The Review
ILRI's Board and Management express their appreciation to the Review Panel for a positive, constructively critical, and useful analysis of ILRI after its first four years. As pointed out in the Panel's report, this review finds ILRI at a cross-roads. The Institute has established its corporate identity and is in the process of a major revision of its strategy and medium term plan. Therefore, the findings and recommendations of the report are most timely. The report not only provides clear guidance to the Institute, but the rigor and quality of the review add substantial credibility to the Panel's positive recommendations about the future of the Institute.
Three major findings of the panel are of paramount importance for the future CGIAR agenda:
·
There is a rapidly growing demand for livestock and livestock products in developing countries
· Research is critical to meet future demands for livestock products and in building assets derived from livestock for small farmers.
· ILRI, as a newly formed global Institute, has the capacity and position in the CGIAR to be the pivotal organization for conducting priority livestock research and facilitating animal agriculture research among Centres and collaborators in NARS and ARIs.
Board and Management Response
ILRI recognizes that key concerns of the Panel are the needs to better articulate our vision, improve programme focus, and state more clearly how we link goals and priorities with expected resources. We have learned from the perceptions of the Panel that our working vision has not been adequately presented. We also acknowledge the need to revise and update ILRI's strategy. The Institute has initiated a comprehensive programme review, demand assessment, and development of a consensus based strategy, which will reflect the changing internal and external environments in which ILRI operates. This new strategy will be the basis for the major revision of the medium term plan (2001-2003) which will take ILRI beyond the cross roads and into the next millennium.
Overarching Factors in ILRI's Response to the Report
ILRI has agreed or agreed in principle to most of the specific recommendations. Action has started on a number of the recommendations.
As one of the actions taken, Board and Management initiated the process of revising the ILRI strategy by the Joint Board-Management Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Principles. This committee developed a report which was discussed, finalized and adopted by the Board at its March, 1999 meeting. This report is the point of departure for developing the new strategy and MTP (2001-2003).
The Panel reported a number of overarching findings that apply more broadly than the specific recommendations. In this section, we summarize ILRI's response to these broader issues. Our response draws heavily on the statement of strategic principles.
· Critical Mass and Partnerships:
In ILRI's revised strategy, we will draw on the findings of the Panel and continue to emphasize building the capability and capacity to achieve critical mass, especially in regional research, through partnerships. We will leverage our limited resource by engaging other centres, NARS and ARIs with common interests and complementary resources.
· Brokering Role: In keeping with the findings of the System Review and those of the Panel, ILRI will increase its role in contributing to bridging the strategic research done in ARIs and the applied research and development done by NARS. This will be achieved through more effective partnerships, capacity building, developing information products, and facilitating linkages. ILRI will more effectively undertake its convener role for livestock research in the System, using the Systemwide Livestock Programme for promoting complementary livestock research among the centres, and their partners in ecoregional programmes.
· Global and Regional Balance: To address this concern of the Panel, ILRI will place increased emphasis on regionally relevant research that includes developing applications for its globally relevant products in the context of the different agroecological and socio-economic conditions around the world. This balanced portfolio of globally and regionally relevant research will be designed to increase the impacts from livestock research.
· Environment and Natural Resource Management: In concurrence with the Panel, our strategy and MTP will increase emphasis on research to improve livestock productivity in an environmentally sustainable manner. Our natural resource management research will address livestock related issues through ecoregional consortia and the systemwide programmes with other centres and their national partners.
· Programme Structure: Panel recommendations for restructuring ILRI's programmes are generally agreed. We will address these in the major revision of strategy and MTP which will be developed between March and December 1999.
· The Unfunded Agenda: ILRI, like other centres, is increasingly constrained by limited funds, and by the decreasing portion of fungible funding that can be used for initiating exploratory research and supporting longer term upstream research. The EPMR clearly and strongly endorses ILRI's biotechnology programme, as does ILRI's Board and Management. We believe the positive report of the Panel will be persuasive to donors and useful in ILRI's advocacy for the "unfunded agenda".
