Somewhat surprisingly, the last EPR made little explicit mention of the contribution of social science research at IITA. Given the current staffing pattern in this area at IITA, the Panel wishes to indicate the types of roles which it believes social scientists should take at IITA. These include (see also Collinson and Platais, 1992):1
1 Collinson, M. and K.W. Platais, 1992. Social Science in the CGIAR. CGIAR Study Paper Number 28. Washington: World Bank. p. 2.· Conducting strategic research in social science to improve understanding of human behaviour at the farm, community, and national (policy) levels, in order to assist the conduct of research at IITA.
· Contributing to research that will produce technologies and strategies useful to farmers, and their households, in improving their productivity, welfare, and sustainability in an equitable manner.
· Assisting IITA management and scientists in priority-setting and planning, and in assessing impact.
· Participating in enhancing the capacity of national organizations, particularly in research.
This list of potential roles to be played by social scientists contrasts with the actual presence of social scientists in the core programme since the 1990 EPR. The changes can be traced to the reorientation from crop-based working groups to the agroecosystem programmes in 1992, the significant resignations (i.e. four) that occurred soon after, the strategy developed in the 1994 Medium-Term Plan 1994-1998, and the budgetary crisis that IITA faced during the review period.
The five agricultural economists present at the beginning of the review period (one of whom headed the Resource and Crop Management Research Programme (RCMP)) were reduced to three at the end of 1994. Of these, one currently heads the RCMD and another has been employed under the Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa (COSCA) project. Thus, of the four core positions indicated in the Medium-Term Plan (including an Impact Assessor) only one is currently filled (i.e. for the Moist Savanna Programme). Technically one position has been "eliminated" resulting from a transfer of responsibility for the Inland Valley Programme to the Moist Savanna and Humid Forest Programmes, while, until recently, another one was frozen (i.e. the Impact Assessor position). Currently, recruiting is underway for an agricultural economist for the Humid Forest Programme and the process of recruiting an Impact Assessor is beginning. Apart from the Impact Assessor position, which has not been filled to date, all the social scientist positions are located in the RCMD.
Among its major activities, socioeconomic work has helped to characterize environments and technologies in the humid and subhumid regions of West and Central Africa. This exercise has contributed to the "benchmark area" concept, a major focus of IITA's current field efforts under its ecoregional mandate.
· In the Moist Savanna Programme considerable emphasis has been laid on characterizing systems as being population-driven or market-driven and as being in a land-expansion or land-intensification stage of development. Differentiation of systems according to such criteria is designed to help in more definitively targeting technology development. An offshoot of this has been an analysis of the impressive success of introducing maize into the Moist Savanna Zone. Much of the "benchmark" work to date has concentrated on the northern part of the Guinea Savanna Zone but currently the economist, in collaboration with the NARS, is completing a proposal concerning a "benchmark area" in the southern part of the Zone.· Characterization of current farming systems has also taken place in the Humid Forest Programme in spite of there being no core-funded incumbent. A number of studies have been undertaken, the most notable being a survey of resource management in 85 villages (of which 47 were in the forest zone), conducted in 1992 throughout Cameroon. The survey undertaken with special project funding was implemented primarily by scientists from the Institute of Agronomic Research. A geographic grid-coded scheme indicating native vegetation and soils was used as a sampling frame and the results were used to identify strategies for technology development, linked to a resource-use intensification gradient, for the forest margin benchmark site in southern Cameroon in late 1993. During 1994 survey activities continued with a household characterization study undertaken to complement the soil sampling and rapid appraisal of vegetation in 45 villages which were selected using an area grid approach. Following this, six villages have been selected for intensive monitoring and on-farm technology testing.
The COSCA project started in 1989 with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. A large amount of information has been collected and analyzed on the cassava growing areas of Africa. Phase I, completed by 1990, addressed characterization of cassava producing zones at village-level, while in 1992, Phase II was devoted to a detailed production survey. Finally, the collection of date in Phase III, which dealt with postharvest issues, such as consumption and marketing, was completed in 1993. Substantial data analysis has been completed on Phases I and II, and databases for these two phases are available for release. Progress is being made on the entry and cleaning of data collected in Phase III. A large number of publications have been produced and national reports on the 10 countries collaborating in the project are being prepared.
