1. Research on Agricultural Research Systems
2. Emerging Regional Groupings
3. Service vs Research
4. Gender Issues
5. Role of the CGIAR within the Global Research System
51. In spite of several decades of institution-strengthening support from the CGIAR Centres, and a much larger effort by the NARS themselves, with large amounts of investments by bilateral and multilateral donors, NARS, in general remain lamentably weak. More attention is urgently needed to find out why, and to identify what must be done to overcome the most intractable problems. The summary of indicators of strength and weakness in Tables 2-4, and para 32, above, highlight many of the problems. But this analysis is descriptive and qualitative. What is needed is to apply the best available minds in areas such as political, social and management science, from both within and outside the CGIAR, to address these issues and propose remedies. There is now a wealth of information on the performance of many institution-development projects that needs to be studied to synthesise this knowledge and devise strategies for the development of strong, sustainable national agricultural research systems.
52. Perhaps one of the most important new items on the development agenda today is the need to develop indicators for assessing institutional development requirements, and evaluating whether different types of interventions have achieved results. In the past, many institutional development programmes in the areas of research, education and extension were supply led. The problem was diagnosed in one way or another; then inputs such as technical advisors, training and buildings, and organizational recommendations (sometimes blueprints from elsewhere) were provided. Sometimes there were institutional evaluations, but often these were not undertaken or were audits of activities. Sometimes promoters of different interventions would blame "failure" on "other factors". On other occasions, they might claim to have played a major role when in fact their contribution was minor. Today, by contrast, there is much interest on the part of development agencies in finding assessment criteria, comparing alternative institutional interventions, and discussing the cost effectiveness of alternatives.
53. However, the subject is a Pandora's box. In a recent special edition of Public Administration and Development edited by Norton and Elliott, Arthur Goldsmith persuasively sums up some of the dilemmas of institutional assessment and evaluation under three headings. 1) Definitional Problems: "defining and finding measures of institutional development is controversial and tricky." 2) Attribution Problem: "When many variables affect a process (like institutional development), it is arbitrary to quantify the effect of any one variable. Since institutional development activities are often funded by more than one source, to try to ascribe credit or blame for the consequences is vain." It is well known that attribution issues make the results of studies to estimate economic returns to agricultural research investments particularly difficult to interpret. Finally, 3) Temporal Problems are particularly difficult to address, as the time period required to judge the outcomes of institutional strengthening interventions is generally longer than with other development projects (Goldsmith, 1993; 197).
54. What makes such exercises even more difficult is the reality that different stakeholders in an institutional development project have different interests in the outcomes of the assessment and/or evaluation. The power of different interest groups to dominate the agenda determines how indicators are defined, measured and used. Some of these issues have been illustrated in the case of assessing farming systems research institutions (Biggs and Farrington, 1989).
55. In the past, institutional indicators have frequently concentrated on quantitative input information, such as numbers of scientists of different types, number of research stations, amounts of equipment, and so forth. Alternatively, they have looked at output indicators, such as the number of new varieties released, area under new varieties, number of publications. However, it is now increasingly recognized that measuring 'inputs and outputs" in this way tells us little about the research capability in a particular subject or location. Increasingly, researchers are trying to understand research processes, and to identify indicators that reflect such things as: 1) research sustainability (including the ability of a research group or organization to seek and maintain sources of funding and political support); 2) an ability to maintain relevance to poverty reduction issues; 3) flexibility, and the capacity to respond effectively to changing external or internal information (Brinkerhoff, 1991). While these are difficult issues to address, there is now more recognition that research is needed in this area (TAC, 1994; 145).
56. Such research, as well as the type of analysis described in tables 2-4 and para 32, above, will reveal that "large" NARS are not necessarily "strong" NARS. Large NARS may have many scientists with higher degrees, and "strong" capabilities in many field, but experience other constraints imposed by their very size, such as poor inter-institutional and intra-institutional communication and collaboration. Thus, efforts to strengthen them will require a different set of interventions to rationalize them in order to produce greater effectiveness and efficiency.