· Maintaining Focus in a Restricted Funding Environment: With the growing dependence on restricted funding, all CGIAR centres are increasingly challenged to maintain a tight focus on their goals and priorities. This is a systemwide problem which was highlighted by the recent System Review. Nevertheless, ILRI's Management and Board are determined to ensure that short term project funding does not divert core resources and blur focus on the priority research for which ILRI has comparative advantage.
· Leadership and Critical Vacancies: Leadership and scientific quality are key to the success of the Institute. Recognizing the challenges of attracting outstanding scientists to work and live in developing countries, ILRI is committed to filling key vacancies with excellent scientists and leaders to ensure that ILRI's full potential is achieved in serving the CGIAR goals for poverty alleviation, food security and environmental protection.
Responses to specific recommendations
CHAPTER 3 - STRATEGY, PRIORITIES AND PLANNING
1. Believing that ILRI has identified a potentially powerful concept in building essential areas of science planning and management, the Panel recommends that ILRI define and further develop its 'platforms of essential capacity', including such concepts as core competence in key research areas.
Agreed:
We appreciate the positive comments on the establishment of platforms of capacity and core competence in priority areas where ILRI has comparative advantage compared to alternative suppliers. ILRI will develop this concept further as part of the strategic and medium-term planning process during 1999 to improve focus, scientific quality and potential for impact.
2. Considering the need to orient livestock research more closely towards the requirements of rapidly changing animal agriculture in developing countries, and the need to define and operationalize ILRI's global mandate more precisely, the Panel recommends that ILRI revisits its vision, strategy, and priorities and redesign its planning processes to position the Institute compellingly at the core of the international animal agriculture research agenda.
Agreed:
The assessment and suggestions of the Panel provide valuable input to improving the planning process. Review of ILRI's research agenda and vision, revision of the strategic plan and development of the MTP 2001-2003 are major activities for ILRI in 1999. ILRI has taken steps to strengthen its priority setting and planning processes.
CHAPTER 4 - GOVERNANCE, LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
3. Since policies established by the Board over the years, particularly in the programme area, have not been made widely known, the Panel recommends that past policies be retrieved from the records in such a way that they are made available for references needed both by current and newly recruited staff, and that those approved in the future be similarly known.
Agreed:
Action has been taken to implement this recommendation. A Policy Decisions Document in electronic form (as a key component of the Operations Manual), that is fully searchable by topic and key words, will be accessible through the internal network. New staff will be informed on policies through a summary brochure as part of their orientation kit.
4. Because the line between the responsibilities of the Board and Management appears to be inappropriately drawn at ILRI, the Panel recommends that the Board clearly focus on its policy formulation and oversight functions, and establish a sharper distinction between its responsibilities and those of Management.
Partly
Agreed:
Board and Management agree to the recommendation to review and re-state the principles that define the responsibilities of the Board and Management in the definition and implementation of policy decisions. We are committed to a strong and functional partnership between Board and Management and believe this is reflected clearly in our deliberations and actions.
Board-Management relationships were the subject of comprehensive discussion during our retreat in 1997. One basis for deliberation was the article entitled "The New Work of the Nonprofit Board." The following table from the report illustrates key points.
|
OLD WORK |
NEW WORK |
|
Management defines problems, assesses options, and proposes solutions. Board listens, learns, approves, and monitors |
Board and Management discover issues that matter, mutually determine the agenda, and solve problems together |
|
Board sets policy, which management implements. Respective territories are sharply define; there is little or no border traffic. Domains are decided by organization chart |
Board and Management both set policy and implement it. Lines are blurred, borders open. Domains are decided by nature of the issue at hand |
|
Structure of standing committees parallels administrative functions. Premium is on permanent structure, established routines. Members occur functional niches. Board maintains busywork |
Structure of Board mirrors institutions strategic priorities. Premium is on flexibility, ad hoc arrangements. Members occupy functional intersection. Board creates centers of action. |
|
Board meetings are process driven. Protocol doesn't vary. Function follows form. Emphasis is on transmission of information and reports. |
Board meetings are goal driven. Protocol varies with circumstances. Form follow function. Emphasis is on participation and action. |
|
Board is a collection of stars. It recruits people with an eye to expertise and status. The CEO cultivates individual relationships and exploits each trustee's talents. |
Board is a constellation. It recruits team members with an eye to personality and overall chemistry. Board cultivates group norms and collective capabilities of trustees. |
Ref: Taylor, Chait, and Holland, Harvard Business Review, September-October, 1996.
