, on-site/off-site relationships, etc.
199. Another set of comments dealt with the scope of the study and had contradicted each other. TAC was informed that the study framework was dealing with the integration of productivity with resource management concerns. Deforestation should be discouraged through productivity enhancing research such as the forest margins programme or the alternative to the slash-and-bum initiative. Another set of comments proposed that the Study should concentrate on processes and not on traditional empirical research approach to generate knowledge.
200. Others had queried about the linkage between the framework and the ecoregional research paradigm. The answer here was that the framework fitted within the ecoregional paradigm because a watershed approach was also an organizing framework within an ecoregional framework.
201. Dr. Henzell then informed the Committee about the four themes of the Study and how they would be addressed with the help of consultants. He pointed out that the main theme dealt with the improvement of on-site productivity in rainfed and irrigated systems as well as in inland fisheries. The second theme dealt with erosion and streamflow aspects, and theme three dealt with water quality improvement and would cover aspects related to nutrients as well as other sources of pollution. Theme four covered public policy, public management and institutional aspects of natural resources management, including tenure and common property, motivation, social benefits and organizations across sectors.
202. TAC was informed that the Study would have to stand on its own, and to keep it manageable, the terms of reference had been interpreted as follows. The Study would be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 would review what had been achieved, identify gaps and research needs. The end of the phase would be marked by an in-house consultation in June 1995. This would be followed by Phase 2 which would identify major suppliers of international research and examine institutional strategies. Dr. Henzell explained that there were three reasons why the Study would begin by looking at existing results and impact.
203. First, a lot of research was being done and there was a need not to repeat that work. Second, there were achievements that needed to be looked at and their relevance for the future. Third, there was a need to satisfy the donors that research in natural resources management was a long-term investment, to avoid donor fatigue setting in before results were achieved.
204. The Committee was informed that the Study would be outcome and solution driven and not be stuck with defining problems only. After the in-house consultation in June 1995, a progress report would be prepared for TAC stating what had been achieved in Phase 1. Further work would be done under Phase 2 which may involve another consultation in September 1995, and the preparation of a draft report to be shared with the Group at ICW'95 and other stakeholders.
205. In the discussion that followed it was pointed out that the CIAT/IBSRAM soil, water and nutrient management proposal fitted well into the framework paper in terms of themes. However, the CIAT/IBSRAM proposal was less concerned with externalities, e.g. on-site/off-site relationships. Also, policy component was a central part of the framework whereas it did not appear to be so in the CIAT/IBSRAM proposal.
206. Clarification was sought on the boundaries of the Study, and the Committee was informed that the Study would be concerned with everything up to the seashore including inland fisheries which have upstream/downstream influences. However, while the Study would recognize that the ocean atmosphere and biodiversity are part of the natural world, it would focus on soil and water, and would look at interphases such as coastal environments.
207. Other points that were raised covered the need to consider issues related
to land and water reclamation, and aquifer drawdown and rural water supply.
In closing the discussion the Convenors of this Study stated that there was
a need to get at the strategic dimensions of the interactions and linkages within
the context of a continuum. Two consultants on the Study panel would have the
responsibility of integrating the work of other consultants. In essence, the
basic question related to what products from land and water was the CGIAR System
interested in? The main products were food and water in terms of quantity and
quality. The Committee was informed that it would be possible to produce an
interim report of the Study by ICW'95, and the comments received would be taken
into account in revising the draft framework paper.
208. TAC considered a proposal for an inter-centre review of cereals research to be conducted in 1996 in a manner similar to the inter-centre review of roots and tubers research. The purpose of the review was to assist TAC to formulate a global strategy for cereals research in the CGIAR System. The terms of reference include: (a) assessing the CGIAR's work on cereals; and (b) exploring ways for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of this work.
209. TAC agreed that some aspects of rice research be considered in this review
because of the high degree of genome collinearity across all CGIAR cereal species.