57. A positive development on the scene of NARS development is the emergence of a range of regional groupings in agricultural research, especially in Africa and Latin America. In Africa, four important regional associations are being developed: SACAR (Southern Africa), ASARECA (Eastern and Central Africa), CORAF (Sahelian zone) and INSAH (Western Africa). In Latin America, there are PROCISUR (Southern South America), PROCIANDINO (Andean countries of South America), PROCICENTRAL (Central America), PROCITROPICOS (Tropical belt of South America) and CARDI (Caribbean islands). These go well beyond the collaborative regional research networks that have been fostered by the CGIAR Centres, which were chiefly commodity-based.
These regional groupings can play a key role in coordination of research and division of labour. In addition, the regional fora being strengthened as part of the Action Plan for greater involvement of NARS in the renewed CGIAR are important actors. All of these can serve as key points of contact for coordinating the activities of CGIAR Centres in the respective regions and influencing the research and institution-strengthening agendas of the Centres. It is vitally important that the regional groupings develop into agile, effective coordination agents. It must also be noted that these regional associations should not be seen as substitute for NARS and that their effectiveness is conditional on the strength of its member NARS. Thus, in the future, various agencies will be concerned not only with the strengthening of NARS, but also of "RARS", which are natural partners for the Centres' ecoregional activities, and donor support to RARS should not overshadow support to the individual NARS in such groupings.
58. The regional groupings could be particularly important for smaller countries. Small NARS do not have the resources to develop sufficient depth in agricultural research, especially in strategic research, to address their production constraints. In RARS made up of smaller NARS, a division of labour, in which countries that are strong in a given area of research can take up such research in service of the entire region, can be achieved for greater efficiency and effectiveness. In RARS in which one country has a stronger NARI, it can also serve as a vehicle for institutional strengthening of the other NARS in the region.
59. This is in reality two separate issues. One relates to the relative emphasis and allocation of resources in the Centres to research as opposed to services (chiefly institutional development and technical assistance). The CGIAR and the TAC have always been concerned that, important as the latter may be, they do not divert the Centres from their principal research function. This was one of the reasons for the creation of ISNAR. Yet, repeated surveys of the views of NARS in relation to external reviews of the Centres, and the 1984 Stripe Review on Training, NARS leaders have indicated that they value these services, particularly training, very highly. Clearly the Centres have a strong comparative advantage in certain types of training and information services, owing to the specialized scientists and libraries they possess. They should continue to provide such services, but only in those areas in which they can do so better than others. As discussed above, the Centres have dynamically evolved the nature of these services in response to changing circumstances, and we have no reason to question the current balance. The advocacy activities of the Centres have broadened from promoting more funding for research in general and for research on specific commodities. In addition to these traditional roles, some of the Centres should continue the more recent trends to also influence public policies in areas such as, soil and water use and conservation, genetic diversity and conservation, and forestry policy issues.
60. The other issue relates to the balance between services and research in the specific area of institutional development. This is chiefly an ISNAR issue, and is addressed under that topic, below.
61. The important role women play in basic food production and nutrition of family members, is widely recognized. With poverty alleviation specifically listed as a goal of the CGIAR in the "Lucerne Action Program", this role is of special importance, as in many situations it is women who are some of the most vulnerable groups in society. The Centres have contributed substantially towards increasing gender sensitivity in NARS through the large numbers of women scientists they have trained over the years, and the various publications on the role of women in agriculture that the Centres have published for their respective regions. Probably the most important contribution the CGIAR has made in this area, however, has been the strong emphasis given to the introduction of a user perspective in agricultural research by the Centres. This has been a strong component of the development of participative, on-farm diagnostic and research methodologies and the training of NARS scientists in such methods. As Centres move towards training of trainers, this emphasis should continue in the future. Since women also play a key role in generating effective, sustainable farming methods, gender issues should also be addressed in the developing eco-regional initiatives.
62. As noted above, the CGIAR represents only three to four percent of the total agricultural research efforts. The proportion of its resources devoted to institutional development and the broader areas of scientific research is no doubt even smaller. In order to play its catalytic role most effectively, it essential that the CGIAR continues to expand its horizons to link with other institutions involved in related activities. The opportunities for doing so, both for the CGIAR Centres and the NARS, have been vastly improved by the rapidly developing global information networks, through which the existence of national boundaries and distinctions between developed and developing countries are progressively blurred. A discussion paper, on the subject of "Linking with Other Institutions" is appended as Annex G.
