6.1 Host Country Linkages
6.2 Research Collaboration
6.3 Training and Professional Development
6.4 Systemwide Activities (SWAs)
ICRISAT's partnerships are numerous, and range from host country linkages, research linkages with national and international collaborators, training and professional development activities, and collaboration within systemwide activities. This chapter describes the nature of some of these linkages and assesses them in relation to ICRISAT's future.
ICRISAT programmes operate in a number of countries in Asia and Africa, the principal locations being the IAC and Headquarters in Patancheru (India), and the ISC near Niamey (Niger). Other base locations in Africa are Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), Nairobi (Kenya), Lilongwe (Malawi), Samanko (Mali), Kano (Nigeria), and Matopos (Zimbabwe). A detailed description of the extensive host-country linkages was presented in Section 4.2.1 of the Report of the Third External Programme and Management Review of ICRISAT (1991), and the Panel therefore confined itself to developments that took place during the review period, 1991-96.
Because of the large number of linkages that exist between ICRISAT and the main host country, India, a special study by a consultant was commissioned for the Fourth EPMR in 1996. The study noted that ICRISAT takes seriously its relationship with India. The first level of collaboration with India is between individual scientists in joint or collaborative projects, in which ICRISAT works with selected institutions of the NARS but is required to keep ICAR informed of developments. The second level is joint ICRISAT-NARS representation on the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) which normally meets annually to lay plans for the formal mechanism for collaboration. The Research Sub-Committee is composed of 8 representatives of ICAR, including the two DDGs and the Directors of the principal institutes, and 11 members from ICRISAT. At the next level, ICRISAT has an ADG position for liaison with Government Departments, while the current DDG has major responsibility for linkages with India and all other NARS.
The 1990 EPMR recommended," that ICRISAT proceed to appraise the nature and value of the work done specifically for India and the contribution of Indian institutions to the achievement of ICRISAT's global objectives. On the basis of this work, it should initiate a joint study on a non-confrontational basis with ICAR to set directions for the evolution of the relationship in the future in the light of Indian priorities and capabilities and the availability of resources to both ICRISAT and Indian institutions."
ICRISAT initiated the recommended study in 1991. The resulting paper was discussed at the PAC in May 1991 which agreed to implement formal work plans on a regular basis, but this agreement was not put into effect until the Research Sub-Committee reconvened in September 1995. On its own part ICRISAT has taken other conciliatory actions, such as withdrawal from breeding programmes that paralleled those of the NARS.
A fundamental issue affecting ICRISAT's relationships in India is that, despite the large discrepancy in size and fundamental mission between the ICAR system and ICRISAT, there is a perception of some degree of overlap in their work programmes. This has created an atmosphere of frustration on both sides, especially when resources are severely limiting. Information available to the Panel suggests that relations at the scientific level through networks and field trials are good. This the Panel judged as very positive, considering that the ICAR has some 22,000 scientists, many with Ph.Ds. Considering the collaborative mechanisms in place, the Panel suggests there is ample opportunity for proper consultation, although at times the procedure may prove cumbersome when deadlines are tight. The Panel suggests this problem can best be resolved by reducing the overlap between the ICRISAT and ICAR research programmes in India (see Section 9.1.3), and working to improve relationships between the two organisations at the official level. Further discussion on the ICRISAT/ICAR relationship is available in the consultant's report referred to earlier.
The CCER for Eastern and Southern Africa is full of praise for ICRISAT-NARS relationships at both individual and institutional levels, but the Panel notes unresolved tensions remain between ICRISAT and SACCAR that sometimes adversely affect their relations. The CCER for Western and Central Africa reported improved relations with NARS and recommended more consultation with NARS in project formulation and technology transfer.
At the administrative level, memoranda of understanding between ICRISAT and the host countries have been negotiated and, in most cases, signed. These documents help to clarify the responsibilities and expectations of the parties and the channels of official communication. The Panel was told that ICRISAT did not always consult its hosts adequately before allowing other IARCs and external research personnel to operate from its premises - even if engaged in collaborative activities. While such oversights may have been overlooked by host countries, they are a potential source of friction. Therefore, ICRISAT is advised to ensure adequate consultation with host countries, especially in West Africa where the increasing number of non-ICRISAT scientists operating under the umbrella of ICRISAT have been a matter of concern to some governments.
6.2.1 Evolution
6.2.2 Achievements and Impact
6.2.3 Future Strategy
6.2.4 Assessment
ICRISAT has a long history of collaboration and linkages with institutions in its host country, other NARS, IARC, and advanced research institutes (ARI's). Linkages with host countries are discussed in Section 6.1 above, while inter-Centre collaboration and System-Systemwide activities are elaborated in Section 6.4 below.
