4.1 Board of Trustees
4.2 Leadership
4.3 Organizational Culture
ILRI's Constitution stipulates a Board of Trustees of up to fifteen members. At present, there are fourteen, including representatives appointed by both the Kenyan and Ethiopian Governments and the Director General serving ex officio. The Board has made an effort recently to increase the number of women and members from the South. The former now number three (the only woman on the founding Board retired early to join TAC) and the latter five or 36%. Members serve staggered three-year terms and are eligible for re-election for a second term. Current and past members of the ILRI Board, which includes several who served previously with ILCA or ILRAD, are listed in Table 4.1.
Full Board meetings are scheduled twice a year, the Annual Meeting in Addis in September, a second meeting in Nairobi in April. The Executive Committee normally meets during each Board week and again in February. Occasionally, a Board retreat of one to one and a half days is called, as was the case in April 1998 to consider the implications of funding trends and uncertainties on the overall direction and health of ILRI.
A "Rules of Governance" document outlines Board procedures and other policies of interest to members, and the Chair makes a point of holding orientation sessions for new trustees. Furthermore, the documentation prepared in advance of meetings, the subsequent minutes and interim communications to Board members are comprehensive and, indeed, exemplary at ILRI. Discussions are reported in detail and a careful record made of what the Board refers to as "Continuing Resolutions," deliberations and decisions of the Board that have ongoing implications. Some of these pertain to Board matters, while others are in the nature of Institute policies that impact on staff actions and Institute operations. The Panel notes, however, that no mechanism has been put in place to translate the latter into promulgated policies, with the exception of the Personnel Policy Manual.
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.
The Board is structured somewhat differently from the usual CGIAR practice. Although there is an Executive Committee and a Programme Committee with familiar terms of reference, two other Board standing committees function in new and interesting ways. The original Audit Committee was renamed the Finance Committee and given a much broader assignment, acknowledging that the financial health of the institution is of critical importance and that the financial environment has changed substantially over the last several years. The Committee now works with Management to propose financial plans for the strategic, medium-term and annual time frames, including use of the Institute's operating and capital reserves, as well as performing the normal audit functions. A Human Resources Committee carries out the tasks of the former Nominating Committee and, in recognition of the fact that ILRI's human resources are its most valuable asset, is actively engaged with Management in the development of personnel policies and procedures, consideration of staff compensation packages and special personnel issues as they arise. Recruitment difficulties in the light of concerns for family safety and resource uncertainties are cases in point. The Committee also maintains an ongoing relationship with the nationally- and internationally recruited staff councils.
Figure 4.1 International Livestock Research Institute-Board of Trustees
|
Name |
Gender |
Position |
Nationality |
Main area of expertise |
Current Board Appointments |
Date first Appointment to Board |
Date of expiration of current term |
Eligible re-election term |
|
Dr. Neville Clarke |
Male |
Former Executive |
American |
Veterinary Medicine/ Physiology/Research Management |
Chair BOT, Chair EC, PC, FC, HRC |
21 Sept. 1994 |
1999 |
Not eligible |
|
Dr John E Donelson |
Male |
Distinguished Prof. |
American |
Biochemistry |
Member PC |
March 1995 |
1998 |
2001 |
|
Dr H A Fitzhugh |
Male |
Director-General, |
American |
Animal Genetics/ Research Management |
DG |
1 Jan. 1995 |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Dr. John Vercoe |
Male |
Consultant in Agricultural |
Australian |
Animal Science/ Research Management |
Chair PC, Member EC |
23 Sept. 1998 |
2001 |
