The Report of the Fourth External Programme and Management Review (EPMR) of ICRISAT was discussed at TAC 72 in the presence of the Panel Chair, Dr. Ronnie Coffman, the Chair of ICRISAT's Governing Board, Dr. Rajendra Paroda, and the Director General of ICRISAT, Dr. James Ryan.
TAC thanks Dr. Coffman and the Panel that conducted the Review for its incisive, forward-looking and basically very positive assessment of the future role and importance of the Centre. At the same time, the Panel's Report clearly defines some major issues that face the Board and Management of the Centre and its recommendations and conclusions are expressed in the more direct style that enhances communication.
The major conclusions and recommendations of the EPMR are supported by TAC, in the light of the interpretations and qualifications listed in the commentary that follows, which was prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat.
Evolution of the Centre
The EPMR Panel has identified the need for the Institute to formulate an operational mandate, which clearly spells out the strategic elements and focus of its work, as the transcending issue underlying the majority of its recommendations. TAC interprets this conclusion to mean that the Centre must be more decisive and resolute in making choices amongst the many attractive research themes that have been identified by the comprehensive priority-setting processes used for the previous and current MTPs. The process used by ICRISAT in developing its MTP for 1994-1998 was commendably systematic, detailed and quantitative and broke new ground for the CGIAR. The Plan for 1998-2000 has built on that sound foundation. Nevertheless, TAC agrees with the EPMR Panel that effective implementation then requires concentration on a few carefully chosen project or programmatic themes that, if successful, open the way for further investment in agricultural R&D in the semi-arid tropics.
Genetic Resources and Commodity Improvement Research
The first two recommendations are aimed at speeding up the transformation of ICRISAT's commodity improvement research at Patancheru to a global focus on pre-breeding based on the strong advantage of the valuable germplasm of the five mandate crops held in the Centre's genebank. TAC endorses this redirection, which is in line with the conclusions of two previous external reviews and is therefore overdue, and which accords with TAC's recommendations for a future emphasis on this kind of germplasm enhancement research in all of the CGIAR's "commodity" Centres.
TAC recognizes and commends the Government of India for its wholehearted support of the activities built around the genetic resources collection, which is held in trust by ICRISAT on behalf of FAO and the people of the Semi-Arid Tropical (SAT) Region. The availability of the plant quarantine facility and the facilitation of germplasm movement as an international public good, openly available to all users, is a model of national support and contribution. Such stable, long-term support is seen as a major benefit of the Hyderabad location for the genebank of SAT crops. TAC was pleased also to receive assurances that steps are being taken to protect this valuable facility from the threat of air pollution.
The Board has accepted the first two recommendations with the reservation that sufficient linkages be maintained with applied work. TAC accepts that ICRISAT needs to interface effectively with crop improvement programmes in a group of NARS whose capacity varies across almost the entire spectrum found in developing countries. However, if sufficient resources are to be found in a time of financial stringency for ICRISAT to continue to provide breeding products for testing by the weaker NARS, until they develop sufficient capacity to meet these needs individually or collectively, then the Institute must move very quickly to develop more effective partnerships with the stronger NARS. India is undoubtedly the strongest but there are others (Brazil and South Africa have a capacity for research on at least some of the mandate crops, as do a variety of public and private sector institutions in industrialized countries).
Natural Resources Management Research
The third recommendation pertains to the watershed studies at Patancheru. There is certainly a strong case for extracting maximum value from the data already collected, while further research there will need very effective links with Indian agencies engaged in river basin or catchment studies. Such studies use one of the broadest and most complex of all natural resource management (NRM) research paradigms. The Board's intention to focus on aspects that are most likely to generate international public goods is strongly supported. The possibility of contracting some of the research to national institutions should be given every consideration.
The other recommendation about NRM research is more complex. The EPMR Panel's good advice to focus on fewer lines of research and to ensure that they are done well probably applies more to this component of ICRISAT's research portfolio than to any other. There is certainly a case for seeking new approaches to NRM research and the integrated NRM framework may be the most useful vehicle for satisfying many of these objectives.
Two important factors should be taken into account by the Institute in planning to revitalize its NRM research. Firstly, the whole international research system has yet to identify a proven paradigm for NRM research in the tropics, and secondly, the type of NRM research needed in the African SAT may change quite quickly if agricultural development takes off. There are indications, summarized at the end of this commentary, that new technologies and market reforms are beginning to have a significant impact in some countries of SSA. Indeed, ICRISAT's own socioeconomic research, which is commended by the Review, is likely to have an influence on the rate of change in the semi-arid areas of tropical Africa. In these circumstances, the enhancement of soil fertility to more fully realize the genetic potential of improved crop cultivars and other opportunities in NRM research could open up.