During its early years, the Centre forged bilateral agreements on research and technology transfer with NARS. In Asia during the last decade bilateral relationships evolved into multinational networks. ICRISAT established the Asian Grain Legumes Network (AGLN) in 1986 and the Cooperative Cereals Research Network (CCRN) in 1988. These networks were consolidated in 1992 as the Cereals and Legumes Asia Network (CLAN). Most of the Centre's collaborative research in Asia involving eleven NARS is done through CLAN.
Active collaboration with NARS in Western and Central Africa was formalized in 1993, resulting in major research activities with eleven countries largely through the Western and Central Africa Millet Research Network (WCAMRN) and the Western and Central Africa Sorghum Research Network (WCASRN). Collaborative networks were likewise established in SEA.
Cognizant of the potential of advanced biology to hasten genetic enhancement of its mandate crops, in recent years the Centre has collaborated in research with ARIs in Europe, the USA and Australia. The work involves genome mapping and molecular marker research on pearl millet, sorghum, pigeonpea and chickpea, and the development of diagnostic and transformation technologies for virus resistance in groundnut. Collaborative research is also ongoing in physiology of water use efficiency and mineral nutrition, genetic variation in important pathogens, and modelling of genotype x environment interactions.
ICRISAT has also operational linkages with many other CGIAR institutions, which are summarized in Table 6.1. Collaborative working relationships also exist with other international organizations (Table 6.1) such as the International Fertilizer Development Centre (IFDC) and with the French organization, the Centre de Cooperation Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Developpement (CIRAD).
Preliminary assessments of collaborative research through CLAN indicate significant contributions to the development and dissemination of improved germplasm in member countries. To date, 168 cultivars of ICRISAT mandate crops have been released by 14 Asian countries using ICRISAT supplied germplasm and breeding materials. A notable achievement is an apparent reduction in lag time between initiation of research and the generation of technology in the 14 NARS, averaging about 5 years across crops and countries.
In WCA and SEA, collaborative networks also proved effective as a mechanism for the transfer and release of improved germplasm of millet, sorghum, and groundnut.
Table 6.1 ICRISAT's Research Collaboration with other IARCs
(a) CGIAR Institutionsa
|
Centre |
Nature of Collaboration |
|
IITA |
· IITA and ICRISAT interact a great deal in the northern Guinea savanna, Sudan savanna and Sahel where the main crops are millet, sorghum, groundnut (ICRISAT crops) and cowpea (an IITA crop). Both Centres have research stations in Kano where much of their collaboration occurs. The ICRISAT station is on heavy soils while the IITA station is on sandy soils, so each Centre can take advantage of the two environments in their research. At each station the Centres conduct collaborative trials: intercropping, crop rotation, crop protection and crop improvement. Key scientists in the collaboration at Kano are: IITA cowpea breeder, physiologist and entomologist and ICRISAT sorghum/millet breeder, groundnut breeder, agronomist/physiologist, and entomologist. |
|
· Research collaboration in the dry savannas in the project: cowpea-cereals systems improvement in the dry savannas. |
|
|
· Proposed collaboration in a systemwide initiative for research on parasitic weeds (Striga) in West Africa. |
|
|
ILRI |
· An ILRI scientist posted at ISC. |
|
· ICRISAT and ILRI plan to work together on the Systemwide Livestock Programme. |
|
|
IRRI |
· Rice-Wheat Consortium. The area of greatest collaboration in which ICRISAT plays facilitating role for the Consortium and is involved in research on legumes for cereal-based systems. |
|
IPGRI |
· Both Centres are members of Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme. |
|
· ICRISAT works with IPGRI on the SINGER documentation system. |
|
|
· ICRISAT takes part in the Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources. |
|
|
CIMMYT |
· An ICRISAT sorghum breeder was stationed at CIMMYT, but that programme has been closed. |
|
· In Zimbabwe, the two centres worked together on their respective cereals (sorghum, pearl millet, maize) on the Seeds of Hope project. |
|
|
· Rice-Wheat Programme. |
|
|
IIMI |
IIMI is a participant in the: |
|
· Rice-Wheat Consortium. |
|
|
· Systemwide Initiative on Water Management (SWIM) which is being planned. IIMI would be involved with ICRISAT in four projects. |
|
|
ICRAF |
· An ICRAF scientist is based at ISC and four ICRAF scientists are based at the ICRISAT station at Samanko in Mali. This station is the base for an ICRAF research network in West Africa. |
|
· When its new research building in Kenya is completed, ICRAF hopes to provide office and laboratory space for ICRISAT staff. |
|
|
CABI |
· Research information - a subset of CAB abstracts forms the basis of SATCRIS (Semi-Arid Tropical Crop Information Service). |
|
· Occasional co-publication of books. |
|
|
· Collaboration between ICRISAT research programmes and CABI Bioscience Institutes. |
|
|
IFPRI |
· ICRISAT/IFPRI collaboration began in West Africa in the early- and mid-1980s. |
|
· 1992-95, the two centres collaborated on a resurvey of 320 households from the former ICRISAT village level studies of the 1970s in India. |
|
|
· Desert Margins Initiative has fostered a mechanism for increased collaboration on environmental issues. |
a These are placed in a ranking approximating level of significance.