63. How can the limited resources of the CGIAR be used to best advantage to improve the effectiveness of NARS? Firstly, such efforts should be demand-driven; i.e. the Centres should not engage in institution-strengthening activities merely because they have something to offer, but rather because there is a felt need on the part of the NARS for such services. Secondly, activities should be focused on the most important gaps that have been identified in relation to NARS weaknesses and the roles others are playing in helping to overcome them. ISNAR is the obvious institution to help NARS in identifying the most important needs, and has been doing so. "Gaps" should be defined as those areas of important needs that are not adequately being serviced by others outside the CGIAR. But the Centres cannot fill all gaps; instead they should concentrate on services to fill those gaps for which they have a clear comparative advantage. They clearly have such an advantage for training in specialized research areas related to their specific mandates. Such advantages are less clear in areas such as communications. Only ISNAR has a comparative advantage in research and advice on management and organization of agricultural research. The fact that the CGIAR Centres have been devoting a substantial portion of their resources to institutional development is a clear indication that they and their NARS partners have considered this of great importance, and that they have identified gaps that they feel should be filled. They must continue to do so; but resource constraints dictate, and better communication with the broader global research system makes possible, more effective collaboration. "Process" projects, which are concerned with institutional development issues, will help to identify how this can be facilitated. Such projects have been reviewed by Hulme (1995) and Brinkerhoff (1991).
1. Future Directions for ISNAR
2. Emerging Priorities for Other Centres
3. Inter-Centre Collaboration
4. Centre Responses to Questionnaire
5. Allocation of Resources to Institution Strengthening
6. Concluding Remarks
64. This is not an external review of ISNAR. It is not the remit of this study, nor has the panel had sufficient time to garner the intimate knowledge of ISNAR's activities to judge its effectiveness nor recommend in detail on its future programmes. That will be the responsibility of the forthcoming EPMR of ISNAR. Nonetheless, ISNAR is the premier Centre in the CGIAR System in relation to the strengthening of NARS. Therefore, it was essential that we pay special attention to this Centre in this study, and we hope that the comments on ISNAR's future directions will be of assistance to the EPMR team, as well as to ISNAR itself.
65. The panel wholeheartedly endorses ISNAR's progressive shift from the services to the R & D end of the spectrum of its activities. We believe this trend should continue in the future at an accelerated pace. ISNAR's experience in diagnostic studies in over 50 NARS provides and excellent basis for analysis. This, along with the multidisciplinary team it has assembled, give it unique competence to synthesize knowledge on management of NARS, the types of interventions that are most effective in strengthening them, and to generate improved tools to be used in such efforts.
66. We understand that there is considerable debate within ISNAR as to the proper balance between service and research activities. This is, however, less of an issue than it appears, since service and R & D are points on a continuum that are mutually reinforcing. ISNAR needs to be involved in diagnostic and advisory services not only to help NARS, but also to provide the knowledge and experience that feeds into the R & D processes. And better knowledge and tools are essential for ISNAR and others to be more effective in its advisory and training service functions. The knowledge, methodological tools and publications on these subjects - disseminated through ISNAR's publications, training and workshops - at the same time represent international public goods that can be used by other organizations and consultancy firms to be more effective in their diagnosis and advice. This provides a multiplier effect that frees ISNAR to devote a greater portion of its resources towards the R & D activities.
67. It is now increasingly recognized that the institutional development of research systems is a difficult and complex process which requires more research. Some of the current problems of developing countries are partly the result of misguided interventions in the past. We support suggestions by the TAC to increase research funding in this area. We suggest it is very important that this work should be conducted in collaboration with existing research Centres that have specialized expertise in these areas. Examples are the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex; Science and Technology Studies programmes at Universities such as Cornell and Bath; and the National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies, New Delhi. There is much relevant previous and current research that is not being utilized by the CGIAR system. We would suggest that ISNAR is the natural home for this work, as it is most closely involved in institutional research policy and is using the results of institutional research in their advisory work. Such a commitment would mean involving a greater number of sociologists, political scientists and other social scientists in the CGIAR system. While ISNAR might establish a critical mass of research in this area of policy and public management, other Centres, such as IFPRI, would continue to take on studies on the public management of irrigation, credit, food policy and so forth. Hopefully, collaboration between ISNAR and IFPRI would be possible on some topics relating to research policy and management.
