3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Strategy
3.3 The Research Priorities
3.4 The Planning Process
Livestock research in the CGIAR is guided by the Group's overall policy, which was based on recommendations from TAC, to focus its animal commodity improvement activities to priority species of ruminants only, in particular cattle, sheep and goats. The CGIAR livestock research agenda is implemented through four major avenues: a) ILRI activities, b) activities of other CGIAR Centres, in particular CIAT, ICARDA, ICRAF, IFPRI, IPGRI and ISNAR, c) the System-wide Programmes on Livestock and on Generic Resources, and d) Ecoregional approaches. Overall, the CGIAR allocates approximately 14% of its resources to livestock research, of which around 9% is currently assigned to ILRI.
Overall allocation to livestock research in the CGIAR declined substantially from 1990 to 1993. The ILCA and ILRAD budgets were reduced from a total US$ 34.0 million to US$ 22.1 million, during this period. This followed an overall trend of sharply reduced investments in the livestock development sector, following general disappointment with poor rates of return obtained from investments in livestock development projects during the seventies and eighties.
With particular reference to the CGIAR, there was growing frustration with the lack of evidence of direct farm level impact resulting from the activities of the former ILCA and ILRAD. In its 1993 paper on Priorities and Strategies for Livestock Research in the CGIAR, TAC stated that ". while CGIAR investment in livestock research has allowed for many achievements and generated a wealth of information useful to policy makers. TAC is concerned about the limited farm level impact on livestock productivity resulting from this investment". The decision to set up a new livestock research institute in the CGIAR, in which ILCA and ILRAD would be integrated, and which would have a global mandate, was seen in that light. The new institute was to give greater emphasis to an integrated and holistic approach in the context of crop/livestock/agroforestry systems.
From the beginning of ILRI in 1995, its budget has been more or less stable, at about US$ 25.0 million, and although resources have become more limited, ILRI's research agenda has widened. When ILRI was formed it acquired a large part of the previous ILCA and ILRAD research agendas, and in response to its new mandate began to engage in global activities. The ILRI decision to continue priority activities, with slight variations, made it difficult to reduce or eliminate ongoing projects.
In the sections that follow, the Panel provides an analysis of the ILRI strategy to undertake its mandate, its current priorities as well as its priority-setting and planning procedures.
The status of livestock research in the CGIAR has been a regular subject of comment and debate for more than 25 years. In 1992 a draft TAC discussion paper on Priorities for Livestock Research was discussed at International Centres' Week. Not long after, Winrock published a report, Assessment of Animal Agriculture in Africa. All of these studies and the discussions which resulted have played a role in looking more broadly at research needs in animal agriculture.
The original ideas and guidelines for ILRI emerged out of studies by the CGIAR and the Rockefeller Foundation. In March 1993 a CGIAR Working Group on Livestock Research issued a report that recommended "a unified visionary strategy to guide future-research, a revised institutional organization to implement future research, and a revised management structure to establish policies and provide oversight for future research, for sustainable livestock production ". In May 1993, a CGIAR Steering Committee on Livestock was asked to develop the unified strategy and programme. At ICW93 in October 1993, the Rockefeller Foundation accepted the CGIAR request to serve as the implementing agency for the new institute. In August 1994, the draft Strategic Plan for a New CGIAR Global Livestock Research Institute was issued. In September 1994 at the inaugural meeting of the ILRI Board of Trustees the Strategic Plan was approved. In September 1996, the ILRI Board reaffirmed the strategic plan "as the guiding instrument for ILRI's plans and priorities".
The proposed programme in the 1994 Rockefeller Foundation report provided the rationale for a global initiative and suggested priority research areas for the new Institute. At that point this document was limited in the section on Implementing the Strategy, yet it offered alternatives about how the CGIAR should manage the unified strategy. It was pointed out that the least difficult role for ILRI was the one in which the Institute would become a strong convenor of the global initiative. Another point highlighted the importance of co-operative links with NARS, which should include assistance in institution-building.
