Appendix I - Composition of the Panel and Biographical Information
Appendix II - Terms of Reference for External Reviews of CGIAR Centres
Appendix III - List of Institutions Visited and Persons Met
Appendix IV - Survey on IITA Programmes
Appendix V - Documents Provided to the Review Panel
Appendix VI - Assessment of IITA's Progress in Implementing the Recommendations of the 1990 External Review
Appendix VII - Glossary of Acronyms
Chair
Prof. Eduardo Venezian
Dean, Faculty of Agriculture
Catholic University of Chile
Santiago
Chile
Members
Prof. Charles Cambridge
Professor of Management
California State University, Chico
1st & Normal Streets
Chico, California 95926
USA
Dr. Graham Jenkins
Consultant
16 High Street
Hauxton
Cambridge CB2 5HW
England
Prof. Samuel Jutzi
Faculty of Agriculture, International Rural Development & Environmental Protection
Institute for the Production & Nutrition of World Crops
University of Kassel
Steinstrasse 19
D-37213 Witzenhausen
Germany
Prof. Henri Maraite
Head, Phytopathology Unit
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences
Catholic University of Louvain
Place Croix du Sud, 2
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgium
Prof. David Norman
Department of Agricultural Economics
Kansas State University
342 Waters Hall
Manhattan, KS 66506 4011
USA
Dr. William W. Wapakala
Kenya Representative
Farm Africa
P.O. Box 49502
Nairobi
Kenya
Consultant
Mr. William Carlson
4620 Butterworth Place, NW
Washington D.C. 20016
USA
Resource Persons
Dr. Paramjit S. Sachdeva
Projects Officer
The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington DC 20433
USA
Dr. Amir Kassam (Panel Secretary)
Senior Agricultural Research Officer
TAC Secretariat
FAO, Via delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome
Italy
Name: Eduardo Leigh VENEZIAN (Chile)
Position: Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago
Expertise: Agricultural Economics; Education and Research Management
Education: 1952-56: Ing. Agr., Catholic University of Chile; M.Sc. (1959), Ph.D. (1962), Agricultural Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, USA; Post-Doctoral in Economics (1969-70), University of Chicago, USA.
Experience: 1959-62: Research Assistant and Associate, Iowa State University. 1962-65: Economist and Assist. Chief, Agric. Economics Unit, Organization of American States, Washington, D.C., USA. 1965-72: Agric. Economics Advisor for Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean Region, The Ford Foundation, Mexico, D.F. 1966-72: Part-time Professor, Agric. Economics Centre, Postgraduate College, Chapingo, Mexico. 1972-77: Agric. Advisor and 1974-77 Representative, The Ford Foundation, Brazil. 1977-85: Professor, Agric. Economics, Head of the Agric. Economics Department, and Director of the Research Division, Catholic University of Chile. 1986-88: Chief, Research Development Centre, Research and Technology Development Division, FAO, Rome. Since 1988: present position.
Member of numerous committees and review missions. Member of Boards of several Foundations and Business. Membership of various professional associations. Several honours and distinctions. Extensive travel throughout the world since 1951 in professional, academic and private activities. Member of the 2nd EPR of IFPRI (1990).
Name: Charles Desmond CAMBRIDGE (USA)
Position: Professor of Management, Department of Management, College of Business, California State University, Chico.
Expertise: General Management/Human Resource Management/Productivity Management
Education: B.A. Economics and Business Administration, Macalester College, St. Paul, Minnesota (1971); M.A. (1973), Ph.D. (1981) Industrial Relations, University of Minnesota.
Experience: 1977-78: Assistant Professor of Management, Department of Management and Labor, Cleveland State University. 1978 to present: California State University, promoted to Associate Professor in 1984 and full Professor in 1989. 1981-82: on leave from the University as Academic Advisor, Tom Mboya Labor College, Kisumu, Kenya. 1986-88: Academic Dean and Head of the General Management Department, Institute of Development Management, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. 1991-93: Senior Research and Programme Development Officer, Research and Program Development Section, Enterprise Department, ILO, Geneva - responsible for all areas of human resources development, industrial relations, management development institutions and networks.
Numerous international consultancies and advisory missions in management/human resources development, industrial relations, strategic planning, and related policy issues in 35 countries. Participant in five project evaluation missions to Lesotho, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka and Nigeria. Has designed three UNDP management development projects in productivity, labour management cooperation and administrative reform.
Name: Graham JENKINS (UK)
Position: Consultant, Cambridge, England
Expertise: Crop Improvement, Research Management
Education: B.Sc. Agricultural Botany, Aberystwyth, Wales, 1953; Dip. Agric., Cambridge and Trinidad, 1955.