68. In relation to above, we suggest that there is some urgency to increase research on assessment and evaluation criteria. Many development agencies (such as the ODA, the World Bank, IFAD, and regional development banks) undertake projects to promote research and extension systems with insufficient reference to institutional development criteria. This is partly because so little research has been done on these topics. This is not to say that there is not a considerable general literature and expertise on institutional development that could be tapped into. Some of this stems from research on educational assessment and general "process" development projects. ISNAR is already involved in this type of research. The development of greater expertise in this area could contribute significantly to ISNAR's ability to help local research managers develop criteria relevant to local situations.
69. In light of this, an important aspect of ISNAR's research on institutional development issues is clearly its move to establish links with disciplines such as sociology, political science, public administration, and institutional anthropology. Professionals in these fields have looked at these issues for many years and can help provide the logical and theoretical basis for institutional development interventions.
70. In its research, ISNAR should study successful and unsuccessful examples of institution-building activities, both those in which ISNAR has been directly involved and those carried out or supported by others. There are two possible approaches to doing the research on results and constraints from previous external interventions. One (a "horizontal" approach) would be to work with one or more of the major donor institutions (such the World Bank, regional development banks, and USAID) that have funded many institutional development projects, many of which used an initial diagnosis and set of recommendations done by ISNAR as the basis for the project components. The other approach would be do this by country, in selected countries in which ISNAR diagnoses and recommendations have been used. In such a "longitudinal" approach it would be best to pick a few countries and do them well. While we tend to favour the "longitudinal" approach, these are not mutually exclusive. ISNAR, correctly, does not wish to be seen as "service" to bilateral and multi-lateral development agencies. However, by working with such organizations in analyzing the results of previous projects, ISNAR would be able to draw out generic lessons that can be applied in development of its own tools and improving its own advice. It is noted that ISNAR is interested in giving greater attention to these issues, but is limited by funding constraints.
71. One of the possible generic tools that ISNAR might give more attention for development is curricula for postgraduate university courses in research institutional development policy and research management. ISNAR has begun work in this area during the past three years and, together with the Network of European Agricultural (Tropically and Subtropically Oriented) Universities and Scientific Complexes Related Agricultural Development, has developed a proposal for possible European Union funding entitled "An Educational Programme on Agricultural Research Management: An Initial Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa".
72. ISNAR should work more closely with the other Centres in joint activities in training and development of training courseware, utilizing the special competence of ISNAR staff and the good facilities and closer contacts with NARS found in the other Centres to the best, complementary, advantage.
73. ISNAR plays an important role in raising issues and promoting awareness of NARS problems among the CGIAR members, similar to the role the IPGRI plays in relation to the state of genetic resources and gene banks. It has a comparative advantage in this role, based on its research, analyses and experience. This does not imply, however, that it is the "spokesperson" for the NARS. The NARS can ably and effectively speak for themselves, especially with the development of the regional NARS fora. Additionally, a "spokesperson" stance by ISNAR would place it in a position of conflict of interest, when, to be effective it is sometimes necessary to make some harsh judgements or give unpalatable recommendations. Also this would raise the question of how ISNAR can be a "representative" of NARS and at the same time be accountable to them.
74. The NARS Working Group, at its Nairobi meeting, called for greater attention to specialized, individual training in emerging fields of agricultural science and the need for higher degree training, with the NARS, universities and the Centres working in triangular relationships. This is a good suggestion, and is the direction in which most Centres have already been moving. The rapidly development of information and communication technologies, such as on-line access to information databases and CD ROM, represent excellent opportunities for the Centres to help NARS scientists have more ready access to relevant information. We support the actions the Centres have been making in taking advantage of these opportunities. With the addition of the natural resources Centres, and the re-structuring of the IBPGR into the IPGRI, there are now expanded opportunities for the CGIAR Centres to train specialists and these areas and promote greater attention to them in the NARS.
