ICRAF External Review
CIMMYT Interim External Review
IRRI External Review
WARDA External Review
Inter-Centre Review of Rice
Ecoregional Approach to Research in the CGIAR
Priorities and Strategies for Livestock Research in the CGIAR
Task Force on Banana and Plantain
Centres' Medium-Term Plan Proposals for 1994-1998
Progress Report on CIFOR
Inter-Centre Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources
ECART
Future Reviews
Future Meetings
At TAC 60, the Committee considered the EPMRs of ICRAF, IRRI and WARDA, the Interim External Review of CIMMYT, the Inter-Centre Review of Rice, and the MTPs of 10 centres. TAC also deliberated on the CGIAR strategies for rice, livestock, banana and plantain, and the ecoregional approach to research in the system. In addition, the Committee received progress reports from CIFOR and the Inter-Centre Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources, and was informed of developments in the CGIAR, FAO and ECART (the European Consortium for Agricultural Research in the Tropics).
ICRAF's EPMR Report was presented by Dr. Bernard Tinker, Chair of the Review Panel. The Panel complimented the Board and management for the rapid progress made in orienting ICRAF towards conducting more strategic research, but advised against too rapid an expansion, which could endanger scientific quality at the Centre. The Panel felt that there was a need to improve the monitoring and evaluation of programmes and priority-setting procedures.
TAC was in general agreement with the recommendations of the Panel, and considered their report to be forward looking, balanced and positive. The Committee cautioned ICRAF against hasty staff recruitment in a bid for a rapid implementation of its programmes. TAC noted the relative lack of reliable agroforestry technologies and advised ICRAF to devise techniques and experimental designs to assess tree traits of particular interest to agroforestry. The Committee commended ICRAF for its various ecoregional initiatives and noted the initial steps towards ensuring early collaboration with CIFOR.
CIMMYT underwent an experimental interim review, the first commissioned by TAC in an effort to appraise alternative mechanisms for assessing centres' work. The review was conducted by a small team composed of 2 members and 2 resource persons who spent 10 days at CIMMYT looking at major changes in strategic direction, achievements and impact since the 1988 reviews.
The review report was presented by the Panel Chair, Sir Ralph Riley, who reported that CIMMYT's strategic plan had remained unchanged, but the research orientation had shifted, and this had resulted in even greater achievements in research and impact. The Panel had noted with concern the high proportion of resources allocated to maintenance breeding in the bread wheat programme, and had recommended that the Applied Molecular Biology Laboratory should be accorded the status of a programme, and that CIMMYT should make its commitment to the creation of a natural resources research (NRR) unit as soon as possible.
TAC endorsed the Panel's concerns about maintenance breeding of bread wheat and the need to give greater visibility to natural resources research and biotechnology. However, the Committee felt that decisions on structural options should be left to the Board and management of CIMMYT. TAC and CIMMYT considered the interim review mechanism to have been very useful, and urged the CGIAR to postpone the next regular EPMR of the Centre to 1998, unless there were major developments at CIMMYT which made an earlier review necessary.
The report of the fourth EPMR of IRRI was presented by Mr. David Bell, Chair of the Review Panel, who emphasized the major emerging issues in rice research, including the stagnant yield ceiling and declining factor productivity. The Panel felt that, without IRRI's involvement and leadership in rice research, these problems would not be addressed, especially since rice was a developing-country crop. Mr. Bell reported that IRRI had found renewed vigour, and was well on the way to a major programme and management transformation. The programmes still focused on favourable environments and germplasm improvement, but more attention was being given to equity and environmental concerns. A new matrix management system had been introduced, with resources allocated to goal-oriented programmes based on rice ecosystems.
TAC endorsed in general the recommendations of the Panel. The Committee was impressed by the scope and extent of IRRI's transformation, and commended the Institute for the clear rationale behind the directional changes it had implemented. TAC also noted that IRRI had developed effective mechanisms for strengthening national research systems.
The report of the third EPMR of WARDA was introduced by the Panel Chair, Mr. Declan Walton, who stated that WARDA had undergone a remarkable and successful transformation during the past 5 years. The Panel had found WARDA to be depoliticized and well managed, with a soundly-designed programme of high scientific quality. It also had innovative mechanisms for working with NARS, based on task forces and working groups.
The Panel had felt that rice research in West Africa deserved special treatment by the CGIAR for several reasons: the importance of rice to many of the rural and urban poor; the increasing weakness of NARS; and the importance of sustainability issues. The Panel concluded that alternative arrangements for the CGIAR efforts on rice research in West Africa might result in severe penalties at only marginal cost savings.