The Committee noted that the review would involve a panel of 3 to 4 members
plus consultants. The review process would include a consultation meeting in
May/June 1996 involving the Directors General of the centres concerned, other
stakeholders, the review panel and consultants, outside experts and the Secretariat
staff. The consultation would be followed by a report preparation session involving
the panel, and the report would be discussed by TAC in July 1996 and the Group
at ICW'96.
210. TAC considered the idea of conducting a Study of the CGIAR commitments in Latin America. The Committee was in favour of considering such a Study but decided to defer a decision until after the report on the CGIAR commitments in West Africa had been discussed by the Group at MTM'95.
211. The item was introduced by Dr. Ammar Siamwalla, Chair of the Standing Committee on CGIAR Priorities and Strategies, who recalled that TAC was due to submit the draft report on CGIAR Priorities and Strategies to the Group at ICW'96. In line with current efforts to revitalize the CGIAR, the 1996 approach would need to be consistent with the matrix approach to programme prioritization, support and management which is currently under development in the CGIAR. This matrix has two enabling dimensions that link (i) the CGIAR to other actors in the global agricultural research system; and (ii) programmes at the broad System level to programmes and projects at the centre level.
212. The Standing Committee therefore proposed to proceed in the priority setting process as follows:
(a) Update the established information on the demand for international agricultural research as contained in the 1992 report on CGIAR priorities and strategies. IFPRI's studies on 2020 should provide a major input in this. Better indicators of equity and environmental effects will also be sought.(b) Refine the AEZ framework to more effectively focus on ecoregional activities in the CGIAR.
(c) Re-run the existing quantitative framework with the updated database and revised ecoregional framework.
(d) Develop systematically an information database on supply-side issues. These will have four components:
(i) alternative sources of supply, including the private sector and universities;(ii) expected returns obtained from given investments;
(iii) strength of NARS including their capacity to assume responsibilities currently met by the CGIAR; and
(iv) institutional capacity of international centres to deliver quality research products.
(e) Review the current activity classification in the System and other options, and develop a revised system.
(f) Review the projects that centres currently use for research management and develop options for using them for priority setting. A CGIAR project database should be developed and an analysis made of how the different centre projects could be structured in broader aggregates.
(g) Link the current process of strategic reviews explicitly to priority setting, i.e., the current study of strategic issues in resources management research should generate the necessary information for priority setting in that area of work. Likewise, the strategic review of public policy, public management and institution strengthening research should provide in-depth information on the CGIAR priorities in that area of work.
213. In the ensuing discussion, questions were raised about the process for systematically collecting information on projects and on alternative sources of supply, the broad goals of the development assistance community over the next 20 years, how to involve NARS in the priority setting process and the link with the proposed global and regional fora in the CGIAR. Other questions related to the boundaries between strategic planning and operational planning and whether the CGIAR had not gone too far in the latter. It was noted that the World Food Summit organized by FAO, the FAO study on Agriculture Towards 2010 and the IFPRI study for a Vision for 2020 would provide important inputs in TAC's work.
214. Several speakers stressed that TAC should not try to redo the entire priority exercise from scratch and that TAC should, instead, focus on changes in the margin resulting from developments in the external and the internal environments. Centre Directors stressed the need for close interaction with them as TAC proceeded in its work. The joint TAC/Centre Directors/Board Chairs Committee on Priorities and Strategies could facilitate such interaction. Finally, it was stressed that there should be a strong link between TAC's recommendations on priorities and those on resource allocation.
215. After further consideration, TAC recommended that at TAC 67 in July at least two-and-a-half days of the meeting should be used for further discussions on each of the major outstanding issues for the next priority setting exercise: projections of future food demand and supply; poverty; resource management research; strengthening of NARS; advance research institutes; and gender issues and institution strengthening. A number of outside consultants should be invited to participate in the meeting in order to provide specialist inputs.