Examples of other activities are as follows: some work relating to sustainability has been undertaken, particularly with respect to the total factor productivity concept, in collaboration with ILRI (formerly ILCA). Resource use dynamics have been studied in southeastern Nigeria, a conceptual framework has been developed for analysis of shifting cultivation and an assessment of alley cropping has been made. An interdisciplinary study involving macro-level characterization of 14 countries has recently been completed on savanna system characteristics for West and Central Africa. Social scientists have also contributed to the characterization conceptual framework used as a basis for the Inland Valley Consortium (see Section 4.2.7.). Finally, the newly appointed head of the RCMD (an agricultural economist) has played an important role in the research priority-setting exercise that has been undertaken within IITA.
Unquestionably the disruption in staff continuity and the temporary reduction of core commitments has had a negative impact on the contribution of socioeconomics during the review period. Taking this into account, the socioeconomic input has been remarkably productive, thanks in large part to work undertaken as a result of special project funding.
However, although care must be taken not to use publications too rigidly as a yardstick in assessing the contribution of the social science component, it is apparent from the list of publications provided to the Panel, the publication record of the social scientists in IITA since the last EPR has not been very impressive. There was, as expected, a peak in terms of published papers during the 1991/92 period with a marked decline since then. Taking into account the type of publication and the number of senior scientist years which social scientists actually filled since the last review, the publication record for the social scientists at IITA was no better than that criticized at the time of the last review for IITA as a whole. More than 65% of the scientific output of the IITA social scientists did not involve rigorous, peer review, while the number of externally refereed publications per social scientist was only about 0.83 per year. However, there are a number of papers currently in draft form.
Perhaps of even greater concern is that only a few of the publications appeared to reflect genuine interdisciplinary collaboration, an unfortunate situation given the fact that well over 90% of the IITA scientists have a technical orientation and that an informal survey among such scientists indicated their perception that the most important function of CGIAR social scientists was to provide guidance on technology development (Collinson and Platais, 1992).1 In fact, even before the last EPR the number of interdisciplinary papers was rather limited. However, as indicated earlier, there is now some evidence that this situation is changing. For example, there appears to have been coordination and collaboration across social and technical disciplines in the characterization studies of the Moist Savanna and Humid Forest agroecosystems. Unfortunately, to date, little has been published from work on the Humid Forest agroecosystem. Given the innovative nature of the approach and its potential value to others, this is something that needs to be rectified as soon as possible. The characterization of the agroecosystems, taking into account the interaction between the technical (i.e. biophysical) and socioeconomic variables, is good and helps lay a much firmer foundation for determining and targeting relevant technologies.
1 Op. cit. p. 11.
The COSCA study undoubtedly constitutes one of the best commodity studies implemented in Africa to date. Past and current trends in production and utilization of cassava have been quantified and documented for 10 countries and detailed information is now available on cassava production, consumption, and marketing. This information is increasingly appreciated by many both in and outside IITA. In connection with this, as indicated above, the project has been prolific in terms of publications and still more are planned. However, although databases are now available on Phases I and II, they have still not been generally distributed to interested parties. The Panel strongly supports the plan to make a decision on how this should be done at a meeting scheduled for June 1995. It is also apparent the analysis and write-up of the surveys will not be completed, as earlier planned, by the end of 1995. Therefore, now that major support from the Rockefeller Foundation has ended, the Panel supports the plan of IITA to continue funding the economist for a total of one SSY beyond the end of 1995 in order to ensure that this important task is completed.
Although the Panel regrets the delays caused by the budgetary crisis and the need to recruit a new Director of RMCD in filling the vacancies arising from the resignations at the end of 1992 and in 1993, it is also pleased to note that some positive decisions have recently been made. Although, as indicated above, recruiting is underway for two of the vacant positions, there is still a question mark about the position for an agricultural economist in the Inland Valley Programme which, technically, has been eliminated. In essence, the agricultural economist currently leading the COSCA project can be viewed as filling this post. However, if this position were released as one for a core agricultural economist after the termination of the COSCA project, staffing by social scientists would still amount to less than 10% of the total IITA scientist complement, compared with an average in 1991 of about 15% for CGIAR centres as a whole1 (Collinson and Platais, 1992)2.
1 However, this includes ISNAR and IFPRI, where there are more social scientists. Excluding these centres, a more realistic figure is around 10%.2 Op. cit. p. xi.