75. In recognition that the Centres, through their cooperation with NARS, in various ways have an effect on their research and policies, each Centre should develop a monitorable policy regarding the effects of its overall activities on the institutional development, research capability, and research priorities of NARS and regional groupings of NARS.
a. Between other Centres and ISNAR
b. Between ISNAR and IFPRI
c. Among Other Centres
76. The need for closer cooperation between ISNAR and the other Centres has already been alluded to in the discussion on ISNAR, above. Here it should be pointed out that not only should ISNAR take better advantage of the facilities and local contacts of the other Centres, but the latter need to take better advantage of the specialized management expertise at ISNAR. Too many of the individual Centre activities in the area of management training and advice and methodology development with respect to priority setting and programme evaluation, monitoring and evaluation appears to have been done by individual Centres without ISNAR's involvement. This may well have been because ISNAR did not have adequate staff resources to engage in this type of cooperation. A good example of progress in this area is the development of a set of training manuals for programme planning, monitoring and evaluation were developed jointly by a group of representatives from Latin American NARS, ISNAR and CIAT at CIAT.
77. The development of joint activities between other Centres and ISNAR in areas of mutual interest would increase effectiveness and efficiency. Joint projects should be encouraged for training and advisory services in areas such as:
· management practices and leadership skills;
· setting of national, institutional and program research priorities;
· program planning, monitoring and evaluation;
· project preparation and budgeting;
· information systems;
· human resources management; and
· participative, client-oriented research methods.
The key question is how such desirable collaboration can be encouraged. ISNAR indicates that it does not now have the resources to become more actively involved in such joint activities. The obvious way to encourage collaboration and to increase levels of funding for them would be to develop such joint activities under the umbrella of a "systemwide initiative" in institution strengthening. Before encouraging Centres do develop such an initiative, however, the TAC should carefully consider whether or not it is possible to find a way to promote closer collaboration without the management costs and bureaucratic procedures that a formal, systemwide programme implies. A suggestion as to how the basis for such an initiative can be developed is given in para 93, below.
78. While other Centres and ISNAR should work more closely together, there are some areas that should, in the interest of effectiveness and efficiency, be left fully to ISNAR. These include research, training and/or advisory services in organization and structure of national research systems and research institutions; research on, and development of methodologies and training materials for: prioritization of research, management information systems, and financial management in research organizations. Other Centres that are currently engaged in these activities should phase them out, and those planning to become involved in them are encouraged to cancel such plans. Similarly, research and advice on levels of funding and other national research policies should be dealt with only by ISNAR and IFPRI.
79. IFPRI, like the other Centres, is involved in collaborative research with NARS, training, workshops, and information services, that have an institution-strengthening role. In this respect, what has been said with respect to the other Centres, above, applies. More important, however, is the need to cooperate in the few areas in which there is overlap in the policy and public management arena. Since IFPRI deal largely in national food policies, and ISNAR in agricultural research policies, the overlap is restricted chiefly to those areas in which national food policies include priority setting and funding levels for agricultural research. The panel is pleased to learn that the two Centres are currently working jointly on a project updating the "indicator series", and plan to cooperate in a larger, projected "Agricultural Research Indicators Initiative" describe in IFPRI's funding request for 1996.
80. There are many good examples of Centres collaborating in institution-strengthening activities, particulary in joint training programmes carried out in regional settings. But we feel this needs further improvement. The coordinating mechanisms being developed by the emerging regional groupings of NARS, referred to above, offer a good channel for such cooperation to avoid duplication, share facilities. The new systemwide programmes will also provide many opportunities for inter-centre collaboration.
81. It is useful to assess how the Centres' responses to questions about the degree of involvement and nature of collaboration they plan for the future in various types of institution-strengthening activities in relation to the future directions proposed above. As the questionnaire covered 108 categories and sub-categories of activities, it is obviously impossible to comment on all of the responses. A summary of the responses is given in Annex F. In order to present these data in a reasonably concise form it was necessary to aggregate the data from all the non-ISNAR Centres for each activity. While such a compilation provides much useful information on general trends, and how many Centres are involved in or plan to continue or expand activities that appear inappropriate for them, it does not identify these in relation to specific Centres. A more detailed compilation, by Centre, has been left with the TAC Secretariat. The TAC will no doubt wish to study Annex F, as well as the more detailed compilation, in much greater detail as it relates future priorities to Centres' plans.