216. Dr. Hans Gregersen, Chair of the Standing Committee for External Reviews, introduced the agenda item by recalling that it was decided at TAC 62 to develop a plan of work to review the whole CGIAR review process. Draft working papers were discussed at TAC 63 and 64, and conclusions were reached. At TAC 65, the Committee came to a closure on a working paper on redesigning the review process prepared by the Inter-Secretariat Working Group on External Reviews and the Standing Committee. As a consequence, the TAC Chair report to ICW'94 laid out the review process in general terms relating to the reviews of centres, and the reviews and assessments of programmes and special topics. Further work on these two components has involved the preparation of the terms of reference for centre reviews, and a discussion note on the principles which could be used to prepare the terms of reference for programmes reviews.
217. The idea now was to submit the terms of reference of centre reviews to the Group at MTM'95 with TAC approval, and for the TAC Chair to provide a progress report on the whole package which would be submitted to the Group at ICW'95. This package would include a policy paper on the CGIAR review process, and the terms of reference for centre and programmes reviews. Dr. Gregersen stated that the Inter-Secretariat Working Group would prepare draft terms of reference for reviews of programmes and of special studies for distribution to centres and CGIAR members for comments in time for discussion at the July 1995 TAC meeting.
218. Dr. Selcuk Ozgediz of the CGIAR Secretariat then introduced the draft terms of reference for centre reviews on behalf of the Inter-Secretariat Working Group. He recalled that the draft was an update of what was sent around to centres in 1994. The draft covered standard reviews, issue-driven reviews, interim reviews and mid-term reviews. Basically, the centre reviews examine three areas - strategy, accomplishments and efficiency. The new element in the terms of reference is a two-page summary to be prepared by the panel which would allow cross-comparison across centres and for a centre over time. Accompanying the terms of reference were the guidelines to panels.
219. The standard review model involved two visits to the centre by the panel and used the existing process. The issue-driven model involved one visit to the centre by the panel, and the review would be based on the information provided by internally managed reviews. This model would be applicable for centres where there was good quality control. Issues would be identified by the panel chair and the secretariat staff. The interim review model would apply when the time span between two standard reviews could be extended. The mid-term review model would apply when the need for such a review was identified during the standard review.
220. In the ensuing discussion, clarification was sought regarding: assessment of impact during external reviews and impact assessment work to be undertaken by the proposed new CGIAR impact assessment unit; criteria for country and field visits; and the dangers of over-standardizing the review process at the cost of losing creativity by panels.
221. In response to the above, Dr. Ozgediz stated that the panel was not expected to conduct impact assessment but would rely on the information available including that which would be generated by the new impact assessment unit. Also, where such centre-based information was not available, the new unit could seek to have it generated. The criteria for country and field visits were based on: the type of centre in terms of distribution of its physical facilities in different geographical regions and the nature of its relationship with NARS; the need to examine achievements of the centre in a particular region or country; whether there were any special issues that needed to be assessed through such visits; and the particular views of the panel chair and members regarding the need for a direct interaction with the national programmes and agricultural environments with which the centre works. With regard to dangers of over-standardization of the review process, it was pointed out that the terms of reference constituted the minimum requirement. Panels were free to be creative and were encouraged to be so through the briefings they received.
222. Dr. Amir Kassam, Senior Agricultural Research Officer at the TAC Secretariat, then introduced the topic of reviews of programmes and special topics. It was pointed out that programme reviews referred to reviews of those Systemwide commodity, subject-matter and ecoregional programmes that formed part of the CGIAR centre programme matrix management structure, with recognized and enforced responsibility for programmes and lines of accountability. No reviews of such programmes had been conducted so far, but it was clear that with the new "programme" context, the CGIAR would be dealing with a different sort of situation. However, reviews of programmes would deal with well defined programme goals, a management structure, and separate funding. Therefore, it should be possible to introduce some measure of standardization in terms of broad topics or check-lists which could be covered, somewhat similar to the standard terms of reference used for the comprehensive reviews of centres, but modified to take into account the new common elements across Systemwide programmes as had been highlighted at the inter-centre meeting on the management of Systemwide programmes in December 1994.