Strategic Partnership
The EPMR Panel placed strong emphasis on a strategic partnership model for the future research of the Institute. TAC supports this recommendation which is consistent with the concept of a global partnership in agricultural research adopted by the Group at ICW 96. ICRISAT has good working relationships with a number of NARS, but mainly through complementary rather than integrated cooperative relationships. The adoption of the more closely integrated type of partnerships, in which the partners contribute and receive credit according to what they are best able to contribute, will probably require some changes of attitude. These changes will be helped by further development of the visiting scientist programme.
The Committee notes that ICRISAT has developed good partnerships with ARIs in advanced genomic sciences and applications of GIS, but there appears to be scope for more collaboration with other CGIAR Centres, for example with CIMMYT on molecular markers. Similarly, chickpea mapping would be useful to both ICARDA and ICRISAT.
Governance
The EPMR Report contains four recommendations on matters of governance and organization and management. All have been accepted by the Board. In its discussions with the Board Chair and senior management of ICRISAT at TAC 72, the Committee was impressed with the Institute's assurances of willingness to deal constructively and quickly with the problems identified by the Review. Many of the internal management difficulties seem to have been exacerbated if not caused by the stresses of making structural changes in a time of decreasing, unpredictable funding levels. In most cases the changes were warranted; indeed, some were overdue, like the introduction of an effective system of project management, and it was a matter of "too much of a good thing" as the Panel put it.
It is likely, in TAC's view, that these difficulties could be overcome within a relatively short time by the actions that the Board has set in train. For this reason and because of the danger that continued uncertainty may make it difficult under the new arrangements for the Centre to secure the funding that it should get, TAC wishes to reserve judgment on the need for a Mid-Term Review, as proposed in the EPMR's final recommendation. Instead, TAC recommends that a briefing on actions taken in response to the EPMR should be sought from the Board of ICRISAT this September, before TAC 73, in order for the matter to be considered in the context of the progress of the financing plan for 1998. This would allow the Group to be kept informed at ICW 97. Based on the Board's response and other considerations, a decision can be made on the need for further follow-up.
Organization and Management
Although no specific recommendation or suggestion was made, the Panel canvassed organizational options for the "new" ICRISAT. A key issue is what is decided in future for SSA. A balance needs to be achieved between institutional coherence on the one hand, and on the other, sufficient authority and autonomy for the senior "manager" in Africa to be able to negotiate effectively with NARS partners and members who wish to concentrate funding in that region.
While some project leaders are based in Africa, TAC senses a reluctance to assign global leadership responsibilities to senior managers based in Africa. Yet, before the end of the next MTP period, just over half the Institute's total research resources will be committed to Africa. There seems to be no reason, in principle, why the Director General of this Centre should not be based in Africa. This point is raised to illustrate how the thinking at ICRISAT should change and broaden. It would certainly overcome any perception that ICRISAT is an "Indian" institution. In raising this issue, TAC emphasizes that the global integrity of ICRISAT is not in question.
Impact
Finally, TAC offers a comment on the prospects for success in Africa. Ten countries in SSA achieved very satisfactory rates of growth in food production over the last decade, as reported at the World Food Summit. Also, somewhat in contrast to the impression created by the TAC Report on West Africa, ICRISAT's MTP shows a rapid increase in the number of its cultivars being grown by African farmers, though the impact on total production is still modest and not yet comparable with the achievements with pearl millet in India that led to the Centre receiving the King Baudoin Award recently. While there is still much to do to improve the working of input and (potentially) product markets in SSA, which would be likely to significantly improve the chances of ICRISAT's outputs being used, TAC tends to agree also with the EPMR's conclusion that the Institute's current achievements are not sufficiently known and that it should be more assertive in publicizing them.
CGIAR Support for ICRISAT
TAC recommends that it is timely for the Group to re-confirm the vital role that this, Centre and the SAT Region must play in achieving the CGIAR goals of poverty alleviation and protection of the environment. Unfortunately, ICRISAT, like some of the other older Centres in the System, has experienced reduced funding during a period of generally strong support for the agreed research agenda of the CGIAR. TAC urges the members of the CGIAR to renew their support to ICRISAT and its change effort, which ultimately is geared towards sharpening its overall impact, important in a time of constrained resources. These partnerships will enable NARS, as well as advanced research institutes, to increasingly shoulder important parts of the joint research agenda. We propose to discuss the suggested new paradigm with our partners and stakeholders at the earliest opportunity to ensure that our response is consistent with their needs and priorities, while reflecting ICRISAT's comparative advantage.
This EPMR coincides closely with the period of development of the Medium Term Plan for 1998-2000. We have incorporated our views into the MTP as ICRISAT's blueprint for the near-term future, a period which promises to expose the Institute to both the uncertainties of rapid change, and the promise of new opportunities.
Specific responses to the EPMR recommendations and suggestions follow. The responses of ICRISAT are in italics.
|
Sincerely, | |
|
|
|
|
Dr. James G. Ryan |
Dr. R. S. Paroda |
|
Director General |
Chairman, ICRISAT Governing Board |