(b) Other International Institutions
|
CIRAD |
· Cooperation on groundnuts: plant pathology (cercospora, clump virus, leaf diseases), drought resistant varieties, and alfatoxin. |
|
· Cooperation on sorghum with CIRAD providing breeders for joint CIRAD/ICRISAT team at Samanko. |
|
|
· Plans for collaboration in Desert Margins Initiative. |
|
|
IFDC |
· A long and productive relationship in Africa. Since 1982, an IFDC soil scientist has been posted at the ISC in Niger, working collaboratively to gain a better understanding of nutrient dynamics in soils of West Africa, and use of various soil management practices (e.g., indigenous rock phosphate crop residues, and molybdenum). The two centres have also participated in on-farm trials. |
|
· Worked together to help develop the Desert Margins Initiative. IFDC represents the non-CGIAR centres on the Steering Committee. |
|
|
IBSRAM |
· Numerous activities that relate to the agroclimatic work and commodity efforts of ICRISAT's and IBSRAM's mandate for sustainable land management. |
|
· Collaboration in the Vertisol management networks in Africa, with major involvement of ICRISAT in Ethiopia. |
|
|
· Collaboration between IBSRAM acid soil management network in Asia and CLAN. |
|
|
· The proposed Soil Water and Nutrient Management Programme is seen by IBSRAM as a future forum for collaboration. |
Research collaboration through networks has stimulated greater scientific interaction among and between ICRISAT and the NARS, and contributed to upgraded research capabilities of the latter. Research collaboration with ARIs has speeded the applications of advanced biology to ICRISAT's mandate crops.
Linkages with other international institutions have enabled synergistic relationships to be developed which have helped to lower costs to ICRISAT, improve operational efficiency, and/or increase the multiplier effect of ICRISAT's research programme.
The draft MTP 1998-2000 explicitly recognizes the importance of strategic partnerships with ICRISAT's stakeholders and spells out the areas where such partnerships should operate; research planning and priority setting, joint implementation of research, and impact evaluation. Helping to build research capability is a corollary objective, especially for NARS that have yet to develop fully their human resources and research infrastructure.
The Panel commends ICRISAT for its deliberate efforts to establish, develop and foster research partnerships with the NARS, with particular reference to research network systems for its mandate crops. Research networks can be a cost effective mechanism for technology and information generation and exchange. Perhaps even more important, networks create and encourage opportunities for inter-NARS collaboration. The Panel strongly suggests that ICRISAT maintains an active role in regional networks.
ICRISAT collaborates in research mostly with "formal sector" institutions (i.e., the NARS, other IARCs and the ARIs). The Panel believes this approach allows opportunities for synergy and ensures institutional commitment and legitimacy essential in sustaining productive partnerships.
Cognizant of various constraints inherent to its formal sector partners, the Panel was pleased to note Centre efforts to establish complementary linkages with NGOs, farmers groups, private seed companies and others in the "non-formal" sector. Such collaboration can be important in aspects of technology dissemination and feedback, impact assessment, and in harnessing indigenous knowledge, particularly on genetic resources and natural resources management.
ICRISAT has initiated efforts on participatory research, including crop improvement and integrated pest management. Participatory research methodologies are in the infant stage, and ICRISAT, drawing from its experience and scientific expertise, can contribute significantly to their development, elaboration, and dissemination. The Panel suggests that the Centre further develop this approach in its genetic conservation and enhancement activities and in concert with the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP).
ICRISAT's mandate crops, considered to be foods for the poor, have received scant attention from the world's most advanced laboratories. ICRISAT's recent collaboration with selected ARIs appears to be leading toward development and applications of advanced biology for these crops, with significant potential payoffs. Despite the promise shown, most such efforts receive support through short-term, special grants which provide little if any assurance of continuity. As advances in this field move at a very rapid pace, there is danger of obsolescence before new technologies are fully utilized. The Panel strongly suggests that the Centre strengthen, and possibly expand, its research collaboration with the ARIs and explore all means to provide it with sustained support. (For further elaboration of the Panel's views, see Section 9.1.3).