The Committee endorsed in general the views of the Panel, and congratulated WARDA on the successful transformation of the Centre. The Committee concurred with the Panel's view that WARDA had already been reduced to critical mass and should promote the concept of an open centre to achieve a viable programme.
The report of the Inter-Centre Review of Rice was presented by the Panel Chair, Professor Grant Scobie. TAC commended the Panel for a thought-provoking and well-reasoned review of CGIAR investments in rice research. The report was analytical, clear, and highlighted the major issues currently faced by the CGIAR in developing priorities and strategies for rice research.
In a lengthy and lively discussion, TAC considered the situation of rice research in West Africa and the need for greater emphasis on research on the sustainability of rice-based cropping systems. TAC did not prepare a specific commentary on the review, but incorporated its comments on the report in a draft strategy statement on rice research in the CGIAR.
TAC considered the report of the TAC/Centre Directors' Working Group on the Ecoregional Approach to Research in the CGIAR, which it felt provided valuable insights into the topic. TAC accepted the main findings of the report and recognized the progress made by the Working Group in sorting out ideas and principles for implementing the ecoregional approach. These would provide the basis for wider discussions with national programme leaders and the CGIAR, so that the broader strategic issues could be developed and clarified. TAC considered that there needed to be an orderly evolution towards greater coherence and rationalization of the ecoregional concept in the CGIAR.
In its commentary on the report, TAC provided 4 options for implementing the ecoregional approach in the system; the ad hoc model, the coordinated inter-centre model, the programme-funded model and the systemwide model. The Committee emphasized that periodic monitoring of progress would be of the utmost importance for any of the options.
TAC considered the revised version of its draft paper 'Priorities and Strategies for Livestock Research in the CGIAR' and interacted with Dr. John Davies, Chair of the CGIAR Working Group on Livestock Research. In a lively exchange, TAC discussed a number of institutional options for the organization of livestock research in the CGIAR. Four options were presented in the TAC paper: the status quo; the development of mechanisms for inter-centre collaboration; a merger of ILCA and ILRAD; and the establishment of a new global centre for livestock research, in which the physical and human resources of ILCA and ILRAD would be integrated. TAC expressed a strong preference for the latter option.
Dr. Henri Carsalade presented the report of the CGIAR Task Force on Banana and Plantain. After analysing production trends and the capacity for banana and plantain research within and outside the CGIAR, the Task Force had recommended that the current level of CGIAR funding could best be spent through a global Musa germplasm improvement consortium. The consortium would be guided by a scientific advisory committee, which would work with TAC to ensure coherence of the Musa research effort. Within the consortium, the Task Force recommended that INIBAP, IITA and IBPGR should focus their activities on Musa germplasm improvement and on information, documentation and training.
TAC commended the Task Force for its work, but expressed concern about the idea of setting up a scientific advisory committee and a donor support group. The Committee asked for clarification of INIBAP's role in the proposed consortium and for details of the pros and cons of the institutional options considered by the Task Force.
IBPGR
ICARDA
ICLARM
ICRAF
IFPRI
ILCA
ILRAD
INIBAP
IRRI
WARDA
TAC considered the medium-term plan (MTP) proposals of 10 centres: IBPGR, ICARDA, ICLARM, ICRAF, IFPRI, ILCA, ILRAD, INIBAP, IRRI and WARDA, and produced tentative interim commentaries on each. The main points of the presentations and discussions are summarized below.
IBPGR's MTP proposals were based on 4 strategic objectives: assistance to national programmes; strengthening international collaboration; improving strategies and technologies for conservation; and providing an international information service. IBPGR proposed to implement its programme through a structure of 5 regional (including Europe) and 3 thematic groups. A detailed breakdown of resources was presented by thematic groups and regions, and by CGIAR category of activity, at a funding level of 110% of the base resource envelope. The complementary budget would be approximately 50% of the core budget. Proposals were presented for additional work on forest genetic resources, crops of ecoregional importance and coconuts.
TAC noted that the proposals were clear and responded well to the recommendations of the last external review. TAC also noted IBPGR's proposals for activities in Europe. Elaboration was requested on IBPGR's role in forestry, and the implications of the additional proposals at the base resource envelope. IBPGR was asked to provide TAC with details of its proposed socioeconomics and policy research as soon as they became available.