Board and Management adopted some, but not all aspects of the "new work." For example. Joint Board-Management Ad Hoc Committees on contemporary topics of high relevance have been established. The Panel noted the utility of these committees. However, careful distinction has been made between the separate roles of Board for governance and of Management for implementation.
Response from the Board of Trustees
With respect to the Director General, the Panel noted areas of exemplary performance as well as specific concerns. The annual evaluations done by the Executive Committee as well as the results of a full Board discussion at the September 1998 meeting reaffirm the Board's belief that the Director General, on balance, is providing the overall leadership of the Institute needed to achieve the goals of integration noted in the Panel's report, to stabilize, and extend its operations to meet the global mandate.
The Board believes that the establishment of the position of Deputy Director General, as recommended in the next Chapter by the Panel, will strengthen leadership and add complementary skills to provide ILRI the senior management required to ensure the continuing progress of the Institute. The Board has approved the development of the position description, the selection process, the new structure, and the factors that underpin success of the new structure.
CHAPTER 5 - INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT
5. To ensure strong scientific leadership and incisive decision-making, the Panel recommends that ILRI modify its organisational structure to include the following elements (see Figure 5.2):
i) A new office of Deputy Director General (Research) to act in the absence of the Director General, oversee ILRI's research agenda, take a primary role in planning and priority setting exercises, promote inter-programme collaboration, and provide independent analysis of the resource needs of research programmes. The DDG (Research) would also oversee the Research Support Units.
Agreed:
ILRI Management and Board fully concur that the organizational structure should enable strong scientific leadership and decisive decision making. Recruitment for a Deputy Director General responsible for programme will be initiated with immediate effect. The terms of reference for the position were discussed and approved by the Board.
ii) The current research and research-related agenda consolidated into five programmes as follows: Animal Genetics and Genomics; Animal Disease Control; System Science, Impact, and Policy Analysis; Production Systems and Animal Nutrition; and International Co-operation.
Agreed:
The concept of a consolidated project and programme structure is agreed in principle, although the final configuration may differ from that presented by the Panel depending on the outcome of the strategic planning process in 1999. Options for programme and organizational structure will be presented for Board approval in September 1999.
iii) The programmes consisting of projects as at present, though with a different configuration (as proposed in Chapters 6, 7, and 8).
Agreed:
Plans for those projects which will be continued, as well as for new initiatives, will be evaluated in the strategic planning process leading to the development of the MTP (2001-2003) as stated above.
iv) One unit - the Office of External Relations - in a staff relationship to the Director General to continue co-ordinating the Institute's fundraising and public awareness activities.
Agreed.
v) No change in the responsibilities of the Administration department, which would retain responsibility for finance, human resources management, information technology services, and administration of both Nairobi and Addis campuses.
Agreed.
CHAPTER 6 - BIOSCIENCES
6. To ensure research quality and productivity by having project coordinators and their research teams work together on a daily basis and thereby achieve cross-fertilization of ideas, catalyze critical thinking, and design cutting-edge research and research proposals, the Panel recommends that Project 1 (Characterization, conservation and use of animal genetic resources) and Project 2 (Development of disease resistant livestock) be managed at the Nairobi campus.
Agreed:
We share the Panel's view of the importance and value of the animal genetics research, and agree with the recommendation to manage Projects 1 and 2 together. We will manage this research as one Project, under a Project Coordinator based in Nairobi. This action is consistent with the Panel's recommendation to consolidate animal genetics and genomics (Chapter 5).