2004 |
|
Dr Paul-Pierre Pastoret |
Male |
Chair, Dept. Of Immunology and Vaccinology, University or Liege |
Belgian |
Immunology |
Member PC |
23 Sept. 1998 |
2001 |
2004 |
|
Dr Margaret Gill |
Female |
Chief Executive, Natural Resources International |
British |
Ruminant Nutrition/ Research Management |
Member FC |
24, Sept. 1997 |
2000 |
2003 |
|
Dr Ana Sittenfeld |
Female |
Associate Prof., Centre for Research in Cellular and Molecular Biology |
Costa Rican |
Microbiology/ Ecology |
Chair HRC, Member EC |
24, Sept. 1997 |
2000 |
2003 |
|
Mr Cees de Haan |
Male |
Livestock Advisor, |
Dutch |
Animal Production/ Agric. Development |
Chair FC, Member EC |
21 Sept. 1994 |
1999 |
Not eligible |
|
Ato. Getachew Tekle-Medhin |
Male |
Vice-Minister-Agriculture |
Ethiopian |
Agricultural Economist/ Administrator |
Member PC |
18 Sept. 1995 |
Host country representative |
Host country representative |
|
Dr Amrita Patel |
Female |
Managing Director |
Indian |
Veterinary Medicine/ Administration, Agric. Cooperation |
Member |
25 Sept. 1996 |
1999 |
2002 |
|
Dr H Jochen de Haas |
Male |
Division Head, German Ministry for Economic Coop. And Develop. (BMZ) |
German |
Animal Science/ Administration |
Member FC |
21 Sept. 1994 |
2000 |
Not eligible |
|
Dr Tetsuro Komiyama |
Male |
Consultant, Nippon Agric. |
Japanese |
Animal Genetics/ Research Management |
Member FC |
21 Sept. 1994 |
2000 |
Not Eligible |
|
Dr James N Mwazia |
Male |
Director of Research |
Kenyan |
Public Health |
Member PC |
September 1998 |
Host country representative |
Host country representative |
|
Dr Charan Chantalakhana |
Male |
Director of Animal Science and Dean, Kasetsart University |
Thai |
Animal Science/ Administration |
Vice Chair BOT, Member EC Member PC |
21 Sept. 1994 |
2000 |
Not eligible |
|
FORMER BOT MEMBERS | ||||||||
|
Mr Michael Young |
Male |
Ecological Economist, |
Australian |
Environment/ Ecological Economics |
Former Chair HRC Former Member PC |
18 Sept. 1995 |
1999 (resigned in 1997) |
|
|
Dr N. Ole Nielsen |
Male |
Former Dean, |
Canadian |
Pathology |
Chair HR Member EC |
21 Sept. 1994 |
1998 |
Not eligible |
|
Dr Vagn Ostergaard |
Male |
Director of Research, |
Danish |
Animal Science |
Member 11R |
21 Sept. 1994 |
Deceased |
|
|
Dr Georges Tacher |
Male |
Former Director, |
French |
Epidemiology |
Chair PC Member EC |
21 Sept. 1994 |
1998 |
Not eligible |
|
Dr Lucia de Vaccaro |
Female |
Professor, University of Venezuela |
Venezuelan |
Agronomy |
Former Chair HRC |
21 Sept. 1994 |
1998-(resigned in 1996) |
|
CODE:
EC- Executive Committee
HRC- Human Resources Committee
PC- Programme Committee
FC- finance Committee
The structure has the advantage of engaging all Board members in Institute concerns to a larger extent than is frequently the case, as the division of primary responsibility into three segments enables members to focus their full attention on details of their assignment. The Committees meet simultaneously after two days of full Board meetings, then report back to the full Board where a general discussion of the issues covered by each takes place.
In addition, the ILRI Board has made use of Joint Board/Management Ad Hoc Committees. These are concerned with specific issues and operate within a finite time frame. Examples include Resources for Core Programmes; Intellectual Property, Biosafety and Bioethics; and Preparations for the EPMR. The Committees have met both by electronic mail and face-to-face in conjunction with other meetings. In establishing these mechanisms, the Board reasoned that "there is both need and opportunity for a richer interface between Board and Management [than is traditional in separating policy from implementation] wherein both strategy and implementation are jointly considered, especially on topics of transcending interest." As indicated below, this approach raised questions among the Panel members.
In the Panel's view, this is a well-organized and well-selected Board, with most members participating actively in their assigned roles. It conducts a carefully designed and thorough evaluation of the performance of the Director General annually and assesses its own work and the performance of its Chair regularly. The current Chair is a strong leader who has an unusual capacity to recapitulate and summarise Board discussions clearly.
