In 1995 ILRI was formed by the integration of ILCA and ILRAD to carry out a unified strategy for global livestock research. Four years later the new Institute is striving to achieve its global mandate through multi-disciplinary research and with a new institutional and management structure. The first External Programme and Management Review of ILRI was carried out during September 13-22. 1998 and February 15 through March 5, 1999. The report was presented to ILRI Board and Management on March 8. 1999.
The Panel was given general and specific Terms of Reference for the review by the TAC Secretariat and TAC Chairman, respectively, and the main topics therein will form the outline of this Summary, followed by a list of the Panel's recommendations. which are numbered in sequence as they appear in the report and will be referred to in the Summary by those numbers (e.g., R-1, R-2. etc.).
Mission, Strategy and Priorities
The Panel concluded that the mission of ILRI is even more pertinent than when the Institute was established in 1995. Chapter 1 of the report presents an overview of global animal agriculture and presents a clear case for international research, considering the importance of livestock in developing countries, the need for increasing global food supplies, dramatic changes in livestock production and major changes in diet - increasing consumption of milk, meat and eggs - and increased demand for high quality foods. Other factors noted by the Panel included the growth of industrial livestock production, much increased importance of monogastric animals, increased vertical integration, and increasing exports of livestock products from developing countries.
The Panel endorsed the general thrust of ILRI's mandate, to focus primarily on ruminant livestock, to conduct research in livestock diseases and production systems, and to serve as a convenor of livestock-related research in the CGIAR (Chapter 10, R-11).
The Panel noted that considerable progress had been made in developing a unified programme at ILRI, but that the Institute was spread too thinly because it was trying to do too much. Also, many unprecedented opportunities are presenting themselves, as a result of major changes in the external environment. Hence the Panel concluded that ILRI needs to revisit its strategies and priorities (see Chapters 2, 3, R-2), improve its planning processes (Chapter 3, R-2), and focus its research (Chapter 3, 4).
Quality and Relevance
As noted above the Panel was concerned about a need for more research focus (Chapters 6-8; R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10). To help in this the Panel recommended strengthening research leadership (Chapter 5, R-5), and defining in more detail ILRI's priorities and strategies.
The Panel commended ILRI for identifying a potentially powerful concept in building essential areas of research competence and management, that of 'platforms of essential capacity' (Chapter 3, R-1; Chapter II): however, this concept needs to be developed further in more specific terms.
To position ILRI for the future, the Panel saw the need for further integration and consolidation of the research programme (Chapters 6-8. R-6, R-7. R-8. R-9. R-10). Further, to strengthen scientific leadership and planning, the Panel saw a need for a Deputy Director General (Research) to oversee ILRI's research agenda (Chapter 5, R-5). The Panel was pleased that ILRI has many modes of partnerships with NARS and other institutions (Chapters 9 and 10) and recommended that the Institute redefine its role as convenor for system-wide programmes (Chapter 10, R-11).
Considerable time was spent by the Panel in assessing science quality at ILRI. and discussing indicators and methods to do this (Chapter 11). The Panel concluded that most of ILRI's research meets acceptable criteria of "good science", but improvement is still needed (Chapter 11), to move toward the excellence expected of the Institute. About half of the projects were considered to have good focus. Also. there appeared to be a correlation between focus and the amount and quality of research outputs. Some projects lacked critical mass, and this may have inhibited output. Publication rates at ILRI appear to be good, but it was difficult to differentiate between ILRI publications and those originating from ILRAD and ILCA (Chapter 11). The Panel concluded that ILRI should develop specific mechanisms to ensure scientific quality (Chapter 11, R-12). The Panel regretted that the Centre-Commissioned External Reviews (CCERs) were used mostly for planning purposes and said little about science quality or methods used for its assessment (Chapter 11).
The Panel is confident that once the research programme is restructured and integrated as proposed, ILRI would be well poised to enhance its leadership role in livestock-related research.
Effectiveness and Efficiency of Management
ILRI has a well-selected and reasonably diverse Board. In its operations, it follows well-thought out procedures in very effective pattern that differs somewhat from that usually seen in the CGIAR System. The Board has been especially conscientious with respect to its fiduciary responsibility, carefully protecting ILRI's reserves and thus ensuring the Institute's short-term security. Although it considers in depth programmatic questions and includes members well qualified to contribute in this area, it has not promoted the planning that would sharpen the focus of the research agenda as suggested in Chapter 3 (R-1 and-2), despite recognition on the part of some members that this would be desirable. A related recommendation (R 3 points up the need to promulgate widely policy decisions made by the Board over the years, especially in the programme area, that have not been made easily available to staff. The Panel further observed that the line between the responsibilities of Board and Management is unusually blurred and has made a recommendation that a sharper distinction be established (R 4).
ILRI's leadership deserves commendation for undertaking the merger of two quite disparate institutions with success and for putting in place early effective financial, human resources, and other administration systems (but see recommendations re salary equity in Chapter 12, R-13). Increasing attention is needed, however, in ensuring cost-effective use of the Institute's valuable infrastructure, especially in Ethiopia (Chapter 12, R-14). The Director General has kept a sharp eye on ILRI's financial resources and responded promptly and well to funding circumstances that changed precipitously and that required him to seek a substantial increase in project funding. He did so almost threefold over four years. On the other hand, the Panel found a hesitation to delegate authority and to make the essential incisive decisions regarding strategy and priorities as discussed in Chapter 3 (R 1 and 2). The Panel also sees a need for ILRI leadership to promote among staff a shared and compelling vision of the Institute's future direction.