In the future, research partnership should become the norm and a dominant mode of research implementation. The Panel encourages ICRISAT to take advantage of the complementary strengths of its partner NARS, and strongly suggests that the Centre moves toward contract research arrangements with selected NARS or ARIs on its priority research agenda; for example, germplasm evaluation (see also Chapters 3 and 9). The Panel also strongly suggests that the Centre takes a proactive role in:
· Catalyzing the development, adaptation and transfer of advanced technologies and information relating to improvement of its mandate crops, especially on biotechnology and information technology, for access by the NARS; and· Mobilizing donor support for multilateral, research network initiatives.
The Panel is pleased to see the number of collaborative relationships that exist with other IARCs and notes that this is in line with the desire of TAC to see greater inter-Centre cooperation. In general these appear to be functioning satisfactorily. Linkages with IFDC and CIRAD are also significant although there have been, on occasion, some strains with the latter. However, there is a desire to continue collaborative working relationships.
6.3.1 Evolution
6.3.2 Achievements
6.3.3 Future Strategy
6.3.4 Assessment and Recommendation
Training activities have continued to be an important component of ICRISAT's activities since the last EPMR. These activities are now implemented under the Training and Fellowships Programme (TAFP). Training and professional development are of the following types:
· Visiting scholars in which NARS scientists at the MSc or PhD level are provided opportunities to study current research techniques, approaches, and technologies.· Research scholarships enable students from throughout the world to implement thesis research at an ICRISAT location supervised by a university approved scientist.
· In-service practical training designed for specific needs of individuals usually working in NARS. This involves practical training with participants ranging from agricultural certificates to B.S. degree level. These courses usually last about six months and have always been held at the IAC during the cropping season. The course covers crop improvement, production agronomy, and resource management, with, if necessary, prior English language training for participants from non-Anglophone countries.
· Apprenticeships varying from one to six months to students usually completing a BSc or M.S. degree.
· Short term training courses, often in a group format, are offered on specific topics such as new technologies or specific subject matter, the idea being to enhance the ability of participants to implement programmes in their own countries.
Another type of training programme previously available which involved research fellows or post doctoral level training ceased to be under the jurisdiction of TAFP in 1994 and is now the joint responsibility of the REDs, RDDs and PTLs. These, plus visiting scientists, which have never been under the jurisdiction of TAFP, really constitute professional development type opportunities closely linked with research projects and to research partnerships with NARS and ARIs.
During the period since the last EPMR the relative emphasis on the different types of training and professional development activities has changed. For example, at the IAC there has been an upward trend in visiting scholars with a corresponding decreased emphasis on in-service training courses. This is in line with the change in TAC policy that advocates increased development of in-service training to regional research fora and NARSs, a change that is increasingly being supported by donors. At the same time TAC proposed greater emphasis on short-term training courses for scientists. However, explicit line items reflecting training initiatives have, on the advice of TAC, been eliminated from the CGIAR institutional budgets. Instead, institutions such as ICRISAT are expected to identify training funds from other budgetary line items under their control.
Table 6.2 indicates that there has been a substantial amount of training and professional development since the last EPMR, with much of it being implemented under the auspices of IAC. At IAC, 58% of the participants were from Asian countries, while during the 1991-95 period, about 23% of the participants were women.
There has been no systematic study on the impact of the whole training initiative during the review period, although management indicates this is planned for 1997. Consequently, it was not possible to assess the overall quality. However, two papers produced earlier in the review period did deal with the subject of impact. One produced in 1992 indicated the NARS leadership in Kenya and Ethiopia expressed considerable satisfaction with the training their staff had received, but another one covering 5 Research Management Courses stretching back into the previous review period, concluded that the sample size was too small to derive any conclusive findings on their impact1. Nevertheless, other anecdotal, but admittedly sketchy, evidence has indicated that ICRISAT has had a positive influence on the training of scientists and technicians during the last five years. Discussions with some past participants in these courses indicated considerable enthusiasm for the technical skills and the range of expertise found among the ICRISAT scientists. A wide range of training courses was offered (e.g., identification and detection of groundnut viruses; research planning, data handling and scientific report writing; pigeonpea processing and utilization; adoption and impact assessment; crop improvement, production agronomy and resource management (all crops), etc.).