7. Because the slow pace and past unrealistic timescales have led to a lack of credibility in the area of ILRI vaccine research, the Panel recommends that the research on vaccine development (ECF and Trypanosomosis) be critically reviewed with the aim of clearly defining a strategy and programme for developing further antigens for the ECF vaccine and evaluating whether a vaccine against trypanosomes is a viable prospect.
Agreed:
We accept the Panel's recommendation to define a more strategic approach to antigen development for the ECF vaccine, and will strengthen links with ARIs in areas where ILRI lacks comparative advantage. This approach is also in accordance with the Panel's support for maintaining a critical mass of scientific expertise in biotechnology and knowledge of the parasite genome.
We note the Panel's concern about the slow pace of vaccine research. The results from current field trials with the p67 sporozoite vaccine against ECF, and current laboratory trials with congopain to validate its efficacy in reducing the pathogenic effects of trypanosomosis in cattle, will inform critical decisions about future research in these areas, and the possible involvement of the commercial sector in vaccine production.
8. To integrate a systematic global evaluation of forages, crop residues and other feeds with the nutritional evaluation of dietary options to increase animal productivity and net economic returns, the Panel recommends merging Projects 8, 9 and 10 (Feed utilisation improvement for improving livestock productivity; Rumen microbiology for feed utilisation enhancement; and Characterisation and conservation of forage genetic resources) into a cohesive Ruminant Nutrition Management Project.
Agreed:
We accept this recommendation and have taken steps to merge the projects. Terms of Reference for a Project Co-ordinator to lead this area have been prepared. We will review which elements of these projects constitute laboratory-based and which constitute field-based ecoregional research. This analysis will guide decisions about which elements are managed within the strategic biological research projects and which are more appropriate to the ecoregional systems projects. The linking of the strategic components to regional applications and utilisation will be emphasised to ensure effective delivery of new technologies and products to NARES.
CHAPTER 7 - SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS PROGRAMME
9. To stimulate income growth and food security for farm families, to help alleviate poverty, and to conserve natural resources, the Panel recommends that ILRI strategically orient the production systems research programme, and establish an ecoregional or global consortium for market-oriented crop-livestock systems.
To accomplish this:
i) Project 19 (Market-oriented smallholder dairy systems) should be broadened beyond dairy to constitute a transregional or global research project that is especially aimed at enhancing economic growth of rural households by developing more profitable and sustainable market-oriented crop-livestock systems.
Partly Agreed:
We are increasing emphasis on market-oriented systems which provide for asset building and income generation for resource-poor smallholder farmers. This research on market-oriented systems directly addresses the CGIAR goals of poverty alleviation, building assets, improving livelihoods of rural households and helping to meet the expanding demand for livestock products, especially in urban areas of developing countries.
The market-oriented smallholder dairy project will provide a model for research on other market-oriented crop-livestock systems projects. This project will continue to work on transregional analysis of smallholder dairy systems in selected ecoregions of the world. However, any expansion of the systems covered by project 19 will be critically evaluated because we have concerns that diluting the focus on smallholder dairy will reduce the commended effectiveness of this project.
ii) Scientific staff in Project 13 (Crop-livestock systems in the highlands of SSA and Asia) be reassigned, possibly to Project 19, to increase the critical mass of scientists focusing on transregional research objectives and market-oriented systems.
Partly Agreed:
The research in Project 13 has substantially changed to integrated natural resource management. This research is strategic in nature, and links natural resources, livestock production, poverty alleviation, human nutrition and health. Methods, experience and results will have transregional relevance. This research links African Highlands research with livestock elements of the CIP-convened Global Mountain Programme, including research in the Andes and that led by ICIMOD in the Hindu Kush Himalayas.
iii) The expertise of Project 14 (Crop-livestock systems in subhumid SSA and Asia) and Project 15 (Crop-livestock systems in semi-arid zones of SSA and Asia) could be consolidated to form one project having more critical mass to focus on market-oriented systems in the subhumid zone, co-ordinated with Project 19, although not restricted to dairy.