223. Programme reviews would reflect many of the elements of the traditional inter-centre reviews in that a programme review would have to cover all inter-centre activities within a CGIAR approved Systemwide programme. Therefore, the current inter-centre or "stripe" review model involving an independent panel could be modified to deal with direct accountability elements for application to reviews of Systemwide programmes. Here, the approach used in the standard EPMRs of centres in assessing roles, responsibilities and accountability in terms of aspects such as governance and leadership, and programme, scientific and management efficiency, effectiveness and achievement, was of relevance, and could be modified to suit requirements of programme reviews.
224. Reviews of special topics covered those strategic studies or assessments that are undertaken for the CGIAR within the context of setting Systemwide priorities and strategies. These include: (a) strategic studies of commodities and subject-matter activities of two or more or all centres, and are often referred to as "inter-centre" or "stripe" studies or reviews; (b) assessments of regional commitments of the CGIAR; and (c) impact assessments.
225. With respect to strategic studies, the inter-centre or stripe review process as applied in strategic studies for Systemwide planning was well established and remained relevant for the future. Inter-centre reviews were conducted on an ad hoc basis, depending on needs, and could not follow a regular schedule like the external reviews of centres. However, it should be possible to develop general guidelines on the inter-centre process. However, careful consideration needed to be given to their terms of reference, particularly with respect to those aspects dealing with NARS and advanced research institutes.
226. Regional assessments such as the current TAC study of the CGIAR commitments in West Africa, are new in the System. However, lessons learned so far have highlighted some of the key parameters that could be included in the standard terms of reference and guidelines for future similar assessments in other regions, particularly those on NARS/IARC interactions.
227. It was pointed out that in the CGIAR, TAC had an overall responsibility for impact assessments as part of its broad evaluation function of monitoring centre performance. Impact assessment work in the CGIAR was essentially a centre-based activity because they were the ones conducting the research. TAC had proposed the development and expanded use of impact assessment to complement the process of centre reviews. In this regard, experiences of the centres needed to be brought together and assessed for a comparative perspective. At the same time, centres needed conceptual assistance in measuring impact. However, it was pointed out that TAC's role in impact assessment would need to be reviewed in the light of the CGIAR's intention to set up an independent impact assessment unit.
228. In the ensuing discussion, it was noted that all the CGIAR Systemwide programmes had not yet been fully defined, although one area which would need particular attention in programme reviews was NARS-centre partnerships and consortia. It was pointed out that to achieve true partnership was a challenge because partnership agenda and agreements were difficult to set up. Concerns were expressed about the potential dangers of duplication and competition between and within programmes. Other queries related to how reviews of programmes could be linked with reviews of centres; and whether reviews and studies of special topics should be outside the CGIAR review process as these were tools for information gathering and analysis for TAC's work on setting Systemwide priorities and strategies.
TAC Commentary on the Study of CGIAR Commitments in West Africa
229. Dr. Winkelmann invited Dr. John McIntire to present the final report on CGIAR Commitments in West Africa. Before doing so. Dr. Gryseels, Officer-in-Charge of the TAC Secretariat, reminded the Committee that the draft report, which was presented at TAC 65, had been sent subsequently to NARS and the centres for comments. The Panel met in Rome in February 1995 to consider the comments received and finalize the report.
230. Dr. McIntire stated that since the presentation of the draft report at TAC 65 gave full details of the Panel's findings he would mainly concentrate on the Panel's reaction to comments from Centre Directors and on the issues raised by TAC. These issues had been highlighted in his cover letter to the TAC Chair and he emphasized that the Panel had made a genuine effort to make adjustments in the report where necessary. In response to TAC's notes, Systemwide issues had been brought together and discussed in Annex 3 of the report.
231. The Panel considered that the overall organization and process of CGIAR in West Africa was good. There was minimal need for an additional institutional mechanism or innovation for improving relations with NARS. The structural areas for improvement concerned lesser investments in semi-arid areas, consolidation of ILRI, and the necessity for IFPRI presence in Nigeria. Dr. McIntire expressed surprise at the controversy provoked by the Panel's recommendation for devolution of some aspects of the production system and management research to strong NARS. He said the Panel's recommendation was misunderstood. The emphasis was for devolution to NARS of that aspect of centres' research which was not consistent with their main responsibility for strategic research.