Experience: 1955-59: Rice Breeder, Badeggi, Northern Nigeria. 1969-79: Oat and Barley Breeder, Cereals Department, PBI, Cambridge. 1979-83: Scientific Adviser (Plant Breeding and Genetics), Agricultural and Food Research Council, UK. 1983-87: Head, Cereals Department, PBI, Cambridge. 1986-87: Deputy Director, PBI, Cambridge. 1987-93: Plant Breeding and Research Director, Plant Breeding International (Cambridge) Ltd. (Subsidiary of Uniliver, pie). Since October 1993: present position.
Has served on numerous planning and technical committees in the UK and the EC concerned with various aspects of plant breeding, genetic resources and intellectual property rights. Has consulted for CIMMYT, FAO and PBI. Member, 1983 and 1993 ICARDA reviews.
Name: Samuel Christopher JUTZI (Switzerland)
Position: Professor for Tropical and Subtropical Field Crop Production, Faculty of Agriculture, International Rural Development and Environment Protection, University of Kassel, Germany.
Expertise: Plant Sciences, Crop Physiology
Education: M.Sc., Dr. Sc. Plant Science and Agricultural Economics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland.
Experience: 1974-77: Agricultural Economics, Swiss Farmers' Union. 1977-80: Agronomist, Forage and Herbage Seed Production, University of Cochabamba, Bolivia. 1980-82: CIAT Research Associate in Bolivia and Brazil. 1983-90: Agronomist, ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 1987-89: Leader of ILCA Research Programme for African Highlands and Coordinator of ILCA's Animal Traction Research Thrust. 1990: Coordinator of ILCA's Research Thrust on Animal Feed Resources. Since 1990: present position.
Participant of review missions to Bolivia, Ghana, Ethiopia, Rwanda. Member of CIAT Board of Trustees (1992-98).
Name: William W. WAPAKALA (Kenya)
Position: Consultant, Nairobi, Kenya
Expertise: Agronomy and Resource Management
Education: B.Sc. Agric. (1961) Punjab University, Lahore, Pakistan; M.Sc. Agric. (1963) Faisalabad (former West Pakistan Agricultural University, Lyallpur).
Experience: 1964-65: Agricultural Chemist, Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya; 1965-66: Experimental Agronomist in charge of all Agronomic Research in the Coffee Research Foundation. 1966-68: Soil Chemist, Ministry of Agriculture. 1968-74: Senior Research Officer, Ministry of Agriculture Headquarters, in charge of Administration and Training in the Ministry's Research Division. 1974-75: Senior Soil Chemist, Ministry of Agriculture. 1975-84: Director and Head of Agronomy Section, National Sugar Research Station, Kibos. 1985-86: Chairman, Task Force to Reform the National Agricultural Research System (KARI), and Deputy Director for Crops, Soils and Water Management Research, KAR. 1989-92: Station Manager, Mbita Point Field Station, ICIPE.
Member, 3rd CIMMYT EPR (1988). Member, International Soil Science Society; and International Federation of Agricultural Research Systems for Development (Chairman for African Charter).
Name: Henri M.M. MARAITE (Belgium)
Position: Chairman, Department of Applied Biology and Agricultural Products, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium.
Expertise: Plant Pathology, Crop Protection, Integrated Pest Management
Education: Engineer in Agronomy (M.Sc.) with specialization in forestry (1965), Ph.D. in Agronomy with specialization in plant protection (1969), Catholic University, of Louvain, Leuven.
Experience: 1970-85: Lecturer, Senior Scientist, Associate Professor. Since 1985: Head, Phytopathology Unit. 1986: Professor of Phytopathology. 1992: Chairman, Department of Applied Biology and Agricultural Products. All at the Catholic University of Louvain. Postdoctoral stay at Purdue University, USA (1972) and Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, Brazil (1976).
Research experience covers host-parasite relationships, epidemiology and control of bacterial and fungal diseases of crops in temperate and tropical regions, fungicide resistance, applied entomology, organization of research and extension in crop protection for cereals, roots and tubers, banana, grain legumes, rice and vegetables. Has consulted for several international organizations, and has (or had) collaborative research projects with CGIAR centres including CIMMYT, IITA, ICRISAT and IPGRI.
Name: David NORMAN (UK)
Position: Professor of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Kansas State University (KSU), Manhattan, Kansas, USA.
Expertise: Agricultural Economist
Education: N.D.A. (Royal Society UK) (1961); B.Sc. Wye College, London University (1961); M.Sc. (1963), Ph.D. Oregon State University (1965).