Agreed.
iv) If Project 16 (Crop-livestock systems in fragile environments in LAC) is to be continued, it should become part of the transregional smallholder livestock systems effort of the re-designed Project 19 with a full-time ILRI staff member.
Partly Agreed:
The project has two components, one linked with the CIAT-led Tropileche consortium and the other with the CIP-led CONDESAN. Two ILRI IRS are engaged in these projects through joint appointments with CIAT and CIP. They leverage substantial resources and establish critical mass through partnerships with their host IARCs and NARS. In response to the Panel's concerns, the ILRI contributions to the Tropileche consortium will be integrated with the market-oriented dairy research in Project 19 and ILRI's livestock research in CONDESAN will be integrated with the highlands research in Project 13.
CHAPTER 8 - RESEARCH ON IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND POLICY ANALYSIS
10. To enable the necessary integration of impact assessment and policy research, better orient the Institute's biophysical and production systems research (and its priorities), and provide a firm base for delivering outputs and generating impact, the Panel recommends that Projects 11 (Systems Analysis and Impact Assessment) and 12 (Policy Analysis) be merged, with all staff operating at ILRI's headquarters in Nairobi.
Partly Agreed:
We agree that closer linkages between projects 11 and 12 will strengthen the systems and policy research. However, we do not agree with the merger of these projects and basing all staff in Nairobi.
ILRI currently has fifteen internationally recruited economists on staff. Of these, ten are members of interdisciplinary ecoregional teams with dual research responsibilities for microeconomic analysis of constraints to livestock production and marketing as well as contributions to macroeconomic analysis supporting policy research by ILRI, IFPRI and other partners.
This link between primary data and policy analysis was cited as a major comparative advantage for ILRI in the 1996 CCER of livestock policy research. Consolidating all staff engaged in policy analysis at headquarters in Kenya would disable the interdisciplinary teams working outside Kenya and lose the benefits from linking micro- and macro-economic research.
CHAPTER 9 - STRENGTHENING PARTNERSHIPS WITH NARS (SPAN)
ILRI welcomes the positive assessment and encouragement given by the Panel to its work in strengthening partnerships with NARS. We agree the need to continue defining the role and contribution of training, information and networking to ILRI's global agenda. We also value the Panel's encouragement to establish new partnerships, including with ISNAR, to strengthen NARS livestock research. We highlight a number of issues from the Panel Report.
· An African Capacity Building Initiative should be further developed (see chapter 3). The African Capacity Building Initiative (ACBI) was recommended by the CGIAR Systems Review. Consultations are on-going with stakeholders in sub-Saharan Africa. If there is support from NARS and sub-regional organizations for this inter-centre initiative, we will actively pursue the development of ACBI with NARS in sub-Saharan Africa.· NARS rate ILRI training highly, and as one of the major contributions by the Institute in building their research capacity. ILRI will continue to provide targeted training and training resources to strengthen livestock R&D capacity of its NARS partners, and their capacity to deliver their own training. As the Panel notes, NARS livestock capacity remains relatively weak compared to the capacity for crops research.
· The NARS-ILRI networks enhance regional collaboration for livestock R&D. The networks in sub-Saharan Africa will continue to fulfil this role. We note the Panel's suggestion that ILRI programmes and projects together with regional priorities should provide the basis for collaboration with the networks. However, the network priorities are set by the sub-regional organizations of NARS; these priorities will continue to influence ILRI's research agenda, and thus strengthen the links between ILRI and research in the networks.
· ILRI is the core world knowledge source on African animal agriculture research and its information services are valued by NARS. The Institute is using its information services as the base for the development of a global livestock information system through partnerships with national and international information services, including FAO.
· ILRI's new information strategy convincingly and strategically positions the Institute in the context of its global livestock research agenda. The Institute will continue to use its information services to establish ILRI as a knowledge broker for tropical animal agriculture, one important mechanism for extending ILRI's programme outputs.