The ILRI 1996 Strategic Plan is essentially identical to the original Rockefeller Foundation report (Rockefeller Foundation, 1994), and does not appear to include any modifications or adjustments that might have arisen from numerous meetings and discussions with stakeholders following the report's release in 1994. The Panel noted that the Executive Summary of ILRI's Strategic Plan of 1996 begins as follows: "This report was commissioned by the Rockefeller Foundation acting on behalf of the CGIAR".
The 1996 Strategic Plan presented the seven research programme areas and their relative importance by regions of the world. The seven research programme areas were: Animal Health, Animal Genetics, Animal Nutrition, Feed Resources, Production Systems, Natural Resource Management, and Policy Analysis. The strategic choice was confirmed to limit ILRI's biological research commitment to ruminant species.
In its preparation of the first 1995-97 Medium-Term Plan, ILRI's research agenda accommodates projects from the inherited portfolio within six programmes (Conservation of Biodiversity, Production Systems Research, Utilisation of Tropical Feed Resources, Animal Health Improvement, Livestock Policy Analysis, and Strengthening Collaboration with NARS). Following Board and TAC approval of the Medium-Term Plan 1998-2000, ILRI's research activities were organised in three programmes to implement this Medium-Term Plan: Biosciences, Sustainable Production Systems, and Strengthening Partnerships with NARS (SPAN).
The 1996 Strategic Plan made it explicit that ILRI would be a demand-led organization responding to its stakeholders' needs and preferences. Also, from this document, four strategy elements were identified: co-operation with NARS, forming scientific consortia with other Centres, extending ILRI to worldwide coverage, and focusing the research in ecoregions. These elements are discussed briefly below.
Co-operation with NARS is a key element in the strategy, as it recognises the benefits of partnerships sustained by comparative advantages of the parties involved. As part of this initiative it was expected that ILRI would undertake the task of assisting NARS in improving -their research capacity. This led ILRI into a number of activities that are included under its programme on Strengthening Partnerships with NARS (SPAN). By training national professionals in research issues and information management, their home institutions benefit directly. However, strengthening a research organization is a major task, requiring effective strategies, improved management, a good salary structure and enough resources. Therefore, besides focusing exclusively on the direct benefits of partnerships, ILRI's strategy should consider collaboration with ISNAR and other international development institutions to further strengthen livestock research organizations in developing countries. In this regard, the African Capacity Building Initiative deserves much attention.
Extending ILRI's worldwide coverage and working with a regional perspective is also an important - perhaps the most important - element of the strategy. The key issue is the distinction between a global responsibility (in certain functions) versus engaging in a worldwide research effort. This distinction is not clear in the current guidelines.
The new mandate challenges ILRI to respond to livestock research needs around the developing world, taking into account the variability in national capacities and particular country needs. Research issues in other regions were identified in the 1996 Strategic Plan; however, it is not clear that there is a justification for ILRI's involvement in such research, in terms of comparative advantage and clear, designated priorities.
The global mandate challenges ILRI to define how to undertake other activities (e.g., networks and information) in which it fills a need and has comparative advantage. Global responsibility becomes more difficult when a large proportion of funding is limited to specific sites and problems. Therefore, there is a strong need to clarify what ILRI will do with fewer resources in this context, which does not necessarily mean conducting research everywhere, even when specific problems are identified.
A recently prepared joint Board/Management document (February, 12th, 1999), prompted by discussions with the EPMR Panel in September 1998, gives ideas on strategic principles. The document presents general principles and ten elements for a strategy. Its ten sections provide considerations in defining a strategy, yet additional work is needed to articulate clearly a research strategy and priorities for ILRI as an organization. The strategy must contain a clear statement of how to achieve objectives, in a particular timeframe. Hence, the strategy must be clear and pragmatic in order to guide key managerial decisions.