ICARDA's proposals were presented at the base resource envelope (US$17.6 million); and the 110% scenario ($19.4 million). The MTP proposals were built on a project-budgeting approach, based on a matrix of projects defined by CGIAR activities within ICARDA programmes. A total of 23 projects was proposed for the MTP period: 3 in conservation and management of natural resources; 9 in germplasm enhancement and breeding; 6 in production systems development and management; 3 in socioeconomics, public policy and public management; and 2 in institution building.
TAC considered that ICARDA's proposals were well written, and that the assessment of internal priorities was transparent and participatory. The Committee requested further clarification on ICARDA's classification of core and complementary activities and on the projected increase in irrigation research, with respect to IIMI. TAC also asked for more information on the implications of staff cuts, the reduction of World Bank contributions, in-trust and special-project funds, and the expansion of ICARDA's geographical focus to include the Central Asian Republics of the Commonwealth of Independent States. The Committee noted ICARDA's concurrence with TAC's recommendations for phasing out its work on lentil breeding, and would welcome an opportunity to discuss the Centre's study of the payoffs from lentil research.
In its MTP, ICLARM proposed 3 major research programmes concerning coastal, coral reef and inland aquatic resource systems. These would be supported by the National Research Support Programme and the Information Division. The proposals were formulated at a level of funding of $10.7 million (compared to a base resource envelope of $4.8 million, which ICLARM reasoned that TAC had under-estimated). Approximately 35% of resources was allocated to resource conservation and management, 25% to fish productivity, 20% to social sciences, and 20% to institution building.
TAC considered ICLARM's MTP to be very ambitious but to reflect the implementation of its strategic plan, which was developed at the time of its admission into the CGIAR. The Committee noted that the basic proposal would require resources at a level of 224% of the base resource envelope, and requested more definite, board-approved information on ICLARM's programmes at 90, 100 and 110% of the base resource envelope. TAC also expressed concern about the rapid rates of growth which were proposed, and requested additional information on the proposed collaboration with WARDA and IITA in the West African inland valleys, on the prospects for increased core funding for CGIAR fisheries research, and on ICLARM's financial and fund-raising activities.
ICRAF proposed 4 research programmes on: characterization and impact; multipurpose-tree improvement; component interactions; and systems improvement, and 3 training and information programmes. The Centre would also continue its involvement in the initiatives on the central and East African highlands and on alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture. Details of the plan were given at 110 and 125% of the resource envelope ($15.6 million) and verbal information was provided on the implications of funding at 90% of the resource envelope. Alternative scenarios were proposed at the base envelope, in which, either research in one agroecological zone and one education project would be phased out, or the core projects financed by unrestricted funds would be reduced.
TAC commended ICRAF for a well-written MTP. Clarification was sought on the Centre's definition of core and complementary activities, and the division between restricted and unrestricted funds. TAC also asked for more details on ICRAF's role in the alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture initiative. The Committee was concerned about ICRAF's role in tree improvement, and about the proposal for continued expansion at ICRAF at a time when there was a need to build depth and quality into the Centre's work. TAC emphasized the need to validate agroforestry technologies before they were disseminated, and stressed the importance of constructive cooperation between ICRAF and CIFOR.
IFPRI's MTP reflected the increasing emphasis given by the Institute to environmental and natural resources management issues. The major areas of work would be: accelerated growth and transformation in agriculture; natural resources management policies; market economic reforms and trade policy; and household food security and nutrition. The MTP would be implemented through 17 integrated multicountry programmes, carried out by 5 divisions. A new outreach division was also proposed. IFPRI presented its MTP at the level of the base resource envelope ($8.6 million), and provided programme scenarios at 90 and 110% of the base envelope. The core programme would account for 90% of the Institute's activities, but only approximately 50% of this would be supported by CGIAR core funding.
TAC considered IFPRI's MTP to be coherent, well argued and transparent. The Committee did not consider IFPRI's dependence on complementary funding to be imprudent. The Committee discussed the rapid expansion of policy research activities in the CGIAR, and recognized that IFPRI could only engage in effective collaboration on proposals that fit its own priorities. IFPRI was asked to provide more information on its collaboration with other centres, especially in natural resources management. TAC will revisit this issue at TAC 61 in June.