The Panel believes there is strong justification for making this position available. If plans for expanding the work in the Mid-Altitude Savanna are realised then obviously the position could be used for fulfilling the needs of that agroecosystem. However, for reasons given elsewhere (see Section 4.2.7.), the Panel has some reservations about doing this in the near future, unless additional research resources can be identified. Although it recognizes the desirability of an RCMD input right at the beginning of Mid-Altitude Savanna work, it also recognizes that the limited core research resources would mean that the critical masses in the other two agroecosystems would suffer (see Section 2.3.4.). However, there is urgent need for agricultural economists to help in interdisciplinary work of various types, e.g. ascertaining economic feasibility of technologies, assessing impact ex ante in equity and welfare terms, etc. with scientists in CID and PHMD. Thus, the Panel would prefer the agricultural economist, who ideally should have some sociological skills, to concentrate on collaborating with scientists in CID and PHMD. For example, PHMD has expressed an interest in a socioeconomic input in their cassava work.
Recommendation:
The Panel recommends that IITA maintain an effective capacity in social science research and recruit to fill the positions approved in the Medium-Term Plan as soon as possible.
Since the two positions for agroecosystem work are for agricultural economists, the Panel supports the current IITA plan to fill the Impact Assessor position with a representative of another social science discipline (see Section 7.2.2.).
Finally the Panel suggests that, given the limitations imposed through having only three core agricultural economist positions, the following points are taken into consideration in charting the strategy for the agricultural economics input over the next five years:
· Top priority should be given by the agricultural economists to providing meaningful services to technical, i.e. biophysical scientists. The Panel therefore concurs with the proposal of the RCMD Director at a presentation to the IITA Board in December 1994 that more than 90% of the social science agenda should focus on services for biophysical scientists, including collaboration in on-farm surveys, studies, and trials.· Given the priority that should rightly be assigned to identification of technologies and strategies for improving farmer productivity and sustainability, the function of ex post impact assessment should primarily be the role of the Impact Assessor. However, assembling appropriate baseline information required for diagnosis and design purposes (which later can also be used for ex post assessment) is an appropriate function of the agricultural economists. Another appropriate activity of such economists is ex ante assessment of technologies through the use of modelling techniques to help scientists assess the welfare and equity implications of the technologies they are, or are planning to, develop.
· Ways should be sought to collaborate with social scientists in national organizations through not only helping in their training but also, where domestic expertise already exists, e.g. particularly in Nigeria, in increasing the quantity and quality of the social science, i.e. both economics and sociology inputs not only in the national programmes but also in IITA itself. The Panel believes that much more can be done than is currently the case in using the social science skills within national programmes, i.e. particularly in Nigeria, which generally have very limited resources at present. Obvious examples of where such inputs could be particularly valuable are in ex post impact assessment (Section 7.2.2.), collaborating in surveys and on-farm trials (particularly of an applied and adaptive nature) where they have intimate knowledge of the local environment, e.g. the Cameroon survey mentioned in Section 7.1.2.) and studies of a policy nature. What is extremely important, however, is that, in terms of research results, joint products are produced and published.
· Continued encouragement should be given also to filling perceived gaps in skills and expertise in social science areas through the use of Post Doctoral Fellows, Visiting Scientists and special project funding.
· Although it has been said many times before, ways need to be sought to encourage inter-centre collaboration to ensure more effective use of scarce social science capacity. One obvious linkage that needs to be explored to a greater extent than it has to date is with IFPRI,1 which has a comparative advantage in addressing policy issues which are likely to be very important in facilitating/encouraging/ensuring convergence between productivity and sustainability strategies. Research benefits will be limited unless there is policy reform.
1 McIntire, J. and B. Ouayogode, 1994. Report of the Panel on CGIAR Commitments in West Africa. Rome: TAC, FAO. p. 49, 55.
In the light of the above, the Panel suggests that IITA initiate discussions with IFPRI regarding effective collaboration on agricultural policy research in Africa, in the IITA mandate regions. The Panel further suggests that TAC should ensure that this concern is addressed in the current Stripe Study on Policy and Management Research in the CGIAR.