1 See T. Nagur, 1993, Tour Report: Study on the Impact of HRDP, Need, Devolution, and Opportunities of Training in Kenya and Ethiopia, and S.K. Das Gupta and B. Diwakar, 1994, Impact of a Training Course on Research Station Management: a Case Study (Paper given at International Workshop on Integration of Research Evaluation Efforts of ICRISAT with NARS and other International Research Institutions, 14-16th December, 1994).
Table 6.2 Training at IAC, WCA, and SEAa
|
Type |
IAC (1992-96) |
WCA (1991-95) |
SEA (1992-96) |
||||
|
Number |
Participant Months (%) |
Number |
Participant Months (%) |
Number |
Participant Months (%) |
||
|
Research Fellows |
35 |
16.5 |
12 |
23.1 |
2 |
5.7 |
|
|
Visiting Scholars |
379 |
8.3 |
3 |
0.5 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Research Scholars |
89 |
40.3 |
54 |
58.9 |
41 |
78.9 |
|
|
In-Service: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6-month |
176 |
24.3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Short term |
249 |
3.2 |
419 |
10.1 |
360 |
0 |
|
|
Apprentices |
98 |
7.4 |
0 |
7.4 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Total (Number) |
1026 |
4843 |
589 |
1537a |
403 |
94.2 |
|
|
Short term courses: |
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Total (Number) |
23 |
29 |
20 |
|||
|
Countries Represented |
66 |
26 |
n/a |
||||
a Excludes 178 participant months of undergraduate training
Recently, management has proposed a training strategy for ICRISAT which, after some discussion, has been approved by the RPCC and the ICRISAT Board. The strategy is designed to address certain concerns about the current situation. For example: African NARS want ICRISAT to continue the in-service training programme; details on training programmes and numbers trained at all locations need to be more readily available; many projects are conducting workshops and training programmes without adequate advanced planning and coordination; skills of some ICRISAT staff as a result of the VRS need to be improved; TAFP involvement needs to be greater and not just be confined to logistical support; training and the training department need to be taken seriously; and senior management needs to support training initiatives. Not surprisingly, given these facts and reductions in staffing, the current morale among TAFP staff is poor, although this may in part due to the changes in training priorities which will require adjustments on the part of all concerned.
The major points concerning the proposed strategy can be summarized as follows:
· In place of the in-service training programme at IAC, two four-month, in-service programmes are proposed for WCA and SEA in 1997/98 to train local (NARS/regional) trainers, after which responsibility for their implementation will be handed over to the regions/NARS. ICRISAT involvement then would be facilitative in nature and would be confined to helping such organisations develop proposals for funding training, and help in the development of training materials (e.g., as has recently been done in Malawi, and the publication of the Development Skill Paper series). It is also proposed that ICRISAT help the WCA develop a regional training strategy and action plan. If successful, such an approach could be extended to other regions.· Efforts would be made to rationalize and improve the efficiency of training within ICRISAT by improving the advanced planning and coordination of training/workshop events proposed by PTLs, greater involvement of TAFP staff, and standardisation of allowances to trainees/workshop participants. To facilitate this advanced planning and coordination, it is proposed a standard methodological approach should be used to identifying training needs, designing courses, arranging for administrative and logistical support, and impact evaluation. Until such issues are addressed and become routinely accepted it is recommended that the budget for all training activities should be centralized for the next two years, after which, hopefully, it can be decentralized again.
· Increased attention would be focussed on up-stream courses and in-country training open to NARS, ICRISAT staff, and the private sector. Consultation with regional fora/NARS would help in identifying the relevant courses, and efforts would be made to implement such courses on a cost reimbursable basis. To facilitate identification of the role(s) that ICRISAT can play in such endeavours, an inventory of the skills and competencies available from within ICRISAT would be developed.
· New technologies for transferring knowledge via interactive learning would be exploited. This would involve combining the training materials and knowledge resident within ICRISAT with state of the art computer technology currently available in India.
The latest draft of the MTP (1998-2000) particularly reaffirms the last two points above and also stresses that training of staff within ICRISAT will be given much higher priority.
A great deal of training has been done since the last EPMR and it is obvious from discussions with NARS that such types of activities are greatly appreciated by the NARS and other institutions in the SAT. However, the general consensus within such groups is that still more needs to be done. Thus the recent proposal in Jakarta to cut back on funds specifically earmarked for training is opposed by many. Training is one of the easiest areas to cut in times of financial exigency, but the long term repercussions in terms of negative impact on human capital development in the SATs could be profound. As ICRISAT moves more towards strategic research, the task of maintaining good contact and relationships with regional and national institutions will become more challenging. Training (i.e., transferring knowledge and/or skills) and workshops (i.e., exchanging information between participants, developing solutions to specific problems, planning activities) will become increasingly important as a means of nurturing such contacts and relationships.