82. Clearly it is not possible in this paper to include a detailed analysis of each activity listed in Annex F. Some of the most striking information coming out of the questionnaires are summarized below. It should be noted that in many cases Centres reported plans to engage in an activity in more than one modality (e.g. alone, as well as in collaboration with ISNAR or as part of a systemwide programme), therefore the numbers given below, which are derived partially from the raw data, are not always congruent with sums of involvement shown in the table.
· Seven Centres7 reported that they plan to continue to provide diagnostic/assessment services at the national level; only one of these with ISNAR; only one that had been providing such services indicated it would reduce these efforts.7 Centers in these observations refer to all Centers other than ISNAR· Eight Centres indicated they plan to continue to advise on organizational structure and processes at national level through visits/consultancies; only one of these in collaboration with ISNAR. Three Centres plan to expand their sponsoring or convening of conferences on this subject; only one in cooperation with ISNAR.
· Three Centres that had been convening/sponsoring workshops or seminars on development of national research priorities indicated that they would reduce or discontinue these efforts.
· Four Centres reported that they plan to expand in the provision of methodological tools for development of national research priorities; one of these was in collaboration with ISNAR, and one with IFPRI. Four Centres plan to expand training efforts in this subject; two of these in collaboration with ISNAR.
· Most of the Centres that have been providing production training courses at their centres indicated that they plan to reduce such efforts; at the same time most plan to continue to provide such service at regional level.
· Most Centres indicated that they plan to continue or expand individual and group training in specialized disciplines. Six Centres indicated that they plan to expand their efforts in postgraduate theses research.
· Most Centres plan to continue training of trainers, and most plan to expand this effort at regional level.
· Most Centres plan to reduce or discontinue training of extension workers; but one plans to expand such efforts (at regional level).
· Seven Centres plan to continue individualized training of information and communication specialists; additionally, three plan to expand such activities.
· Two Centres plan to expand consultancy services for information management systems, neither one in collaboration with ISNAR.
· One Centre plans to provide resident technical assistance staff to help with budgeting and financial management, while even ISNAR does not plan to do this.
· Almost all Centres plan to continue or expand efforts to promote the development of collaborative research networks. Most also plan to support these networks by provision of coordinators, while two plan to reduce this type of activity.
· Four Centres plan to continue in analyses of alternative methods for priority setting (without involving ISNAR); additionally three plan to expand such efforts (two in collaboration with ISNAR).
83. In general, it was surprising to note how many Centres plan to be involved in aspects of research management, and how few indicated that they plan to do so in collaboration with ISNAR. Centres may well be able to defend involvement in areas such as advice and assistance in development of organizational structure and processes, setting of priorities, and programme planning, evaluation and monitoring or research, and of developing methodological tools in these areas, by asserting that they are doing so in relation to their particular research mandate. What is surprising, however, is how many indicate they plan do so at the national and institutional level.
84. The TAC has requested that this study specifically address the issue of priorities; i.e. whether the proportion of funds currently allocated in the CGIAR system to activities it classifies as "Fortifying NARS", and to the components of this category, is about right, or if it should be increased or decreased in the future. This is of considerable importance to the TAC as it is currently engaged in the preparation of a new priorities paper for consideration for the CGIAR. However, the issues of priorities and resource allocation can be addressed properly only by weighing the importance of one set of activities in relation to the relative importance of other activities competing for attention within the framework of limited resources. The panel conducting this study simply does not have sufficient knowledge, nor resources to acquire it, to pass judgment on such a complex set of issues. All that can be done at this juncture is to comment in general terms on several of the inter-related issues that make up this question, with the hope that these observations will be useful to the TAC as it addresses the broader issue of CGIAR priorities, and to the management and boards of the respective Centres as they review their activities in the light of the new structure and stated goals of the CGIAR system.