As reported in the last EPR, indicators of impact still appear to be largely anecdotal (for example, see TAC, 1990)2 except for external evaluation of the spectacular biocontrol programme on cassava mealybug, on which development was accomplished prior to the current review period. Some published information is also available on the increase in maize production in northern Nigeria and the spread of improved cassava varieties also in Nigeria. In both cases cultivars from IITA have played significant roles. A comprehensive and seemingly impressive but unquantified list of achievements relating to technology development and adoption is given in different parts of the most recent Medium-Term Plan. There is little point in repeating the list in this report; but the apparent diversity in terms of technologies adopted and the widespread nature of adoption that is claimed for others, do appear to imply that there has been a substantial payoff from the resources devoted to research at IITA. However, the Panel could not be absolutely certain about this, since the plea of TAC in commenting on the last EPR (TAC, 1990: p. xiii), to develop systematic approaches to assessment of impact at three levels, i.e. on science, on national systems development, and selectively on farmer productivity, does not appear to have been heeded. In the lists given, evidence of impact is couched in terms of words and phrases such as "developed," "incorporation of resistance," "enhanced," "released and adopted," "proved to be," "improved," "adopted extensively," "widely adopted," expanded considerably," "being adopted," "adapted to," "being released," "widely grown," etc.
2 TAC, 1990. Report of the Third External Programme Review of IITA. Rome: TAC Secretariat, FAO, p. 18, 31, 74.
However, as the discussion in the following section shows, the Panel is reluctant to be too judgemental about the apparent vagueness of the above words/phrases. From information given to the Panel and presented earlier (see Section 2.1.), it is possible to argue that there has been considerable impact relating to the crops under the mandate of IITA and that IITA has contributed to that success. Certainly substantial amounts of improved germplasm have been distributed for all the crops, while impressive increases in production and/or area grown have occurred with respect to maize, cowpeas, and soybean. The 1994 King Baudouin Award was given for success in breeding plantains for Black Sigatoka resistance and advances in Musa research, with an estimated potential return for every dollar invested in research of $1500. The COSCA study has revealed that 55-60% of the cassava cropped area in Nigeria is planted with improved varieties of IITA origin, that has been estimated to provide enough "gari" for 29 million people. For maize in 1990-92 it was estimated that 20% of the cropped area was devoted to improved germplasm to which both CIMMYT and IITA had contributed. Certainly IITA's work on maize streak virus resistance has been important in the adoption of improved varieties. An independent impact assessment report for the SAFGRAD networks revealed that in Mali and Burkino Faso between 1988 and 1991, improved germplasm originating from IITA accounted for 40 to 60% of the released varieties. Finally, social benefits of cowpea research have been estimated to range from $6.2 to $12.3 million per year in the West and Central Africa region for the period 1987-91.
Although it is unfortunate that more detailed "quantitative" ex post assessments of IITA's impact are not available, the Panel is reluctant at this time to be too critical about the lack of progress in this area. While, on one hand, it is regrettable that the position of Impact Assessor specified in the MTP was frozen until recently, the Panel also believes, as the TAC commentary indicated (TAC, 1990)1 that the issue of impact assessment is a CGIAR Systemwide concern and therefore needs to be tackled at that level as well. The Panel is aware that Impact Assessors have recently been appointed in at least two centres (CIMMYT and ICRISAT), and the Panel is pleased to note that the process of recruiting one for IITA has recently been started. The CGIAR Task Force on Impact Assessment, consisting of donor and centre representation, is expected shortly to complete its report. This appears likely to recommend an independent two-person Impact Assessment Unit that will interact with Impact Assessors within the individual centres and presumably encourage the implementation of some Systemwide methodologies. The Panel would fully endorse such an approach.
1 Op cit. p. xiii.
The Panel believes this is important, because while impact assessment is easy to talk about, it can be complex and costly to implement in practice. Thus, to provide comparative data across centres and to encourage evolution in the approaches used, those responsible for impact assessment need to be able to discuss, test and hopefully adopt new, cheaper, and more efficient methods. A number of important issues relating to the difficulty of institutionalizing impact assessment within the CGIAR System are given in a recently-published paper by Collinson and Tollens (1994).1 A few of the major concerns and issues that need to be recognized and, where necessary, resolved are:
1 Collinson, M. and E. Tollens, 1994. The Impact of the International Agricultural Centres: Quantification and Interpretation. Experimental Agriculture, 30: 395-419.· All parties (donors, CGIAR/TAC and national organizations) need to recognize that the products produced by IITA are generally "intermediate" in nature, therefore complicating the issue of determining impact assessment.