The Panel welcomes the development of a training strategy by ICRISAT and the decision to phase over time the transition from "true" training functions (i.e., downstream activities) to what may better be termed professional development (i.e., upstream). In general the Panel agrees with the contents of the training document and is glad it has been approved by the Board. Unquestionably, the current ad hoc approach to training is inefficient, and in fact, on occasion, may even be counter productive. While some of the components may go against the desired wish of ICRISAT to decentralize, it is important, at a time of financial exigency, to maximize the efficiency and multiplier effect of training activities. This may be done by improving the professionalism in training activities, for example, systematic advanced planning, implementation and evaluation, ensuring quality control, maximizing training resources through coordination and developing partnerships with national, regional and international organizations. The Panel appreciates that loss of some autonomy may be resented by some of the PTLs but considers it necessary in the current situation. Unquestionably, greater documentation and transparency are needed in the extensive training activities planned and implemented by ICRISAT.
In conclusion, the Panel wishes to make the following points:
· The Panel was pleased to see increasing emphasis in the draft MTP 1998-2000 on training of ICRISAT staff, as gaps in the expertise of ICRISAT staff appeared as a result of the VRS (see Chapter 8).· In the light of the change in ICRISAT's training strategy, the transfer of long-term downstream training to NARS during the next MTP period is understood. The transfer might not be possible in Africa, but training might be facilitated by providing support to regional research fora for such purposes. The proposed emphasis in the training strategy on using a "demand-pull" approach to developing training programmes is welcomed. Also, the move to establish partnerships in training might be done through national institutions, regional fora, and the proposed inter-Centre Training Initiative for Africa. A consultative role of ICRISAT in such endeavours is important. Helping to provide resource materials (e.g., the Skill Development Series, Training Manuals), can be important in transferring training activities to other institutions. Development of computer-based interactive courses allowing a high degree of self-learning for individuals in isolated situations could be a reasonable option.
· Because its operational mandate covers the whole of the SAT, ICRISAT could potentially help facilitate development of interactive linkages between national institutions within the SAT (e.g., between strong and weak NARS). For example, ICAR has indicated interest in providing practical training for technicians from other countries on a cost reimbursable basis. ICRISAT might consider facilitating such linkages. If the NARS become stronger the Panel believes that interaction and collaboration between the NARS will become increasingly important and thus free the CGIAR of some 'traditional' obligations. ICRISAT could potentially play an important brokering role in linking institutions in different regions.
· The need for training at all levels, including in-service training and enhancement of scientific skills, was vigorously expressed during visits to NARS in Africa2. There is a need to find an effective means to shift training in Africa to national or regional fora. The Panel supports the proposal of TAFP in this regard. The need is also high for scientific training because many NARS scientists feel isolated and desire outside contacts.
· ICRISAT's existing initiatives to shift from down-stream training to greater emphasis on professional development and strategic research partnerships are consistent with the Panel's vision for ICRISAT (see Section 9.1.3). There are a number of ways by which this can be done: visiting scientists, research fellowships (particularly post doctoral fellows), joint ICRISAT/university supervision of PhD students, and networks.
· Continuing professional development for African scientists is needed because many NARS have suffered severe cuts in funding, both from domestic and donor sources.
· The Panel supports an even more proactive visiting scientist effort within ICRISAT, for several reasons, including: (a) the need to draw on talents and skills of scientists from around the world in ICRISAT's research; (b) unexploited human capital in many NARS; (c) the need to develop collegial partnerships with NARS and ARIs; (d) the overall reduction in number of scientists at Patancheru; and (e) the goodwill and energy that can be generated as participation in solving global problems is widened. To make the visiting scientists programme more attractive, some matters need examination, including making terms of service more consistent and transparent, and addressing differences in the availability of housing at ICRISAT locations. According to management, TOR were developed in 1995 for covering these matters, but in field visits it seemed that these are have not been fully implemented.
2 Unfortunately the Panel was not able to ascertain the degree to which the concerns of trainees expressed to the last EPMR, were met.
Two approaches could be taken with reference to visiting scientists from developing countries. One could be partnerships with Indian universities in which collaborating scientists might spend periods during their career doing research at ICRISAT in matters of common interest to the universities and ICRISAT. The other approach could be visiting scientists from developing countries, who have an institutional home, and who would spend a year or more at ICRISAT on research in their field. As with collaborating scientists, they would not be permanent employees of ICRISAT, but would be partners in research and would return to their home institutions when their term is over or the work is completed. Such a programme would fit in well with the ideas that are developing on a truly global agricultural research system, one in which regional research fora may play a more visible and active role in encouraging and stimulating research partnerships between NARS and IARCs and between NARS themselves.