Because an ILRI Strategy should lay out not only a strategy for research, but also priorities for development of the organization, it is essential to reveal a vision as to where ILRI sees itself over time and among research organizations. Important, well-articulated components of the strategy should include: clear definition of the pattern for growth and adjustment (beyond numbers), and utilisation of information systems as a key tool in dealing with worldwide tasks. It is also necessary to define criteria to select partners at all levels, for multiple reasons; and to define priorities for research projects in light of multiple actors' interests. Most important are the guidelines for programmes and projects regarding how to internalise environmental issues; for involvement in policy support to allow maximum use of research outputs; and for the inclusion of research topics regarding other ruminants important in poor households.
The above may appear to be details', but they are not. ILRI management has considered many of these issues, and work is underway regarding them, yet they do not appear in the ILRI Strategy. If concrete statements, explanations and guidelines were provided regarding these issues, it would be easier to conclude that ILRI has a Strategy. The Panel hopes this report will make a contribution to assist the Management and Board towards that end. The expectation is that ILRI staff, donors and partners will benefit substantially from a clear message as to where ILRI is headed and how it will get there. The process of preparing the Medium Term Plan (2001-2003), now underway, provides an opportunity to clarify ILRI's strategy and its operational implications.
Before leaving this discussion of strategy, the Panel would like to call attention to a novel - potentially powerful - concept that ILRI introduces in its documents on "strategic principles" that of platforms of essential capacity'. This concept is not yet defined by ILRI, but could, in the Panel's view, include such important aspects as "critical mass" as well as "core competencies in essential disciplinary areas" of science. If so conceived, the notion of "platforms of essential capacity" would be particularly attractive for a global Institute wishing to establish its long-term leadership in key research areas such as genomics, genetics and systems science.
Thus, ILRI's idea of 'platforms of essential capacity' could and should become a strategic tool in planning and carrying out research. However, a number of details concerning the operation and function of this concept need to be clarified, such as what would justify being considered a "platform", how would one be composed, what fields (disciplines, skills) would be essential, how much capacity would be needed in a given field (including critical mass), and how could platforms be organised and managed? Also, how would ILRI decide areas of core scientific strength that would be enhanced and protected for the health of the Institute and its programmes?
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.
The Panel has suggested some possible "platforms" in Chapters 6 and 7 to start the process of further conceptualisation.
Within its global mandate, ILRI undertakes other functions besides research. These include networks, diffusion of information and training, with differentiated demands for such services in various regions. Also, the expected impact of ILRI involvement in such tasks can be different than that in research. Hence, priorities for all activities, as well as allocation of resources should be undertaken in a comprehensive way. This section deals primarily with research priorities, but other issues are also raised for consideration.
Currently, the ILRI research portfolio covers a wide array of topics in twenty-one projects, and within the projects are 71 operational projects (hereafter referred to as 'sub-projects'). This conglomerate portfolio, extensive as it may seem, is an indication of the Institute's research priorities. The large agenda puts pressure on ILRI to obtain funding to maintain its research portfolio. ILRI Management states that the budget of ILRI must be much larger, and that the current portfolio reflects the many issues in which they believe there is a clear need for research that justifies ILRI involvement.
Many factors contribute to defining the ILRI research agenda and the allocation of funds to specific projects and sub-projects. The factors include ILRI's CGIAR mandate, donor interests, the carryover of activities inherited from ILCA and ILRAD, other CGIAR Centres (through ecoregional consortia), interests of the staff and their international contacts, and the expressed needs of NARS. ILRI argues that its comparative advantage is important in defining its involvement in research. From the current portfolio it could be concluded that ILRI's comparative advantage has grown extensively; this is an issue for internal evaluation.
In its Annual Programme Meeting (APM) in September 1996, ILRI made an effort to assess its achievements over two decades; strengthen its vision; address its strengths, weakness and opportunities; and revise management practices. It also undertook a systematic quantitative assessment of its 20 projects in light of two criteria: Attractiveness (Potential Benefits and Ability to Exploit) and Feasibility (Research Potential and Capability). The final outcome of this exercise was captured in a Project Assessment Matrix that suggested priorities for ILRI's research. The results, however, were apparently not utilised: the 1998-2000 Medium-Term Plan (Table 3) shows the actual and proposed allocation of resources for all projects for the period 1996-2000, and it is clear that the allocations do not always coincide with the priorities suggested by the Project Assessment Matrix. In the Panel's view the 1996 priority-setting exercise, despite the procedural reservations expressed by some staff, has much merit. The method appears to be sound and relevant, and the exercise deserves to be revisited.