· Because of the "intermediate" nature of some of the products produced by IITA, the ultimate impact of its work is dependent on prevailing national economic policies and on the efficacy of other institutions, e.g. NARS, extension, governments, on which IITA has little influence. Thus, because of the "final (joint) product" that results, to attribute ultimate benefits almost uniquely to the work of IARCs - which on occasion has been done - is both unreasonable and misleading!
· As institutions such as IITA move increasingly emphasize strategic plus some applied research, the impact assessment issue will become increasingly "intermediate" in nature and a longer time frame will need to be accepted, as far as obtaining impact is concerned. Increasing concern and attention to sustainability issues, which relative to evaluating productivity can usually only be ascertained empirically, in a relatively long time frame, further complicates the issue of impact assessment.
· Given the above observations, much of the impact of IITA's work is likely to be indirect (e.g. on institutional capacity and scientific knowledge) rather than direct (e.g. improvement of production, sustainability, consumption and social welfare). Unfortunately but understandably, it is the latter direct impact that donors are most interested in and the one most difficult to achieve because, as mentioned above, of the critical role played by other institutions. In fact it is probably true to say that these play an even more critical role when actions by farmers are necessary to achieve the desired impact. Thus, as Collinson and Tollens (1994)1 have indicated, perhaps some of the success of the biological control of the cassava mealybug can be attributed to the fact that impact was possible independently of decision making by the farmer. Unfortunately, as they also emphasize, such opportunities are limited.
1 Op cit. p.407.· Assessment of direct impact, particularly where direct action by farmers is involved, can be a very complicated and expensive process. The key dilemma to resolve is the extent to which the benefits of collecting more detailed, accurate and comprehensive data outweigh the costs involved in its collection. In reflecting about the benefits of such data collection, the Panel believes there are three groups of clients, beneficiaries or needs:
· To satisfy the needs of the different stakeholders (in particular the funding or donor agencies· To help internal programme planning and monitoring within IITA itself
· As a result of adoption studies, to help indicate new research priorities and/or adjustments required in policy/support systems necessary to facilitate, for example, greater and/or more equitable adoption.
The problem therefore that urgently needs resolution is how time-consuming and resource-intensive the data collection exercise needs to be to meet the above needs satisfactorily. Impact measures can vary from the very crude and inadequate estimation of the number of farmers who adopted a particular technology, i.e. assuming that farmers benefited because they adopted it, through determining the level and stability of the return from the new compared with the old technology, i.e. often within the realms of a specific enterprise, to evaluating the benefit of the new technology within the whole farming system of the farmer, i.e. the best and most relevant measure of impact. Obviously the complexity of impact assessment increases as one moves through this continuum but at the same time the value of the results to the three groups mentioned above increases.
Perhaps it is worth noting here that the value of the results of direct impact assessment is likely to be lower, in terms of feedback to help in deciding future activities, the further one is from the farming system end of the continuum referred to above. Also, the maximum impact in terms of feeding back new research priorities and required adjustments in policy/support systems is likely to be achieved if such studies are done in collaboration with national programmes, especially as they increasingly have the sole responsibility of doing adaptive research.
Although the Panel recognizes that there are fairly well-developed methods for measuring the rates of return to research investments, it is still difficult to identify the specific component that can be attributed to research except in an ex ante, or partial sense. For example, the financial returns to maize research in Zambia in an ex post sense have declined markedly since the government has decreased support for maize production. The somewhat lengthy discussion given above is designed to point out additional difficulties in estimating the unique impact of IITA's research.
In conclusion, the Panel wishes to make three specific observations:
· The Panel does not feel it is appropriate to stipulate exactly what should be done, in terms of the above discussion. Rather, it believes that it would be best for the "optimal" solution to be determined collectively by representatives of all the relevant stakeholders, i.e. donors, CGIAR/TAC, NARS, taking into account the nature of the products produced by the IARCs, the time frame in which they are produced, and the limited resources that can be devoted to the impact assessment effort. This effort needs to include CGIAR Systemwide guidance on the methodologies that would be acceptable, e.g. how much emphasis needs to be placed on expensive quantitative measurement compared with cheaper and often very insightful, somewhat more qualitative farmer-participatory techniques complemented perhaps by relatively simple ex ante modelling exercises).· Agreement to place increased emphasis on farmer-participatory types of techniques, which permit ordinal ranking, holds the implication that impact assessment will not only involve greater interdisciplinary cooperation, but also will require expertise that is often not found in mainstream agricultural economists. Thus the Panel has no problem with the plan to advertise that the Impact Assessor position requires a Ph.D. in social agricultural sciences with knowledge of mathematical programming and advanced applied statistical analysis.
