The review process
The report of the Review of Systemwide Programmes with an Ecoregional Approach was discussed at TAC 77 in the presence of the Panel Chair, Dr. Ted Henzell. TAC wishes to thank the Panel for assuming an extremely challenging task, the first of its kind, to review such a broad array of Systemwide programme types. The findings are useful in their overview of the diversity of approaches used, as well as of the strengths and the areas requiring change.
The review does not cover all the ecoregional work done in the centres. Site visits were made to several Systemwide Programmes; others were included in the desk-study only. For instance, the On-farm Water Husbandry programme of WANA, under review at the time by the ICARDA EPMR, was included in the desk-study only. The review does not, therefore, cover every variation in approach and is not all-inclusive.
Lessons learned
What follows are TAC's perceptions of the major lessons to be drawn from the review. In reporting these findings, TAC will follow the Panel's abbreviation of "Systemwide programmes based on an ecoregional approach" with "ecoregional approach".
· The "approach" remains valid for the CGIAR and for many of its partners. TAC adds for emphasis that, for CGIAR Centres, the "approach" must explicitly take into account poverty and the human dimensions of problems.· Such research must be focused on major problems related to the sustainable improvement of productivity which are of international (but not necessarily global) relevance. Too, but sometimes overlooked, in problem identification, CGIAR research must offer promising solutions.
· Procedures for monitoring progress and performance indicators were found to be lacking in many programmes. Timetables and "sunset" clauses are also missing. These are deemed to be essential and should be determined at the start of every programme.
· Programme governance is not well defined in most programmes. The difficulties observed by the Panel in the operation, management and governance of the programmes are partly associated with the size and diversity of the collaborative research activities. There is a need for clear delineation of partner responsibility, for programme leadership and for resource contributions. Procedures for programme review should be put in place from the start. Accountability through centre management to the appropriate centre Boards and to the CGIAR through TAC should be made clear for both funding and for programme output.
· All such programmes have been successful in the development of strong alliances with a wide variety of partners. TAC notes, however, that the principle of subsidiarity should apply to these programmes. Moreover, TAC adds that while complementarities among centres make the System more efficient, the added benefits seem to decline as the number of centres increase beyond a few.
· Several programmes were thought to place excessive emphasis on methodologies as compared with research results that would themselves lead to impact. The balance should be carefully outlined in setting out desired results at the start of the projects. Some would claim, however, that the proper test of a methodology includes its promise for impact, so that even efforts to develop methodologies must include attention to impact.
· The original TAC characterization of ecoregions, based on zones of similar climate and natural vegetation has proven, in most cases, to be not useful in operation. Many programmes successfully use socioeconomic and agroecological information as suggested by the identified problem set; all have a defined geographical region. The term "region" or "regional" is a more descriptive term for some programmes and should be used, where appropriate, to reduce confusion in terminology. Given the various ways in which "ecoregional" is currently used, the Panel recommends that it be dropped as a technical term.
Beyond this counsel, the Panel notes confusions emerging from the characterization of the "approach" and from related terms applicable to research on natural resources. Perhaps the major consequence of the evident lack of precision and clarity has been a reluctance to fund such work, possibly because of uncertainty arising from the vocabularies being used.
· TAC suggests the following idiomatic changes: that "ecoregional research" and "ecoregional approaches" be dropped as technical terms, that INRM be applied to circumstances in which both biophysical and social/economic dimensions are combined (TAC notes that CGIAR usage included both in NRM but this seems not to be generally true), and that multi-centre rather than Systemwide be applied when two or more centres combine in INRM research.
Comments on specific recommendations
TAC notes that the report made thirteen recommendations, three on them on operational matters and the other ten on the future of the ecoregional approach. The Committee endorses the recommendations of the panel and offers the following suggestions and comments:
· Recommendation 1. Where the work on other Systemwide Programmes or of individual centres overlap that of an Ecoregional Programme and is relevant to the problem focus of that programme, the work should be integrated. Future reviews, whether EPMRs or Systemwide reviews, should include that interaction, and consider the consolidation of programmes with similar objectives.· Recommendations 2-3. The CGIAR Secretariat has agreed to review the existing rules to Centres for accounting for all financial and other resources and for the allocation of costs between co-ordination and R&D activities, identify areas where clarification is needed, and develop guidelines where there are gaps. The financial estimates for Systemwide Programmes are part of the CGIAR budget matrices. The Secretariat will look into ways by which the estimates for Systemwide INRM activities could be more clearly presented.
· Recommendation 7. The extent of "mainstreaming" of an INRM "approach" will depend on each centre's mandate. The broad range of methodologies, which will be used with different approaches, limits the appropriate generalization to basic concepts. Future centre and Systemwide Programme reviews will include that assessment. TAC believes that "sunset" reviews should be further considered and discussed before becoming a general method of operation.
· Recommendations 8. TAC agrees that a conceptual framework for integrated programmes combining sustainable production systems with INRM and having socioeconomic dimensions and a regional scale is essential for appropriate programme planning and management. Such a framework should lay out the elements to be included, and those to be specifically excluded, depending on the degree of holism necessary in the programme. The framework could be modified as elements are added or deleted during the course of the work. TAC is now working with the CDC on a more coherent framework. The process for its articulation is highly participatory, with the intent that there will be broad consensus and buy-in on the basic principles by every centre.