The ILRI research agenda and the concurrent allocation of funds build in an iterative way. The base budget of a project is increased or not, depending on its success in obtaining complementary funding. The process begins with the preparation of concept notes, consultations with potential partners, consultation with donors, draft proposals, internal discussion, further consultations with donors, and draft of final project documents. In this process the original ideas and objectives may change somewhat to accommodate interested parties. In some cases, or more specifically, in some sub-projects of ILRI, there is a greater ability to deal with this iterative process, so that sub-projects get more funding. On the other hand, sub-projects that may have a higher priority in ILRI's agenda may be left out Making an additional effort to match priorities, internal capacity and funding is a task for ILRI to address.
An argument for ILRI's involvement in livestock research is that it will generate public goods; however, in fact ILRI may become involved for several reasons. One may be that no private organization finds it profitable to engage in such research, which may in some cases indicate a lack of relevance or importance of the problem. On the other hand, public national entities argue that they do not address particular research problems because they do not have the funds, or alternatively, because the problem is common to many countries, they expect an organization such as ILRI to do it. In the former case, this might mean an IARC would be substituting for weak national programmes and may be conducting research that is site-specific and not relevant beyond a national border. This point must be addressed as it may be among the factors that drove ILRI to some parts of its current research agenda and its current portfolio of more than 200 partner organizations, without validating the benefits of such an extensive list.
Having recognised these needs and conditions, the issue for ILRI is to determine the most severe and urgent problems of livestock that justify international research. Also, ILRI must examine how taking on such problems will influence its research agenda, fulfilling functions related to its global mandate, and its budget structure and stability.
It must be pointed out that not all problems of livestock in developing countries are animal problems, not all require research, and not all have solutions. Many are human problems (education, culture, poverty, etc.) involving people who themselves may judge that some matters are not problems. Many problems have straightforward solutions that depend on government policies and investments, but for political or other reasons are neglected. This rationale is important to define a balanced involvement of ILRI in research and in encouraging policies to create conditions to allow the extension of solutions generated by research. If the latter are not in place, research may generate outputs that do not translate into outcomes and impact at the level of ultimate users.
For ILRI, other considerations in priority-setting and allocation of funds relate to how close projects are from generating solutions. Research projects by their nature have different maturity dates yet some may continue beyond maturity. Since 1995, due to a sharp decline in unrestricted funding, ILRI has closed research activities on chemotherapy and pathology for trypanosomosis, dairy technology, cow traction, and vertisol management. However, given the importance of the issue, ILRI should undertake an in-depth analysis of expected delivery of all ongoing activities and make decisions regarding their possible closure, particularly in projects that have been in existence for a long time without delivery of usable outputs or outcomes. The Panel hastens to add, however, that this statement should not be interpreted to mean it places lower value on longer-term, strategic or basic research. Rather, the Panel supports strongly basic and strategic research that provides new ideas, methods, approaches, and developments that will help continue agricultural transformation, especially in the livestock sector.
On a related issue, the advancement of science and improvement of research methods change research priorities over time. This is the case of animal populations genetically resistant to diseases for which vaccines nave been pursued for a long time without success. A vaccine could offer a solution and its use could be extended widely and more rapidly, yet it often takes a long time to develop vaccines and such research is high risk. On the other hand, a disease-resistant animal genotype could be generated faster. However, the speed at which this genotype is made available to producers is often slow, and will largely benefit those with the resources to obtain it.
To assist in defining ILRI's research priorities, in 1996 a study was commissioned to Jacobsen and Norton to provide a quantitative technique based on economic criteria that were applicable to ongoing projects. The theoretical framework developed applied to projects that had collected similar data over the same period of time, a requirement that did not apply to ILRI projects. Also, the proposed methodology was not accompanied by an example, and the methodology has not been used by ILRI. The Panel concluded there are little, if any prospects for such methodology to be used to determine ILRI's research priorities.