It is also worth noting that the last EPMRs of ILCA and ILRAD both contained recommendations relative to the respective Boards of Trustees. These were clearly taken into consideration and responded to positively by the group establishing the structure and procedures for ILRI's founding Board.
The Board carries out its fiduciary responsibilities with care and is especially protective of the Institute's financial reserves. Financial reports are provided to all members at the Board meetings and sent regularly to members of the Executive Committee. The Finance Committee meets annually with the Institute's external auditors. The Panel suggests, however, that the Committee add to its agenda a regular meeting with ILRI's Internal Auditor to approve his workplan and review his reports.
With respect to its responsibility for programme oversight, it is important to note that a good many members attended all or part of the week-long Annual Programme Meeting that immediately preceded the Board meeting in September 1998. However, the Board relies more heavily on CCERs, which it used initially to test the implementation plans for the new Institute, in carrying out this function. CCER terms of reference are proposed by Management and revised/adopted by the Board. Membership on the review teams is jointly established between Board and Management, and both the Programme Committee and the full Board review the reports and Management's response and add a second response with the Board's interpretation, exceptions, reactions and guidance. The EPMR Panel comments on the CCERs held to date elsewhere in this document
It will also be noted elsewhere in this document that, despite evidence of good science in a number of areas, the Panel observed that ILRI has spread itself too thinly over too many activities, that its research agenda lacks focus, and that there seems to be an inability to make the needed strategic choices, either by Board or Management. In private conversations with the Panel, several members of the Board expressed these same concerns. The Panel must wonder, therefore, why the Board has not taken action to remedy this situation, as is the Board's clear responsibility. Careful analysis of programme options and decisive action is, in the Panel's view, an urgent priority. A Panel recommendation in this regard is in Chapter 3.
Attendance at the Board Meeting brought to light two other issues of concern to Panel members. The first is the fact that, although the Directors of Institute Programmes made presentations to the Board, the Director General did not do so in open session. The Panel believes that an overview of institute-wide concerns is appropriately the role of the DG and suggests that a "State of the Institute" presentation, expressing Management's consensus views and recommendations - based on principles laid down earlier by the Board or recommending new ones - be a regular feature of open Board meetings.
More importantly, the Panel found the line between the responsibilities of Board and Management unusually blurred. Implementation issues were raised that are appropriately within the prerogative of Management and about which Board members are not likely to have sufficient information to make a decision. On the other hand. Management's presentation to the Board seemed to invite such incursion into its prerogatives.
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
A final point: in the course of the September 1998 Board meeting, the Panel noted how few staff members were in attendance at the open sessions, even those focusing on their own programmes. In point of fact, staff commented later to the Panel that they were not clear as to Board programme-related policies. As it is often the case that staff members can contribute some point of information, and as it is essential for staff to understand the perspectives of Board members, the Panel suggests that staff be encouraged to attend as observers whenever possible. Participation in meetings of the Programme Committee is especially important in the Panel's view.
ILRI is led by a Director General who took office on January 1, 1995 as the Institute came officially into existence. He faced at the outset an enormously challenging task of merging two quite disparate centres. This has been accomplished with commendable success, especially in areas related to administration. Financial systems were combined in the first year, and a solid set of procedures for human resources management put in place. Throughout the past four years, the DG has kept a close eye on ILRI's financial resources and responded promptly and well to funding circumstances that required him to increase project funding substantially. As noted elsewhere, that element of the resource base has expanded almost threefold. This has made it possible for the DG to defend the Institute's biotechnology brief by directing unrestricted core funding to significant activities of the Biosciences Programme. At the same time, ILRI's reserves have been held at a high level, which means the Institute is well protected in the short run.
Another challenge successfully overcome by the DG relates to ILRI's relationship with the Government of Ethiopia. Despite that Government's disappointment when the founding Board selected Nairobi as the headquarters site, the DG was able to negotiate a favourable agreement to continue the Institute's work in Addis Ababa and in other Ethiopian-sites.