· Recommendation 9. TAC notes that poverty and human aspects are not sufficiently covered in the programmes. Perhaps this is because the programmes reviewed have given more explicit consideration to natural resources than to poverty. TAC suggests that ways for balancing these concerns should include stronger focus on poverty variables and on "users" role in the management of natural resources.
· Recommendations 10. A requirement and conditions for scaling within benchmark sites and of extrapolation from them is being built into the evolving framework for INRM. TAC believes that recent technological developments in the area of computer modelling coupled with those in remote sensing and GIS, offer excellent opportunities for efficient extrapolation of research results in the area of ecoregional research. Such advances are critical for the development of international public goods by the CGIAR Centres in the area of NRM, an issue of substantial difficulty in the past. TAC anticipates the need for expert assistance with selected aspects of more effective INRM work.
· Recommendation 11. TAC will continue to work with the CDC/CSE to suggest avenues for exchange of information. Electronic means will most likely form the backbone of that effort. It will have to occur around several scientific focal areas of the INRM research.
· Recommendation 13. While the anticipated framework with its guideline is not intended to be a screening mechanism for Systemwide INRM programmes, TAC agrees that in light of the need for a clear problem/opportunity focus, some of the more broadly-constituted ecoregional programmes should be more sharply focused, discontinued, or be taken into the portfolio of a centre. It will not be possible to accomplish this by March 2000 as recommended by the review, but a more focused review of some of the existing programmes will be possible before the 2002 cycle within the concepts of the new framework. That process can begin with the March 2000 TAC 78.
Dr. Ted Henzell
182 Dewar Terrace
Corinda
Queensland 4075
AUSTRALIA
31st August 1999
Dr. Donald L. Winkelmann
Chair
Technical Advisory Committee
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
355 East Palace Avenue
Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA.
Dear Dr. Winkelmann,
I am pleased to submit to you the Report of the Panel that conducted the Review of Systemwide Programmes with an Ecoregional Approach.
Throughout, the Panel gathered strong support for continued application of the basic principles of the ecoregional approach and for natural resources management (NRM) being a high priority for the CGIAR. There have been very useful achievements already by the longer-established ecoregional programmes, for example in characterizing production environments and initiating selected strategic research. Excellent progress has been made by the collaborative research consortia in developing partnerships with NARS.
While the original vision may not have been fully realized yet, these findings provide a very sound basis for the future and indicate where changes will be necessary, at Centre and at System level. They also gave the Panel confidence to develop a set of positive recommendations and suggestions on how to implement future NRM research effectively in the CGIAR, on specific aspects of the research, and on strengthening collaboration.
As is evident from the above paragraphs, the Panel looked beyond the current performance of the programmes to the intentions of the CGIAR when it adopted the ecoregional approach in 1990, with an external environment of international agricultural research markedly different from that of today. Also, the Panel was aware of the fact that this Review took place at a time of change and reflection in the CGIAR.
A major aim of the Review was to see what could be learned from the experience of the past five years. One major lesson seemed to be that the ecoregional approach had been widely misunderstood. The Panel's advice on that point is not to spend too much time on re-definitions but to be much more precise in future about the researchable problems of sustainable natural resources management that are likely to be of greatest importance in attaining the CGIAR's goals.
The Review turned out to be a challenging task, being the first of its kind since the initiation of systemwide programmes, except for the Review of the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme. The latter provided only partial guidance on how to review systemwide programmes. I would like to mention just three aspects of the process which was followed by this Review.
Firstly, the preliminary desk study, which included data from a survey of major stakeholders, proved very useful as a basis for discussion during the field visits. It identified virtually all the major issues that emerged during the entire Review. The selective field visits were essential as a reality check. Quite detailed reports of each of the three visits are attached. The Panel records its special thanks to the coordinators who arranged the visits and helped check the visit reports.
Secondly, the main phase of the Review was carried out at ISNAR and the Panel Chair was based there for several weeks before that. The Director General, Dr. Stein Bie, and the people of ISNAR provided invaluable assistance, not least by their willingness to join in discussion as the Review progressed. Melina Tensen made sure that the Panel received excellent support throughout the whole process.
Thirdly, this Review serves as another step in testing the value of electronic communication in conducting CGIAR reviews. The Panel met as a group for only six working days, and the rest was done by E-mail. Subsequently, the Secretariat took up the challenge of compiling the report by reconciling a series of revisions coming from different Panel members. An advanced draft was circulated for comment to Centre Directors, TAC Members and some others with special knowledge of the ecoregional approach. This proved very instructive, and I hope we have done justice to their many constructive suggestions.
I wish to thank Panel members Derek Byerlee and Nicolas Mateo for their invaluable contributions. The fact that they had both worked in CGIAR Centres and had been associated with the initial stages of ecoregional programmes provided additional insights. The expertise that the other distinguished panelists contributed to the field visits is gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks are due also to Shellemiah Keya who acted as Panel Secretary to the Review and to Ekkehard Kuerschner who was consultant to the TAC Secretariat for the Review. The teamwork was excellent throughout.
Finally, all Panel member join me in expressing appreciation for the opportunity to be part of the Review Panel. We hope that the Report will be useful to TAC and the CGIAR as a whole. In compiling this Report, the Panel tried hard to retain the vision that generated so much interest when the ecoregional approach was first mooted, while being realistic about what might be feasible with the resources available to the CGIAR and its partners in the next few years. We trust that we have succeeded.
Yours sincerely,Ted Henzell
Chair, Review Panel