CHAPTER 10 - EXTERNAL RELATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS
11. To address concerns regarding ILRI's interpretation of the convenor role in managing system-wide programmes of the CGIAR, the Panel recommends that ILRI
i) redefine its role in the System-wide Livestock Programme (SLP) to conform with the TAC-recommended function of a system-wide programme convenor,
Partly Agreed:
We welcome TAC guidance on the function of a system-wide programme convenor. The nature of the convening function varies for different system-wide programmes. TAC is currently evaluating the experiences of the inter-Centre programmes established since 1994.
ii) withdraw those parts of its own research programme from the SLP over which the Inter-Centre Livestock Programme Group has no jurisdiction, thus enabling the entire portfolio of the Programme to be guided by procedures agreed in the SLP, and
Partly Agreed:
We agree to the value of consensus support by the Livestock Programme Group (LPG) for activities funded directly by the SLP. However, an important objective of the SLP is to build on the core activities of participating Centres. The SLP provides incremental funding to support additional collaborative research on livestock feeds and NRM by Centres and their national partners. This collaboration adds value to the core research done by collaborating Centres, including ILRI. The LPG does not assume jurisdiction over the core activities of any of the collaborating Centres.
iii) refrain from reporting the SLP as part of ILRI's research portfolio.
Not Agreed:
ILRI follows TAC and CGIAR guidelines for reporting system-wide programmes as part of the Institute's portfolio.
CHAPTER 11 - CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES
12. To maintain and enhance ILRI's scientific reputation, the Panel recommends that the Institute develop and use explicit mechanisms for ensuring scientific quality and the effectiveness and utility of its outputs.
Agreed.
ILRI was pleased with the assessment of our research against the Panel's criteria of good science. The overall quality and output of 88% of ILRI's projects were assessed as good or better. ILRI will improve and strengthen existing mechanisms to ensure relevant quality science is brought to bear on priority problems identified with partners and stakeholders, including expanded use of logical frameworks, CCERs, impact assessment, peer review, annual workplans and progress reports with clear milestones, and publication review.
ILRI is pleased to note the endorsement of the Panel for its approach to intellectual property, animal welfare, biosafety and bioethics issues.
CHAPTER 12 - ADMINISTRATION
13. Because ILRI does not have an adequately defined and transparent system with which to classify internationally recruited staff (IRS), determine salaries, and ensure equity in compensation, the Panel recommends that:
i) the categories of scientist, programme specialist, and administrator be expanded to differentiate positions with differing levels of responsibility, authority, knowledge, and skills;
ii) a salary range for each IRS level be developed and applied in all cases;
iii) where, in infrequent instances, market values for particular skills necessitate payment of a salary higher than that of equivalent positions, a market supplement be given to attract and retain suitable candidates; and
iv) information on the policies and procedures of the classification and compensation system be provided to all IRS staff.
Agreed:
Categories for IRS will be expanded to differentiate positions with differing levels of responsibility, authority, knowledge and skills with a salary range for each category. We acknowledge the Panel's recommendation that market supplements could be used to attract and retain suitable candidates. The Personnel Policy and Procedures Manuals are given to all IRS and placed on the Local Area Networks in principal sites.
ILRI agrees with the principle of equal pay for equal work. We will reassess compensation practices taking in account the requirements of local, regional and international markets and develop pay levels accordingly.
14. To ensure implementation of the proposed restructuring and integration of ILRI's research programme, and to utilize cost effectively the valuable research infrastructure, the Panel recommends the following action plan for achieving proper utilization of ILRI's facilities in Ethiopia:
i) in close consultation with the Government of Ethiopia, ILRI redoubles its efforts to accommodate international agricultural research- and training- oriented programmes on its Ethiopian premises; the conditions of such accommodation, which may also include technical and administrative support, are to be guided by the ILRI-GoE host country agreement and to be based on full cost-recovery,
ii) with respect to its own Ethiopia-based research programme, ILRI emphasise strategic research aspects, with international scope, in the context of restructuring ILRI's research programme, as recommended in the programme- related Chapters of this report,
iii) by the end of the year 2001 an external evaluation will establish progress in implementing this recommendation and propose further steps needed.