· As suggested earlier (see Section 7.1.3.), ways should be sought for including NARS personnel in impact assessment exercises, e.g. through the Ecoregional Consortia - see Section 4.2. Such exercises are of vital interest to their own clients while the results could be extremely important in highlighting new research priorities and necessary adjustments in policy/support systems necessary to address adoption and equitability concerns.
In the light of the above observations, the Panel suggests IITA discuss in the Centre Directors' Committee the idea of setting up an ad hoc Inter-Centre Working Group on Impact Assessment to share experiences and evaluate the most appropriate approaches to impact assessment. The IITA Board is to be commended on the recent interest it has shown in the issue of impact assessment.
Recommendation:
The Panel recommends that IITA decide on the appropriate approach to impact assessment and identify specific areas/topics on which work should initially be concentrated.
As the above discussion has implied, the Panel has reservations about the impact assessor position being devoted to expensive data collection techniques for economic rate of return ex post impact assessment studies, unless this involves a joint initiative with the CGIAR System. Rather, the Panel would see considerable value in social and environmental impact studies. The former could be useful in clarifying human and distributional benefits and consequences, while the latter would complement the emerging emphasis on natural resource management. Possible complementary roles for the Impact Assessor could include liaison with regional and national decision-makers to increase general support for agricultural research, guidance on how to improve the social and environmental benefits of research, provision of popular as well as donor evidence of impact and coordination of CGIAR initiatives on impact assessment.
In the last EPR there is no mention of issues relating to gender. Gender is also not specifically dealt with in the IITA Strategic Plan 1989-2000. This is somewhat surprising given the long experience IITA has had with farming systems research which explicitly should take into account gender-related issues. However, these apparent omissions have been rectified in IITA's most recent MTP (1994-98) where it is stated "gender analysis will be fully integrated into all IITA research, with a view to ensuring that new technologies meet the needs of all".
Predating the publication of the MTP, an informal Gender Committee was organized in IITA in 1993, which has met intermittently since then. A total of 14 IITA scientists have been involved in work planning, the anticipated outcomes of a gender consultancy (see Curry discussion below) were developed and two seminars on gender issues relating to postharvest work were delivered by two IITA scientists.
Two notable outcomes of the gender initiative have been the following:
· In January 1993, Dr. H. Feldstein (affiliated with the Gender Programme of the CGIAR Secretariat) visited IITA to assist the Group Training Unit in developing instructional materials that could be used in training NARS and IITA scientists on gender analysis.· At the beginning of 1994, the CGIAR Secretariat Gender Programme, funded Dr. John Curry (an anthropologist with experience in gender and farming systems research) to visit IITA to assist them in incorporating gender issues in their 1994 workplans.
The comprehensive Curry (1994)1 report provides many insights into the perceptions, empathy and understanding of the potential for gender analysis amongst scientific staff in IITA. In addition, in using an analytical framework developed earlier by Feldstein, he evaluated the 1994 research portfolio in terms of the potential gains in research efficiency from adopting an end-user/gender perspective. This involved evaluating research activities using criteria important to end-users. Such criteria include value of information on current practices, timing, type and intensity of labour use, resource constraints and benefits, and user preferences for products or by-products. A few of the major points the Panel wishes to make about the status of gender issues, based on the Curry report and resulting from discussions with a number of scientists, are as follows:
1 Curry, J., 1994. Report to IITA on Gender Consultancy, 27th January to 12th February.· In general, there is a positive attitude among scientists to the importance of gender issues.
· However, there is often a lack of appreciation that consideration of gender issues can have a profound impact on research, particularly when it is on-station and has more of a strategic character; although discussions reported by Curry indicated considerable potential for greater appreciation, once scientists were sensitized. Many scientists' awareness goes little beyond appreciating the importance of taste in determining whether a particular variety is likely to be adopted.
· There was some frustration among many scientists that they were not familiar with the "methodologies" of gender analysis, sometimes complemented by the opinion that gender analysis was the responsibility of social scientists.
· In spite of the prominence of the farming systems research approach in IITA over a period of two decades, there is little in the way of published information relating to gender issues under practical farming conditions.