232. He said that the Panel did not believe its recommendation would lead to an excessive concentration of resources in Nigeria. The Centres' overall allocation to Nigeria was reasonable, considering the country's importance and the varied opportunities it offered for research, with implications well beyond its borders. The recommendation affecting the deployment of a few additional IFPRI and ICRISAT staff in Nigeria would have a non-significant effect on the aggregate of CGIAR investments in West Africa.
233. He then referred to the comments by the Committee of Centre Directors. On small NARS, he reiterated the Panel's view that the basic problems of small size did not justify major investments by individual centres. The main requirement was for trained manpower, and to fill that need, a stable, long-term arrangement with academic institutions was both essential and preferable. This did not exclude Centre contribution through the usual mechanisms. The Panel did not endorse the opinion that Centres' administrative costs were higher in West Africa than elsewhere. In addressing the water and irrigation issues, he indicated that the irrigated area in Mexico alone was larger than the sum total of irrigated lands in West Africa. The solution to some problems of irrigation in that country was applicable to West Africa. Other third order problems could be solved by farmers themselves or by NARS.
234. Although the original comment on the limited nature of ICRISAT/ILCA impact in the sub-region remained valid. Dr. McIntire stated that the final report had been modified to give due credit to ICRISAT's scientific impact. ICRISAT had produced more than twice as many advanced lines of millet, sorghum and groundnut in West Africa in 1993-94 as it did in 1985-92. Similarly, the Panel erroneously justified its proposal for a common IITA and WARDA Board in terms of insignificant cost savings. The real benefit would be from the harmonization of research programmes.
235. In the discussions that followed. Dr. Uma Lele, Chairperson of the Working Group on CGIAR Commitments in West Africa, said that she found the report very useful and praised the Panel's responsiveness to the comments made on the original draft. She pointed out the inconsistency of recommending devolution of production research to NARS in one part of the report and yet emphasizing the weakness of NARS in other parts. She wondered whether the Panel was trying to make a distinction between research supply and output. She thought the point made about the necessity for IARCs to move upstream and to leave routine research to NARS was quite valid. She asked whether the Panel's comments about lack of impact was a coded message about the general ineffectiveness of IARCs' research in West Africa.
236. Dr. Lele expressed reservations about the role of universities based in advanced countries in developing the capacity of small NARS. The advanced universities had moved so much upstream that what they were doing was probably of little relevance to the NARS in developing countries. This was an issue which had to be addressed by TAC as the ecoregional research became more widespread. Similarly, a recommendation for additional research effort in Nigeria did not take account of sociocultural differences between Anglophone and Francophone countries in the sub-region. Past policy research had little impact in Nigeria, and TAC had to determine to what extent IFPRI should play a major coordinating role in the sub-region. The question of research in marginal zones was also a generic issue which should be tackled by TAC and the System, particularly the extent to which the donors' political agenda should influence research direction and focus in the zone.
237. A TAC member noted that the problem of small NARS was not confined to need for more training. Limited financial resource for undertaking research were equally crucial. It was not right to urge ILRI to move away from semi-arid areas where livestock production problems had become acute. Recent experience with the INIBAP/IPGRI merger had not led to effective harmonization of programmes. There was therefore a need to exercise caution in considering the Panel's recommendation for a merger of the IITA and WARDA Boards. Another member agreed with the suggestion for a special study of crop improvement in semi-arid areas which would consider the new technologies available in other parts of the world.
238. Dr. Bonte-Friedheim, Chair of the Centre Directors Committee, pointed out that the Panel had raised many issues which were clearly outside the terms of reference of the study. There were contradictions in the recommendations concerning research in production systems and small NARS, and insufficient awareness by the Panel of the tremendous impact of Centres' research work in breeding, particularly by WARDA, IITA, CIAT and ICRISAT. The impending stripe study on policy and management research should help to resolve the issue of responsibility for policy research in the sub-region. Center Directors also considered that the draft report had been circulated to NARS prematurely
239. Other matters raised concerned the large replacement costs of outdated infrastructure and equipment in IITA; hybrids versus open pollinated cultivars and their relative impacts on yields; non-implementation of most recommendations of previous policy research studies in the sub-region; the extent to which lack of financial expertise was a handicap in the work of the NARS.