The Panel has carefully analysed ILRI's organisational structure and made a number of suggestions as to how reallignment of research and research-related activities into five programmes, as well as the consolidation of some project staff from sites in Ethiopia to the Nairobi campus, would facilitate interaction among scientists, especially the exchange and maturation of keen ideas into research of the highest priority and quality. Central to the suggestions and recommendations in Chapter 5 (R 5) is the appointment of a Deputy Director General (Research) to take a primary role in planning, priority setting, management of high quality research, and promotion of inter-programme integration while the Director General focuses on external relations as he must.
ILRI staff is competent and committed at all levels. Staff councils are in place to bring concerns both to Management and Board, and, despite inevitable concerns, staff say the Institute is a good place to work and that disparate cultures of ILRI's parent institutions are close to union.
Accomplishments and Impact
The Panel has detailed the main achievements of ILRI in the chapters of this report and has discussed the issues surrounding the assessment of impact (Chapter 9, 11). In general the achievements have been good in a context of the evolution of the organisation and the changing financial environment. Most of the projects are producing significant output which has potential impact, and a number are beginning to produce impact directly. The Panel commends the increased activity in policy and impact analysis together with the increased awareness of the need for practical impact.
At the basic scientific level, the research on animal genetic resources and disease resistance/tolerance was viewed as an area where ILRI is becoming a world leader, while in the development of diagnostics significant advances have been made. If appropriate focus and clear-cut strategies are provided in vaccine research, significant advances can be made, particularly when integrated with the strong expertise base in epidemiology which is also evaluating existing control measures. This is a long-term research effort, for which adequate donor funding would be justified and necessary. The research on livestock productivity under disease risk (Chapter 6, R-9)and smallholder dairy systems (Chapter 7, R-9) provides a model of effectiveness in the Production Systems Programme that the other projects need to use to achieve their goals (Chapter 6, 7; R-6, R-9) It is particularly critical that feed resources and nutrition gain significantly in terms of focus and research quality (Chapter 6, R-8). Overall, the production systems research has many elements of good quality on which to form the basis for rethinking the strategy for crop-livestock systems research.
Advances have been made in generating linkages with NARS through training, networks and information technology (Chapter 9, 10). To complement ILRI's research, networks need more emphasis on collaborative research, rather than on institution building.
The main concerns were in the breadth of the research and the consequent need to focus on fewer areas to ensure both significant scientific advance and increased impact. To gain in the two latter areas will require a greater concentration on scientific leadership and incisive decision-making regarding priorities and strategies and the hard choices involved. Output levels in research appear to be at a critical point where a downward trend is appearing; this should be addressed urgently.
Concluding Remarks
ILRI has successfully integrated two former centres, ILCA and ILRAD, into a new global centre with a global mandate. In four years it has accomplished much in establishing new management systems and integrating its research. Research accomplishments continue to be made. The research quality can be rated as "good" to "very good" in several areas. The Panel has identified areas of significant strength, but these need to be built upon to realise ILRI's potential as an international centre that leads the world in livestock research. A key component to achieving this position will lie in continued investment in biotechnology research and its associated disciplines.
LIST OF 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.
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 operationalise 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.
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 and disseminated in such a way that they are available for reference as needed both by current and newly recruited staff, and that those approved in the future be similarly and promptly made known.
4. Because the line between the responsibilities of 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.
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.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 Cooperation.
iii) The programmes consisting of projects as at present, though with a different configuration (as proposed in Chapters 6,7, and 8).
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.
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.
CHAPTER 6 - BIOSCIENCES
6. To ensure research quality and productivity by having project co-ordinators and their research teams work together on a daily basis and thereby achieve cross-fertilisation of ideas, catalyse critical thinking, and design cutting-edge research and research proposals, the Panel recommends that Project 1 (Characterisation, conservation and use of animal genetic resources) and Project 2 (Development of disease resistant livestock) be managed at the Nairobi campus.
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.
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.
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.ii) Scientific staff in Project 13 (Crop-livestock systems in the highlands of SSA and Asia) be re-assigned, possibly to Project 19, to increase the critical mass of scientists focusing on transregional research objectives and market-oriented systems.
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.
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.
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.
CHAPTER 10 - EXTERNAL RELATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS
11. To address concerns regarding ILRI's interpretation of the convenor role in managing systemwide programmes of the CGIAR, the Panel recommends that ILRI:
i) redefine its role in the Systemwide Livestock Programme (SLP) to conform with the TAC-recommended function of a system-wide programme convenor,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
iii) refrain from reporting the SLP as part of ILRI's research 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.
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.
14. To ensure implementation of the proposed restructuring and integration of ILRI's research programme, and to utilise cost effectively the valuable research infrastructure, the Panel recommends the following action plan for achieving proper utilisation 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.