· There is considerable potential for gains in research efficiency in terms of incorporating an end-user/gender perspective. In the gender "audit" Curry reviewed a total of 722 research activities, of which 53% were assessed as deriving little or no increase in research efficiency from adopting an end-user/gender perspective. On the other hand, another 26% already deal with these issues or would benefit considerably from incorporating them into the research designs. The remaining 21% were assessed as potentially being able to experience some gain in research efficiency as a result of an end-user/gender perspective. As would be expected, the percentage of research activities likely to gain considerably in research efficiency through incorporating an end-user/gender perspective was highest for the RCMD (39%). Percentages were also high for CID (27%) and PHMD (19%).
· As one of the outcomes of the Curry consultancy, the plan was during the remaining part of 1994, i.e. after the Work Planning Week, for each programme to analyze how end-user/gender issues had been incorporated into the research methodology, with project leaders commenting on the progress made during the 1995 Work Planning Week. However, apparently this was not done because of a very full agenda influenced by matters relating to this EPMR.
A summary of the Curry report, together with his major recommendations was tabled at the December 1994 IITA Board meeting which recommended further initiatives be designed to build on progress already made. At the same time the report indicated that "gender issues will likely require annual reignition" unless gender-related expertise is institutionalized.
IITA (with the help of the CGIAR Secretariat Gender Programme) is to be commended on the initiatives taken since 1993. A good start has been made but a lot still remains to be done. It is important to build on the momentum developed over the last two years.
In view of this, the Panel suggests six specific initiatives for consideration by the Gender Committee, some of which are similar to those proposed in the Curry report. As submitted to the IITA Board, they are:
· The Gender Committee should be formalized and consist of a membership reflecting the full spectrum of research and training activities represented at IITA. The objective of the Committee, which should be allocated a small operational budget to support its sponsored activities, should be to sponsor activities to increase awareness of end-user/gender issues among staff and to demonstrate that gender issues are of concern to everyone at IITA, not just one group.· Efforts should be made to provide better document information relating to gender in earlier studies implemented by IITA, in order to provide relevant "local" case studies for the gender analysis training materials being assembled by the Group Training Unit. Material for these should be available not only from studies implemented in the past under the farming systems research programme but also from current work, e.g. surveys relating to the agroecosystems, the COSCA study for which plans exist to develop a report relating to gender issues, activities of the postharvest group, etc.
· Gender training courses/sensitization courses should continue to be implemented/made available by the Group Training Unit, to individuals/groups inside and outside IITA.
· Seminars on gender-related matters should be encouraged by individuals from within and outside IITA.
· The initiative on a "gender audit" of the research portfolio should be continued and ways sought to incorporate gender considerations more formally into the planning, implementation and evaluation of research programmes.
· When relevant, efforts should be made to ensure that gender issues are included in impact assessment exercises.
Given the tone of the above discussion and the implication that incorporating a greater gender analytical capacity into the mainstream of IITA's activities at this time requires developmental, sensitization and nurturing activities, the Panel proposes that a well-qualified short-term consultant be employed on a repeating basis, e.g. up to two visits per year for three years, to help provide this expertise. The Panel proposes that this person would work particularly closely but by no means exclusively, with the social science group in building up their expertise to carry major responsibility for gender-related issues after three years. The consultant should make the fullest possible use of expertise that is already resident in IITA, e.g. the Director of RCMD, staff in the Postharvest Engineering Unit, Training Unit, among others. At the same time the Panel suggests the person should be expected to facilitate the efficient implementation of the initiatives specified above and should be expected to interact extensively with technical scientists in the office and, when relevant and feasible, in the field. To help maximize efficiency and productivity, the person recruited should develop close working relationships with the CGIAR Secretariat Gender Programme (or its successor, if any), which could perhaps be approached for financing the initial visit(s) of the proposed consultant.
Given the fact that at least three of the four core social scientists in place and/or planned for IITA are likely to be economists, preference should be given for the consultant to be a gender specialist who represents another social science discipline.
The Panel believes that unless there is a sustained and systematic follow-up to the initiatives that have already been taken, little progress concerning gender-related issues will be made. This would be regrettable given the role of IITA as a "peer agricultural research institution" in West Africa.
Recommendation:
The Panel recommends that IITA appoint a short-term consultant for gender issues on a periodic basis to help sensitize/train/advise IITA research scientists in gender-related methodologies in order that gender concern is institutionalized.