ILCA's MTP focused on the development of improved and sustainable milk and meat production in smallholder crop-livestock systems in various agroecological zones of sub-Saharan Africa. Priorities had been set according to relevance, researchability, the special advantage of the Centre, potential for partnership, potential for impact, and sustainability. ILCA's programmes would be delineated within 7 themes: mixed crop-livestock systems; market-oriented smallholder dairying; conservation of biodiversity; biological efficiency of livestock; livestock production under trypanosomiasis risk; livestock and resource management policy; and strengthening national research capacities.
Financial tables were presented for a core programme of $17 million (a supplemented base envelope of $14 million plus $3 million) and at 110% of this level.
TAC felt that, while ILCA's programme had improved in response to recommendations of the 1992 EPMR, the MTP proposals were fairly general, and that the criteria for setting internal priorities across programmes, species, commodities, activities and agroecological zones were not always clear. Clarification was sought on the priority setting among projects within programme themes, and the implications of the priority setting for the balance of effort by programme theme and for ILCA's ecoregional role. ILCA was also asked to clarify the programmatic implications of its global and ecoregional perspectives; the mechanisms for extending its crop-related research capacity outside sub-Saharan Africa; the rationale for allocating 25% of its research effort to work which had applications outside sub-Saharan Africa; and the nature of collaboration with other actors in livestock research. TAC also asked for elaboration on how ILCA's proposed activities in the Ethiopian highlands related to ICRAF's East and central African highlands initiative. The Committee suggested that ILCA should issue impact statements which incorporated milestones by which to assess progress. ILCA was asked to provide proposals at the base envelope ($14 million), and to present its budget in constant 1992 US dollars, with information on in-trust funds.
ILRAD's proposed research agenda for 1994-98 encompassed work in 5 programmes: tick-home diseases; trypanosomiasis; ruminant genetics; socioeconomics and environmental impact; and cooperative programmes, training and information. The MTP proposals were presented at 3 funding scenarios: Level 1, requiring $12.6 million in core resources would enable ILRAD to maintain its present scope of activities. Level 2, corresponding to the supplemented resource envelope of $11.1 million, would give ILRAD 8 senior staff years (SSY) per year less than in Level 1. The third level, the 'strategic' scenario, would require $13.9 million in core funds to support 63 SSY per year and allow ILRAD to implement its strategic plan in full. Supplementary information was also provided on the programmatic implications of operating at the base resource envelope of $9.1 million.
TAC considered ILRAD's MTP proposals to be well argued and transparent. The Committee asked for clarification on the implications of an expanded mandate for ILRAD's theileriosis and trypanosomiasis work, the programmatic implications of operating at a lower level of funding, and on ILRAD's policy for the safe release of genetically-modified organisms. ILRAD was also asked to present its total operating costs in constant 1992 US dollars.
In its draft MTP, INIBAP proposed 3 major programmes: Programme I, Musa Germplasm Conservation, Management and Improvement; Programme II, Regional Research and Training; and Programme III, Information and Communications. The proposals did not take into account the recommendations of the CGIAR Task Force on Banana and Plantain, since these had not been available when the MTP was being drafted.
Proposals were presented for the 'Full Programme' requiring $4.6 million, and at 100 and 110% of the base resource envelope of $2.1 million.
The Committee considered that INIBAP's highest priorities were in germplasm improvement and information services. The Committee asked for an elaboration of INIBAP's perception of its role and advantages in addressing regionally-specific constraints to banana and plantain production. INIBAP was also asked to clarify its plans for maintaining scientific quality at the base resource envelope, its definition of critical mass, the rationale for allocating 21% of its resources to regional research and training, and the justification for the planned construction of a permanent building. The Committee cautioned against the budget deficit which was projected in the 110% scenario and the full programme. TAC noted that INIBAP might have to revise its MTP, pending the CGIAR's decision on the recommendations of the Task Force on Banana and Plantain.
IRRI's proposals were formulated at the base resource envelope of $25.8 million. Major rice ecosystem programmes were proposed in irrigated, rainfed-lowland, upland, flood-prone rice, with a cross-ecosystem programme, as well as other programmes on germplasm conservation, dissemination and evaluation, a crop and resource management network, information and knowledge exchange, training, and national research services. In addition, IRRI proposed a set of mega projects, research consortia, and 'new frontier projects'. Overall, 27.5% of resources would be allocated to conservation and management of natural resources, 33.8% to germplasm enhancement and breeding, 15.2% to production systems development and management, 8% to socioeconomics, public policy and public management research, and 15.5% to institution building.