The DG is assisted by a management team consisting of the three Programme Directors, the Director of Administration, and the Director for External Relations. They coordinate their work through the Institute Management Committee (IMC), although the Committee meets relatively infrequently. This is due in part to the travel schedules of the members; in part, because two of the five are posted to Addis.
The comments that follow derive from the Panel's extensive discussions with a wide range of ILRI's staff and collaborators. To be sure, many different opinions were elicited, but Panel members believe that the evaluation presented is a fair statement of the consensus.
The Panel was interested to hear a comment from staff that the programme-related members of this group are more concerned with increasing the Institute's resources than managing those on hand. While a primarily external focus is not inappropriate in the case of Directors General, the problem arises at ILRI in the current Director General's apparent reluctance to delegate authority appropriately and to promote the concept of delegation within his management team. This results both in unnecessary delays and in the denial of authority concomitant to staff members' assigned responsibility.
More importantly, the Panel has made several efforts, without success, to prompt Management to express an operational vision for the Institute. Since the Panel's first visit, a Joint Board/Management Ad Hoc Committee has drafted a report on strategic principles for discussion at the forthcoming Board meeting, but, again despite prodding, it does not interpret those principles in operational terms. It never states, nor does the Director General in discussion, what research ILRI should promote in the biosciences or production systems or make clear what the Institute should not attempt to do, given its current resource base. The Panel, many members of the staff and several Board members argue that ILRI is trying to do too much in too many places with too few resources and thus that it lacks focus. This has led to a reduction of staff below critical mass in some areas and unduly curtailed operational funds. The Panel concludes that ILRI is attempting to retain a presence on more thematic platforms than is feasible under current conditions.
A potentially useful and appreciated priority setting process was carried out in 1996, but its findings were not pursued. Instead, despite substantially reduced resources, ILRI continues to retain most of the activities brought forward from ILRAD and ILCA. Furthermore, globalisation has been interpreted primarily as requiring the posting of staff in Asia and Latin America, which has depleted resources at headquarters, rather than as simply assuring that the research focus is more globally relevant. Reportedly, the approach to globalisation has not been debated extensively with ILRI's scientific staff.
The Panel makes a number of suggestions with respect to the research programme in the chapters that follow. They may or may not represent the choices Management and Board would select. Above alt, however, the Panel believes clear choices must be made if ILRI is to provide the leadership in global livestock research of which its staff is capable.
The Panel was impressed by the competence and commitment of ILRI staff, at ever? level, in both Kenya and Ethiopia. Despite inevitable differences of opinion about programme and concerns about compensation, staff in general say this is a good place to work. Separate staff Councils representing nationally- and internationally-recruited staff meet regularly with Management and with the Board's Human Resources Committee and are thus able to bring forward issues for discussion and, where appropriate, change, although never quite as rapidly as staff would like.
Clearly, the merger of ILRAD with ILCA involved the union of two different science cultures. This difference was characterised by the distance between a set of closely related disciplines focusing on basic biology and a set of applied disciplines linked to a focus on field issues and exacerbated by the retention of two sites. Although the Panel was told that there was little social or work-related interaction in the first years, this sense of difference seems to have abated, and there is more research collaboration. As is usual in CGIAR Centres, the gulf between the NRS and IRS is a bigger issue, but one that will receive the attention of ILRI's newly established Diversity Task Force.
A number of staff members participated in a training programme some months ago that focused on building teams, and this was well received and has had an impact. Additional training, partly on the art of supervision, is planned for this year.
Immediately prior to the Panel's arrival in Nairobi and with little time at hand, the IRS Staff Council Executive solicited response to a questionnaire that looked at job satisfaction, various aspects of management and the nature of the work environment On a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high), ten of the 37 respondents answered 3; twenty answered 4. Significantly, respondents came up with a number of suggestions for improvements in the environment and identified numerous instances of initiatives they had taken themselves to make ILRI a better place. Their responses seemed to the Panel to display a generally positive commitment. The most significant pleas, in the Panel's view, were for a reduction in micro-management, increased participation and more decisiveness in decision-making and prompt feedback on the reasons for the decisions made.