85. One issue is the overall level of resources allocated to the strengthening of NARS. This has hovered around the level of 20-25% in the past and has gradually declined in recent years in the face of funding shortfalls to a projected level of 18% in 1996. It is important to note that these figures represent an aggregate of components that make up this category (training, information/communications, organization/management counselling, and networks). More important still is that they are an aggregate of the allocation to these components by 16 individual Centres. Thus, they represent an accumulation of many decisions made by the programmes, management and boards of the respective Centres over the years. The panel is not in a position to question these decisions, as the individual Centres are much better placed to know the needs of the NARS they serve, the services they can best offer, and the competing demands by their respective programs on available funds.
86. Another issue is the amounts allocated to the respective components are right. In the breakdown provided by the CGIAR Secretariat for the May, 1995 meeting of the Group these were as follows for 1996:
|
Training |
6.8% (down from 9% in 1991) |
|
Information/Communications |
6.4% (down from 8% in 1991) |
|
Organization/Management Counselling |
2.3% (up slightly from 2.0% in 1991) |
|
Networks |
2.2% (down from 5% in 1991) |
87. The reduction in the allocations for training is probably the result of two factors. One is that, in the face of funding shortfalls, it is less disruptive to reduce the number of courses and of participants (chiefly travel and subsistence costs) than to discontinue long-term research programmes (chiefly staff costs). When funding shortfalls are seen as temporary, this is a correct stance; however, when such shortfalls are longer-term, it represents a change of priorities, which must be questioned. The other factor is more substantive. In response to views expressed by NARS, and in recognition of the fact that Centres have already trained large numbers of researchers and extension leaders in production-oriented courses and the general "upstream" trends in the Centres' research, there is a strong trend towards more specialized and individualized training. The panel is not in a position to accurately assess whether this trend reduces or increases costs. It may well be, however that it does alter the way in which costs are reported; as travel and subsistence for group training are readily recognized as "training" costs, while the less direct costs involved in Centre scientists guiding specialized, individual trainees may not be so reported. Furthermore, the trend towards more specialized training in the form of dissertation research, postdoctoral fellows, and visiting scientists may be partially reported as research rather than training costs, as these persons are not only being "trained", but are also contributing to the research function.
88. The decline in allocations to "Information/Communication" is probably more a response to budgetary pressures than programmatic considerations. Apparently Centres have seen their services in this area as being of lower priority than competing activities. It is difficult to gauge the correctness of this stance as this category comprises three quite different sets of activities. One is the information needed by a Centred own scientists. Another is the production of documents needed to inform donors, other scientists and the general public of its accomplishments. The third is the provision of information and documentation services to research partners in the NARS and research networks. Only the latter can truly be classified as serving to strengthen NARS; but all are important to the Centres' operations and fund-raising efforts. New information technologies, such as on-line services and CD ROM, may indeed make it possible to provide information to Centre and NARS scientists less expensively. Furthermore, to the extent that NARS improve their access to information through internal networks and external, on-line and CD ROM facilities, their dependence on the Centres for such information will lessen. The TAC may wish to obtain the views of NARS on the priority they give to such services from the Centres compared to what they receive from them in research cooperation and technology products and materials.
89. While the panel is unable to comment meaningfully on the appropriateness of the aggregate total of 2.3% allocated to "Organization/management Counselling", some observations on the breakdown in this allocation between ISNAR and the other Centres are in order. In the instructions given to the Centres for calculation of allocations, this category is stated as being composed of two sets of activities: research on the organization and management of research, and advice to NARS. Centers report only the aggregate for the two sets. It is notable that of the $5.7 million projected for this category in 1996 less than half ($2.1 million) is attributed to ISNAR, which has the mandate for such services. Eight of the Centres allocate no funds for this purpose. Of those that do, CIMMYT ($1.2 million) and IRRI ($0.8 million) make up the largest share. CIMMYT states8 its advice to NARS is almost entirely related to the conduct of research at the research scientist level, and that each of its 21 scientists in "Outreach" allocates a portion of time to this activity. CIMMYT further indicates that its work on tools for priority setting and resource allocation is aimed more at questions related to maize, wheat and natural resources research than a the broad institutional level, and that it considers that the procedures it has developed for this, and its experiences, may be useful to national program levels. Other Centres who have reported significant expenditures in these areas would probably respond similarly. Nevertheless, the fact that a large number of Centres have interpreted this category differently by reporting no activities in it, and that the two Centres with the highest allocation are the two oldest in the CGIAR system, suggest that some Centres that felt it important to counsel NARS on organization and management before the creation on ISNAR may be continuing in an activity that should now be left chiefly to the latter. The TAC is advised to question Centres more closely on this issue.