Agreed:
ILRI Board and Management are committed to the most cost effective and best programmatic use of research infrastructure at all sites. We believe the infrastructure in Ethiopia is a valuable resource for the CGIAR system, especially for activities oriented to sub-Saharan Africa, as well as for ILRI.
ILRI will increase efforts to ensure best use is made of these facilities by CGIAR Centres and others on a full cost recovery basis, guided by terms of the host country agreement. ILRI's forthcoming strategic planning exercise will specifically address the Panel's recommendations for ILRI's research activities in Ethiopia. An external evaluation will be convened before the end of the year 2001.
Nairobi, Kenya - March 5, 1999
Dr. Donald Winkelmann
Chair
Technical Advisory Committee
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
355 East Palace Avenue
Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA
Mr. Alexander von der Osten
Executive Secretary
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433, USA
Dear Dr. Winkelmann and Mr. von der Osten:
On behalf of the Panel, I am pleased to submit to you the Report of the First External Programme and Management Review (EPMR) of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).
The Panel members with whom I worked on this review brought extraordinary skill and commitment to the task. They made every effort to analyse ILRI's entire programme and management in depth so as to be able to offer a conscientious and even-handed assessment of the Institute and make constructive recommendations.
The Panel is convinced that the CGIAR's decision in 1994 to integrate ILRAD and ILCA was correct, and that the Institute has responded positively. ILRI's Management, particularly the DG, Hank Fitzhugh, staff, and Board deserve applause for this achievement.
We are further convinced that the Institute continues to be worthy of strong donor support. Although we point out areas of weakness, we want to make it clear that we believe ILRI has the potential to make a significant contribution to CGIAR goals in the area of animal agriculture. It will be greatly strengthened if Management and Board sharpen the focus of the research agenda and clearly define the "platforms of essential capacity" that should be preserved to carry the Institute forward. The Panel found this concept, put forward by ILRI Management, a useful strategic tool for a global Institute wishing to establish its long-term leadership in key research areas such as genomics/genetics, immunology, molecular biology, epidemiology, system science, and nutrition.
We have pointed out in our first chapter the extraordinary need for livestock and their products in the tropics that will evolve as we move into the twenty-first century. We believe that ILRI, with a suitably refined and reinvigorated research agenda, will be well positioned to face the challenges ahead and fulfil the mandate assigned by the CGIAR. Given the dynamism of the animal agriculture sector, the strategy laid out by those who participated in the Institute's creation must be revisited - and must be driven by a compelling vision of what the Institute, with its CGIAR Centre, ARI, NARS, and other partners can achieve together to ameliorate poverty, ensure food security, and preserve the environment.
We want to acknowledge the assistance given us by ILRI Management, Board members, and staff with whom we came in contact. The documentation presented to the Panel was comprehensive, and staff were generous with their time and open in offering their views and responding to our questions. The Panel is grateful for their help that made it possible for us to complete a complex task on schedule.
We are also very grateful to Directors of ILRI's partner and stakeholder institutions and their staff who have provided most valuable information in direct interaction with the Panel as well as in an extensive survey carried out to establish a profile of their experiences and expectations with ILRI.
We also want to acknowledge the assistance of our resource person from the CGIAR Secretariat, Pammi Sachdeva; the Panel Secretary sent by TAC, Donald Plucknett; and Guido Gryseels, formerly of the TAC Secretariat. The long experience and exceptional ability of these three persons were a significant contribution to the Panel's work, with respect to both substance and presentation of the report. Arlene Rutherford of the ILRI staff assembled the numerous documents and provided logistical support, and we greatly appreciated her effective assistance that was most pleasantly rendered. Ann Drummond from the TAC Secretariat and Ebby Irungu, also of the ILRI staff, worked congenially with a group of demanding Panel members and are responsible for the report's efficient production.
I speak for all members of the Panel in thanking you for giving us the opportunity to participate in such an absorbing and important assignment.
Yours sincerely,
Samuel Jutzi
Chair, ILRI EPMR Panel