TAC considered IRRI's MTP to be well argued, transparent, coherent and in accordance with the guidelines for the preparation of MTPs. The Committee also considered that the proposed mega projects and research consortia for the rainfed lowland and upland ecosystems were of a high priority for IRRI and for global rice research, and that, wherever possible, these should be fully integrated into the Centre's core research programme. TAC requested additional information on opportunities in the short to medium term for handing over a larger share of responsibilities to strong national programmes of the region, on IRRI's global role and activities, and on the multicomodity perspective of its proposed upland farming systems consortium.
WARDA's MTP proposed the expansion of research activities in its Continuum and Sahel Programmes, and the strengthening of networking activities in the Mangrove Swamp Programme. Operating as an 'open centre', WARDA would provide the framework for collaboration on an integrated regional rice research programme. In the continuum, WARDA's programme would address a diverse range of crops, especially in the inland valley ecosystem. In the Sahel, research would contribute to the long-term strategy of crop diversification. Financial tables were presented at 100, 110 and 130% of the base resource envelope of $5.8 million.
TAC noted that WARDA's MTP was well structured, and showed clearly-defined priorities. It was noted that WARDA's priorities in the continuum and Sahel were based on the needs for increased productivity and sustainability of the cropping systems, rather than just for rice. TAC requested additional information on the future of INGER, the implementation of the open centre concept, effective partnerships with IITA and other advanced institutions, and the allocation of resources with respect to the conservation and management of natural resources.
Mr. Jeffrey Sayer, Director General, gave a progress report on developments at CIFOR. The Centre had signed sponsorship agreements with Sweden, Switzerland and Australia, and hoped to sign a host country agreement with Indonesia in May, when CIFOR would be officially inaugurated. The Centre was currently developing its MTP, which would be presented to the CGIAR at MTM'93. A strategic plan would be developed later in the year.
Dr. Geoffrey Hawtin, Director of IBPGR, reported on the fourth meeting of the Inter-Centre Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources, held in February at ILCA. The meeting was attended by representatives from FAO and all the CGIAR centres with genebanks or significant plant genetic resources (PGR). The Working Group had discussed the standardization of genebank procedures, safety duplication of centre collections, the status of the Svalbard International Seedbank, intellectual property rights, coordination with FAO, the CGIAR strategy on PGR, and post-UNCED issues.
Dr. Anthony Beattie, Director of the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) of the UK, and Dr. Henri Carsalade, Director General of the International Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Research for Development (CIRAD) of France, outlined the objectives, activities and mode of operation of the European Consortium for Agricultural Research in the Tropics (ECART), and emphasized the similarity of interests and skills between the consortium and the CGIAR.
ECART is comprised of CIRAD, NRI, IICT (Tropical Research Institute) of Portugal, and KIT (Royal Tropical Institute) of the Netherlands.
TAC noted that the initial phase of the third EPMR of ICARDA was held at the Centre's headquarters in Aleppo, Syria, during 23-29 January 1993, and was followed by field visits in Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco. The main phase of the review would be conducted from 23 April to 9 May 1993. The Panel's report would be considered at TAC 61 in June 1993, and by the CGIAR at ICW'93.
The first EPMR of IIMI was planned for late March or early April 1994, with an initial phase from 29 November to 4 December 1993. The review would be conducted by a panel of 4 persons including the Chair, and supported by consultants as appropriate. A panel profile had been developed and a Panel Chair was being sought. The review report would be considered at TAC 64 in June 1994, and by the CGIAR at ICW'94.
Planning of the fourth EPMRs of CIAT and CIP had begun, in consultation with the Centres. The main phases of the reviews were planned for late 1994 or early 1995. The reviews would be conducted by small panels, supported by consultants as appropriate. A list of potential chairs for each review would be considered at TAC 61.
TAC noted that the Inter-Secretariat Working Group would take on responsibilities concerning: the assessment of scientific quality and impact in reviews; the efficiency of the review process; the roles of panel chairs, members and resource persons; and terms of reference for review panels. The Working Group would report back to TAC in March 1994.
The following dates and venues were considered and approved:
|
TAC 61 |
28 June - 6 July 1993 |
IIMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka |
|
TAC 62 |
18-23 October 1993 |
IFPRI, Washington DC, USA |
|
TAC 63 |
21-27 March 1994 |
FAO, Rome, Italy |
|
TAC 64 |
20-26 June 1994 |
WARDA, Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire |
|
TAC 65 |
17-22 October 1994 |
IFPRI, Washington DC, USA |