One problem the IARCs face in partnerships are the differing salary levels for scientists from different countries and regions, where the local markets for scientists determine the salary levels and other conditions of service. An IARC must recruit internationally for its senior staff and must pay international salaries. However, when a scientist from a country or region is employed temporarily as a visiting scientist or collaborating scientist based on national or regional salaries, and not as internationally recruited staff, tensions relating to remuneration inevitably develop. Essentially, there are three salary markets for scientists, local, regional, and international. The IARCs must deal with each of these, often to their disadvantage, especially when the Centre is perceived to be dealing unfairly. The Panel believes this problem may get worse as wider partnerships in research develop.
Setting terms of service within a country or region by relevant bodies within a global partnership model would be a great help to the IARCs. The Panel suggests regional fora such as APARI in Asia and ASARECA in East Africa and SADC in Southern Africa, might be able to set conditions of service for scientists in their region who would work as visiting or collaborating scientists at an IARC. Such an arrangement would help to set salary levels, including any topping-off for the period of service, plus other provisions such as housing, transportation and other matters.
Given the proposed shift to greater emphasis on strategic research within ICRISAT, thereby allowing the Centre to become a 'magnet centre' for research on major global problems (e.g., strategic research in germplasm and natural resources management); the complementary talents in NARS and ARIs of both developing and developed countries with those in ICRISAT; and the need to develop partnerships to exploit the strategic/applied/adaptive research continuum, the Panel recommends that ICRISAT should broaden its partnerships and deepen the strength of its efforts along the strategic applied/adaptive research continuum by continuing to develop even further its proactive visiting scientist programme, and placing greater emphasis on professional development for NARS, ARIs and ICRISAT staff.
Systemwide has been defined by TAC as referring to inter-Centre research or research-related activities on a regional or global basis, or some combination thereof. It was recognized that such activities would gradually involve organizations outside the CGIAR; for example, partnerships with NARS for the implementation of the ecoregional approach. Systemwide activities consist of two types, programmes and initiatives. The Panel was told the distinction between them has to do with their state of development, and that an initiative was essentially the start-up planning and design phase of an activity, that eventually would become a programme when early development was completed and the work was underway.
A list of initiatives and programmes in which ICRISAT is considered to be involved is given in Table 6.3, including a brief description of the Centre's involvement and, where available, brief information on each effort and its progress to date.
Table 6.3 Systemwide Programme and Initiatives in which ICRISAT is Involved
|
Systemwide Programme |
Main Features |
|
|
Rice-Wheat Programme (full title: Rice-Wheat Consortium/or the Indo-Gangetic Plains) |
This programme began in 1994 and runs to 1999. |
|
|
ICRISAT was asked to be the facilitating centre because of its location in India. The ICRISAT coordinator's office is located in Delhi. According to its 1997 programme plans and budget, ICRISAT expects to need US$ 0.47 million to run the facilitation unit. |
||
|
ICRISAT is also involved in the research programme of the consortium through its Integrated Systems Project Number 4, Legumes in Rice-Wheat Systems. |
||
|
Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme |
SGRP is coordinated by IPGRI. |
|
|
ICRISAT is a member centre of SGRP and a member of the Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources. |
||
|
Systemwide Livestock Programme |
SLP is coordinated by ILRI. |
|
|
|
· ICRISAT is a member centre. |
|
|
Systemwide Initiatives |
Main Features |
|
|
Desert Margins Initiative (Full Title: Initiative for Sustainable Natural Resource Management Options to Arrest Land Degradation in the Desert Margins of Subsaharan Africa) |
ICRISAT is the convening centre on behalf of a consortium of about 30 national, sub-regional, international, and advanced research organizations. |
|
|
|
· The Desert Margins Initiative proposal was submitted in July, 1996 with a projected project cost of US$ 25 million over five years. |
|
|
· The 1997 ICRISAT programme plans and budget states US$ 0.5 million would be needed in 1997 for the coordination effort. |
||
|
Soil, Water and Nutrient Management Initiative |
SWNMI is coordinated by CIAT. |
|
|
ICRISAT is involved in a consortium with ICARDA and IER-Mali and is co-convenor for the theme (being one of four in all), Optimizing Soil Water Use (OSWU). The proposed budget for OSWU in 1997 is given as US$ 0.55 million, one half of this amount being planned for ICRISAT. |
||
|
Integrated Pest Management Initiative |
ICRISAT is a member centre |
|
|
|
· ICRISAT is also a convenor of a component. |
|
|
This initiative is in a formative stage. Switzerland gave US$ 0.32 million to IITA to coordinate and to organize a task force in 1996. Of this amount ICRISAT was to receive US$ 32,000 for project development. |
||
|
Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Initiative |
ICRISAT is a member centre. |
|
6.4.1 Assessment
There appears to be a rapid growth in Systemwide activities within the CGIAR, but it was not clear how these came into being. How are they initiated? How are priorities set regarding which ones go forward and which do not?