Within the scope of its research priorities, ILRI is in the process of building a research agenda that allows adaptation to changing responsibilities as well as many forces. In such a process it risks widening the coverage and complicating its administration. Hence, there is need to clarify further needed mechanisms to define research priorities and to allocate resources for research and other activities, and thereby allow research and other outputs to be used more widely.
Besides a strategy and a clear definition of priorities, an organization requires careful, productive planning and evaluation. Without this it can not appraise its achievements nor define relevant actions. The planning process at ILRI is carried out at various levels and is iterative, yet the system does not seem to provide the needed results.
Because of the intricate relations that influence the ILRI agenda, all units must be involved in planning and evaluation. For example, the preparation of projects and the search for external funds, referred to in the previous section, are part of the planning process, and should be understood as such by all staff. Also, the specification of requirements of laboratory services is a part of the planning. Thus, planning is everybody's business. The key issues are to do it properly and to use its outcomes, otherwise it is useless and a cause of frustration and disillusionment for the staff. This is particularly important in a research institution where the scientific and intellectual talent of the staff is its primary asset. Continuing but ineffective planning is a drag on a research institution, but when planning is done well, increased research output and enhanced job and career satisfaction of scientists can result. At the same time, the effectiveness of the institution is enhanced.
At the project and sub-project level, objectives, goals, activities, outputs and indicators are analysed and discussed by project and sub-project staff, following the logframe. Annual workplans are developed for sub-projects, consolidated into the Project workplans, and approved by Programme Directors. However, the assessment of outputs and achievements is not rigorously undertaken; neither is there a critical evaluation of prospects for final delivery of results. In this way projects and sub-projects are seen as continuous, rather than time-limited tasks.
The Panel was concerned that planning at ILRI is too budget-driven. The highest level decisions regarding plans take place at the Board Meeting. The Board approves the medium-term plan, which has been developed from information provided by Programme Directors. The budget receives major attention in discussions, and there is no analysis of strategic planning, adjustments in the strategy, nor are major changes addressed to shape ILRI's vision and direction. The Panel concluded that budget constraints and funding anxieties do not leave room for discussion of strategic matters.
As per ILRI's Programme Operations Manual, the APM is expected to be "an important part of the planning and evaluation process and provides the opportunity for peer review of programme activity. It is held in September each year and brings together programme staff from all sites to review the progress of on-going activities and discuss plans and ideas for new activities. " The actual role of the APM, however, is somewhat puzzling, at least based on the September 1998 APM which the Panel attended. Since the APM is expected to focus on both the planning and review functions, it should require a meticulous analysis of project outputs and their quality, as well as outcomes. Also important is a clear assessment of how close projects are from delivery of results and expected outcomes. On the basis of the above analyses, programmes and projects can receive better guidelines for adjustment and final decisions can be made on the allocation of funds. Although the process is in place, inputs for the analyses and estimates of outputs do not fulfil the requirements. The Panel believes more rigour is needed at sub-project and project level.
Current guidelines require that planning begin mid-year, the results be reviewed at the APM, and workplans be agreed between programme staff. Project Co-ordinators and Programme Directors by December for implementation in January. The effectiveness of this planning is conditioned by several factors: timing, quality and utilisation being the most important. Regarding the timing, the current schedule seems appropriate. It is important as well to ensure that projects actually implement rigorously the guidelines for continuous evaluation and planning that allows them to make on-the-road adjustments during the course of the project, and to record the adjustments. This will make the annual planning and evaluation process more meaningful.
Regarding quality of planning, discussions with Project Co-ordinators reveal wide variability in the process, thus common rules and control mechanisms are needed. And finally, the Panel found evident needs to enforce planning and evaluation procedures that allow the measurement of the quality and output of research, and that are useful for adjusting resource allocation.
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.
In this process, ILRI is expected to develop a position with respect to biological research related to domestic animals other than ruminants.