8 Personal communication from Dr. Roger Rowe to the Chair of the panel responding to a statement on this subject contained in an earlier draft of this report, dated July 25, 1995.
90. The substantial reduction in the allocation to the "networks" category reflects the evolution of the Centres and their NARS partners, and thus represents a positive development. As described in para 5 of Annex C, the Centres' role in regional research networks has diminished as leadership has progressively been passed on to research leaders from the respective regions. This has made it possible to reduce the numbers of scientists outposted for this purpose, and thus reduce the level of resources devoted to this category. A further reduction is seen as possible as this trend continues and with the development of regional groupings of NARS.
91. The final issue in relation to priorities and resource allocation is how the TAC classifies Centre activities into various categories and sub-categories for purposes of reporting total CGIAR allocations. The panel recommends that the TAC carefully review its classification system, and how Centres are asked to break down their budgets into these categories. This is particularly important with respect to the "Fortifying NARS" classification. The discussion of the resource allocations in this category, above, demonstrates how disparate activities can be aggregated into the same category, and how easily these data can be misinterpreted. It would be useful to ask Centres to be aggregate their allocations to the "information/communications" category by the three types of activities described above, and to include in the "Fortifying NARS" classification only those activities that provide direct services to NARS. Similarly, Centres should not include activities related to advice with respect to research on their mandated commodities or research areas, but only their research and advice as pertains to the organization and management of research in general, as "Organization/management Counselling". When these are done, it will probably be seen that the allocations to "Fortifying NARS" have been significantly overstated. Only when this is corrected can a judgment be made as to whether this level is right or needs to me adjusted.
92. This study should be seen as a step in the process of development of a strategy for CGIAR involvement in strengthening of NARS, rather than as providing the definitive answers to the questions the TAC has raised about this essential set of activities. General conclusions arising from the study include:
· The CGIAR has an important role to play in institutional development; the new, "renewed" CGIAR should continue to play this role in cooperation with the NARS it serves and with other partners in the global agricultural development and scientific community . Each Centre in the system should be committed to this objective; how each develops its programmes in this area will be different, depending on the area of technology generation, the centre's mandate, and the partners with which it works.· Institution-strengthening activities must be demand-driven, and based on the principal of comparative advantage. ISNAR has a clear comparative advantage in the area of organization and management.
· Closer collaboration among Centres, and particularly between other Centres and ISNAR, can make these activities more effective and efficient. The development of a systemwide programme on institution strengthening offers a possible means of facilitation of such collaboration.
· More research is needed to identify the most important weaknesses that need to be overcome in developing country agricultural research systems; what are the most effective organizational structures, management practices, leadership skills, and research planning, monitoring and evaluation tools; and which types of external interventions are most useful. ISNAR should continue to take the lead in conducting such research, in collaboration with non-CGIAR institutions that specialize in institutional development science, and with bilateral and multilateral development agencies and banks.
93. Generalizations, however, are not enough. The way forward must be more clearly mapped out. Our panel did not have the time nor resources to provide the details of such a plan. It is suggested, therefore, that as a follow-up and continuation of this study, ISNAR be provided with additional resources to conduct a more comprehensive analysis. A possible approach would be for ISNAR to engage the services of a senior expert for a year to give full-time attention to this subject. Such a person could be a member of ISNAR's staff, or a consultant, and would be expected to visit all the Centres and selected NARS and write a report on what is actually happening on the ground and make suggestions for future activities. As a corollary to this, each Centre would be asked to name a staff member who would be the liaison person for that study. The resulting report could well serve as the basis for a possible systemwide initiative in institution strengthening.