240. Dr. McIntire responded to most of the questions and comments raised above. On the capacity of local NARS, he was of the opinion that most NARS would operate more effectively if they spent less on salaries and overheads and more on fewer research domains. Referring to Nigeria in particular, he said allocation of resources to research had not been very good. In West Africa the environment did not favour ground water developments, hence the preference for large-scale irrigation schemes which had led to bad investments. He admitted that devaluation in Nigeria and Francophone countries might slightly improve the economic climate for irrigation. Similarly, the recent shift in research activities by ICRISAT and ILRI was congruent with the Panel's recommendations. He reaffirmed that transfer of resources to less marginal areas might prove to be of greater benefit to the poor. He was informed by IITA's Director of Finance that the Centre would have no great difficulty in replacing obsolete equipment from the sinking fund established for that purpose.
241. In bringing the discussion to a close, the TAC Chair thanked participants for their contributions, and in particular Dr. McIntire and his panel for a thought-provoking and valuable report. After further consideration, TAC proposed the following commentary:
242. TAC is grateful to John McIntire and his colleagues for a thought-provoking review and a well written, analytical report. The Committee is very pleased with the Panel's conclusion that the current organization of the CGIAR's work is reasonably cost effective and that there is no need for major restructuring of the way the CGIAR is operating in West Africa. The Panel's report has many useful suggestions and observations for some of the centres' research programmes on which the Committee will follow up on, through the external reviews of the centres concerned. It is to be noted that the reviews of IITA and ICRISAT are scheduled to occur during 1995 and 1996 respectively.
243. At the request of TAC, the Panel addressed a range of issues which were beyond its original terms of reference. By so widening the scope, TAC has given the Panel an opportunity to make additional important contributions. This has stimulated discussion and identified a range of issues for consideration by the CGIAR. Such issues include the interaction between small NARS and the CGIAR Centres, particularly the ideal and realistic division of labour and complementarities among them in a dynamic context; the comparative advantages of individual Centres and IFPRI in policy research; and the impact of CGIAR Centres.
244. TAC's reaction to the major themes identified in the report is provided below. Two distinct observations and lessons emerge from the West Africa Study on process issues. First, because the Panel's report covered issues other than the original terms of reference and reached controversial conclusions on several of them, it prompted stronger reaction as can be seen from the attached CDC's comments. Second, the draft report presented to TAC in October 1994 was discussed in an open session, leading to its premature circulation to donors prior to the Panel having an opportunity to fully respond to the comments of affected CGIAR Centres. The Committee of Centre Directors has expressed a concern at this procedure and TAC concurs, that circulation of the earlier draft might have given a less favourable picture of the Centres' work and impact than is warranted, particularly in view of the revisions made by the Panel in the report in response to Centre Directors' comments, and the fact that several centre programmes were in any case changing in line with what the Panel is now recommending. There is an important lesson to be learned regarding the sequence of the process of consultations and subsequent revisions given the synergetic review process.
245. TAC's commentary below focuses on only a few important issues covered by the Panel.
Policy Research
246. The Panel recommends that IFPRI should be named as a strong convening centre for socioeconomics, policy and management research in West Africa with a greater focus of IFPRI's work in Nigeria than hithertofore. This is in order to integrate the micro-economics focus of the commodity Centres with its own policy focus, and to provide leadership to the policy work.
247. Both IFPRI and concerned Centre Directors have objected to this recommendation on grounds of logistics, replicability of likely impact of CGIAR's policy research in Nigeria to other countries, and impact vis-à-vis that of other actors, for example, the World Bank. TAC recognized that while IFPRI may have a strong track record in policy research, this does not provide it with the natural leadership in other areas of social science and management research. Furthermore, TAC's forthcoming stripe study on policy research will address this issue in a more generic way, for example, the relationship of IFPRI with commodity centres in policy research and may reconsider this recommendation in the light of the findings of the stripe study.