On first examination, Systemwide efforts appear to be a good idea, covering global or continental problems of importance at the System level, which go beyond a Centre's mandate responsibilities, encouraging fundamental understanding of key problems and seeking their solution, and addressing problems through partnerships, among centres, national programmes and other actors in the global research system. Another benefit could be to reduce the number of exploratory contacts with NARS by IARC staff seeking partnerships in various IARC activities, and tending to overwhelm the NARS by the sheer number of resulting demands on time and resources. The Panel recognizes there are benefits to Systemwide activities, but a measure of reality begins to set in when their implementation is contemplated.
Panel concerns about the Systemwide Initiatives and Systemwide Programmes include:
· High transaction costs.· Prospects for attracting new funding appear to be low despite the apparent importance of some of the topics chosen.
· Donors appear to want the Centres to implement the Systemwide activities with existing Centre funds, which for ICRISAT are already below programme needs.
· It appears many initiatives and programmes are being proposed, perhaps to increase the numerical chances of attracting new funding, raising questions of relative priority and potential depth of the research effort.
The Panel suggests a short list of questions ICRISAT Board and Management might ask in deciding whether or not to participate in Systemwide activities:
· What is the primary reason for ICRISAT's participation? The right thing to do? New research opportunity? Money?· How does the work relate to the mandate of ICRISAT?
· If undertaken, would the work hamper or distort existing or future priority research activities of the Centre?
· Is the work likely to attract new funds? If not, does it have high enough priority to justify replacing something already underway in ICRISAT's programme?
· What are the transaction costs of participation?
· Can the Centre expect at least to break even in meeting transaction and planning costs with the funds finally received?
· If ICRISAT participates, what is likely to be the long-term result?
· In how many such initiatives or programmes can the Centre afford to participate?
The Panel has attempted to apply these questions to three programmes and one initiative in which ICRISAT is most involved.
The Panel concludes ICRISAT was right to become involved with the Rice-Wheat Consortium, because its location in India made it a natural choice as Facilitating Centre under the CGIAR ecoregional concept; some of its legume research is already proving of benefit in wheat rotations in the Indo-Gangetic Plains; and legumes might play a role in soil fertility aspects of problems facing the rice-wheat systems.
ICRISAT must participate in the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme, because its germplasm conservation and utilization responsibilities within the CGIAR automatically make it an important member. What the Panel found disappointing is that the SGRP has apparently not obtained more funding for targeted germplasm research and has not secured a large core of funds to assure long-term conservation of the CGIAR's germplasm holdings, independent of the fate of individual centres. ICRISAT can and should do research in germplasm on its mandate crops and should participate as a major node in germplasm research, but should be careful not to take on global research responsibilities in crops or areas outside its mandate or within the mandate of another centre (see Chapter 3).
ICRISAT should also be involved in the Systemwide Livestock Programme due to the importance of livestock in SAT farming systems, and the importance of feed residues and their utilization in the Programme.
The Desert Margins Initiative, which aims at implementing an ecoregional approach would also appear to be congruent in some ways with ICRISAT's programme interests, especially those relating to NRM, land degradation, and pearl millet. However, the effort is complex, with many actors, with potentially large transaction cost and even if fully funded might result in a small benefit for ICRISAT, through catalyzing others.
Given the above concerns, the Panel questions how and how much ICRISAT should become involved in Systemwide activities and suggests a cautious approach by the Board and management.
According to the 1996 TAC report on CGIAR priorities and strategies, Systemwide activities in, and prior to, the 1996 Research Agenda fall into two broad categories: (a) those undertaken to emplant the ecoregional approach, and (b) those undertaken to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of more specific aspects of the System's work. The Panel is convinced that research cooperation envisaged through the Systemwide activities has the potential to add significant value to the System's work. However, given the disappointing experience so far in Systemwide activities, the Panel cannot help but question whether the management of change in the CGIAR envisaged through such activities is proving presently to be 'a bridge too far'.
Therefore, taking the above discussion into consideration, the Panel is pleased to note that no new Systemwide activities for the implementation of the ecoregional approach will be added until the experiences to date have been properly analyzed and TAC has been able to present to the CGIAR its interim assessment of the value of the ecoregional approach.