Production Systems versus Germplasm Development Research
248. The Panel recommends that Activity Category 3 (Production Systems and Management Research) be devolved by IITA and ICRISAT to the NARS in order to augment upstream work by Centres in Categories 1 (Conservation and Management of Natural Resources) and 2 (Germplasm Enhancement and Breeding). The report also emphasizes strategic and process-oriented research in the IARCs in Category 3, and devolution of site-specific production systems to strong NARS through long-term joint programmes. It argues that the work of the IARCs should be more strategic, for example, on the development of computer models of multiple cropping and soil-water interactions, etc.
249. ICRISAT, ILRI and IITA are already devolving a substantial share of their applied research work to national research systems which is congruent with the Panel's recommendation. However, other recommendations, particularly with regard to the extent to which even strong NARS can take over most of the production systems and management research, remain contentious in view of the generally poor funding of the NARS in West Africa. For example, TAC does not believe that outright devolution will be appropriate under existing circumstances. Strengthening of partnerships between the Centres and NARS in the subregion will inevitably result in a shift towards the more strategic spectrum of production research by centres. TAC also notes that in recent years major efforts have been made to strengthen the organization of national research to a regional perspective e.g. through SPAAR and CORAF. These efforts merit full support and may lead to further opportunities to devolve current CGIAR activities to national agencies.
Research in Semi-Arid Areas
250. The Panel has recommended: (a) a high-level review of ICRISAT's crop improvement programme in West Africa, including that of CIRAD's programme for sorghum; (b) shift of ICRISAT's research effort in millet improvement from the Niamey site to a less arid area where such management issues as inter-cropping, mechanization, complex cropping patterns, and rotations can be incorporated into millet improvement.
251. TAC considers that, to the extent such changes are not already in process, these issues should be explored further both in the forthcoming review of ICRISAT, the cereals study, and the ecoregional initiative on the desert margins.
A Common IITA and WARDA Board
252. The Panel proposes a common Board of Trustees for WARDA and IITA with ex-officio representation of ICRISAT, ICRAF, and IRRI as means of harmonizing research between the two institutions.
253. Harmonization of boards by ensuring a few common board members is a direction in which CGIAR Centres are moving to increase inter-centre coordination of research, ^r example, between CIFOR and ICRAF. Yet there is no consensus in TAC that a fully common board will be either feasible or effective in harmonizing the research programmes. Cross-representation at programme committee level is a possibility which should be examined by the IITA review. It is therefore an issue which will be addressed by TAC again in the near future.
Irrigation and Water Management
254. The Panel expresses caution with respect to future work on irrigation and water management in West Africa. Many of what seem to be technical or social research questions are in fact problems of public policy for irrigation and water management.
255. TAC notes that West African governments have tended to opt for large-scale surface irrigation projects. While there is also considerable scope for the transfer of simpler, small-scale technologies, to Africa, from the viewpoint of employment, income generation, rates of return, etc, TAC believes that future policy work by others, and perhaps the CGIAR, for example on investment policies with regard to irrigation in West Africa, is needed.
256. In view of the holding of the MTM in Nairobi in May, it was decided to change the venue of TAC 67 from Nairobi to Rome. TAC also decided to add a third meeting to its calendar during 1995 because of the heavy workload and also to enable the shortening of TAC meetings. TAC intends to meet every other year in Rome to maintain links with FAO. It was decided that TAC 68 would be held at ICRAF, Nairobi from 4 - 8 December 1995.
257. The Committee indicated the dates and venues for TAC 67, 68 and 69 as follows:
|
TAC 67: |
11 - 17 July 1995, FAO, Rome, Italy; |
|
TAC 68: |
4 - 8 December 1995, ICRAF, Nairobi; |
|
TAC 69: |
25 - 31 March 1996, IRRI, Manila, Philippines; |
|
TAC 70: |
25 - 31 August 1996, venue to be decided. |
Soil, Water and Nutrient Management Programme
Global Research on Environmental and Agricultural Nexus (GREAN) for the 21st Century
258. TAC considered a Soil, Water and Nutrient Management Programme proposal submitted by the co-convenors, CIAT/IBSRAM. TAC recognized the proposal as evolving out of the Zschortau Plan of 1994 and noted that the proposed six themes (mainly on-site soils oriented) did not add new research themes to the CGIAR System, since there already was work on these themes in the centres. The Committee was of the opinion that all priority soil, water and nutrient management themes need to be researched within the ecoregional framework and to include off-site linkages, externalities, and policy and institutional themes and dimensions. The six identified themes needed to become an integral part of the ecoregional approach to research, rather than becoming a separate layer of research activities cutting across the ecoregional initiatives. TAC found no justification for supporting the overall coordinating mechanism proposed in the SWNM initiative.
259. It was pointed out that the themes identified in the SWMN initiative fitted within the framework that TAC had developed in the paper "Study of Strategic Resources Management Issues and Research Needs in the CGIAR", and that further development of the SWNM themes should be based on the outcome of the TAC Study. The Committee suggested that the next steps taken by the partners in the SWNM proposal might be: to start with one or two themes (i.e. nutrient replenishment and integrated management of soil fertility, and enhanced crop yields from acid soils) and corresponding consortia; and to develop an explicit strategy for linking to other research activities and actors inside and outside the System, and particularly to policy and public management research needs associated with the themes, within the framework of the relevant ecoregional approaches; and develop monitoring and evaluation procedures so that the System can learn from the development of the first trial consortia.
260. The proposal was also considered under Agenda Item 6 Systemwide and Ecoregional Initiatives, and a commentary was prepared within the discussion of that Agenda Item.
261. Dr. Uma Lele introduced the report of the task force on research studies for productivity and sustainability which was entitled 'Global Research on Environmental and Agricultural Nexus (GREAN) for the 21st Century'. The report contained a proposal for collaborative research among US universities, CGIAR centres and developing country institutions. The initiative would be funded by the USA at a level of 100 million dollars a year within a period of three to five years. The initiative's aim would be to generate a second green revolution to create livelihoods and food security for the poorest in the developing world on an environmentally sustainable basis. GREAN aims to deploy outstanding US science on a long-term, predictable basis in collaboration with CGIAR centres and NARS.
262. In the discussion that followed, TAC Members mentioned the part played by international NGOs such as the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO), International Council of Science Union (ICSU), and intergovernmental organizations such as FAO and UNESCO, in promoting science and technology in developing countries. Some members also mentioned the various efforts being made in international fora to canvass support for agricultural research in developing countries. The GREAN initiative was the first such initiative and made by a group of University scientists in the United States to attract support for additional resources to agricultural research collaboration with IARCs and NARS. A similar initiative was under discussion in the European Union with a preliminary presentation during the Lucerne Meeting.
263. Another member referred to the IUFRO's SPDC (Special Programme for Developing Countries) which was set up to directly link forest research scientists in developed and developing countries. Its activities were similar to those of the Nitrogen-fixing Association. Other bodies which had performed similar functions were the National Academy of Sciences (US), and the African Academy of Sciences (AAS).
264. A member spoke of the increasing competition between agricultural and biological sciences particularly in Latin American countries. Faculties of Agriculture were pushing downstream because they sold results of applied sciences to the private sector to augment their financial resources. On the other hand, the biological sciences were moving upstream.
265. Drawing a similar analogy between research in NARS and IARCs, a member believed that CG Centres should be more upstream. However, a disturbing trend was that the age of open science in agriculture seemed to be coming to an end in developed countries as universities went into contractual agreements with the private sector. A lot of new science was behind closed doors and subject to restrictions imposed by the international property rights. In this connection. Dr. Lele stressed the importance of the report under discussion which was targeted to American politicians so that they could invest more in public goods science. On the positive side was the increasing interest shown by some universities in the US in developing country research.