Experience: 1965-1976: Head of Rural Economics Research Unit and Research Fellow to Professor and Head of Department of Agricultural Economics, Ahmadu Bello University, Northern Nigeria. 1977-1982: Associate to full Professor, Department of Economics, Kansas State University. 1982-90: Chief of Party, MIAC/USAID Agricultural Technology Improvement Project, Gaborone, Botswana. 1991-Present: Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University. Frequent consultancies, participation in seminars and workshops including those of CIMMYT, CIP, ICRISAT, IITA, ILCA, IRRI. Farming systems research major orientation. Member of 2nd EPR (1986) and 3rd EPMR (1992) of ILCA. Participates frequently in design and evaluation missions for donors funded projects (ODA Netherlands, FAO, etc) in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
BACKGROUND
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has charged its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) with the responsibility of conducting External Programme Reviews (EPRs) of those International Agricultural Research Centres (Centres) that it supports financially. The CGIAR has assigned a similar responsibility to its Secretariat for External Management Reviews (EMRs).
TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat normally discharge these responsibilities by commissioning either separate panels or a joint panel to conduct the reviews. In commissioning panels, neither TAC nor the CGIAR Secretariat delegates its responsibility for reviews, but both use panels to facilitate the process. Panels submit their reports for consideration by TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat before they are transmitted to the CGIAR. While the main recommendations made by panels are normally endorsed both by TAC and the CGIAR, such endorsement cannot be presumed by either the panels or the Centre under review. Equally, as autonomous institutions, Centres are not obliged to implement the endorsed recommendations. In practice, however, they usually implement most, if not all of them.
PURPOSE
Through its support of International Centres, the CGIAR aims to contribute to increasing sustainable crop, livestock, fish and tree production in developing countries in ways that improve the nutritional level and general economic well-being of low-income people. The purpose of external reviews is to help to ensure that the Centres continue to implement strategies and programmes that are relevant to these goals; that they maintain or enhance their record of achievement; and that they are efficiently managed. In these ways, external reviews reinforce mechanisms of accountability within the System.
EPRs and EMRs are also essential components of the CGIAR's integrated planning process. The context in which they are undertaken is to be found in the document "Review Processes in the CGIAR".
THE REVIEW
Against this background, the panel is requested to make a thorough and independent appraisal of the Centre and all its activities, following the broad topics below, as well as the appended list of questions and guidelines. Panels are encouraged to set their findings in the broader context of the CGIAR System, where this is relevant to the activity or programme under review.
A. Recent Evolution of the Centre
Important changes affecting the Centre since the previous external review.
B. Mandate
The continuing appropriateness of the Centre's mandate in relation to the mission and goals of the CGIAR.
C. Strategy and Programmes
The policies and strategies of the Centre, their coherence with CGIAR strategies, and the mechanisms used for monitoring and revising them.
The extent to which the Centre's strategy is reflected in its current programmes; the rationale for any proposed changes by the Centre and their implications for future activities.
The quality of current programmes and activities.
D. Centre Guidance, Values and Culture
The overall effectiveness of the Centre's Board of Trustees in governing the Centre, and the effectiveness of leadership throughout the Centre.
The Centre's guiding values and culture, and their influence on the Centre's performance.
E. Programme Organization and Management
The mechanisms in place at the Centre to ensure the excellence of the programmes and cost-effective use of resources.
The adequacy of the Centre's organizational structure, and the mechanisms it uses to manage and coordinate its research programmes and related activities.
F. Resources and Facilities, and their Management
The financial resources available to the Centre in relation to its present and future programmes.
The land, laboratories and services available for supporting the programmes.
The Centre's human resources.
The Centre's information resources and facilities.
G. External Relationships
The Centre's relationships with national research systems1 in developing countries.
Collaboration with advanced institutions in research and training, in both the public and private sectors.
Collaboration with other CGIAR Centres and international agricultural research institutions, and undesirable overlap of activities.
The Centre's relationships with the government of its host country or countries and with institutions therein.
H. Achievements and Impact
The Centre's overall impact, its contribution to the achievement of the mission and goals of the CGIAR, and the methods used for making such assessments.
Recent achievements of the Centre in research and other activities.
The potential of the Centre's current and planned activities for future impact.
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Panels are requested to prepare succinct reports in plain language (understandable to non-technical readers), in which factual material is kept to the minimum necessary to set the conclusions in context. Reports should include clear endorsements of the Centre's activities where appropriate, as well as recommendations and suggestions for changes.
Recommendations should be justified by the analysis and approved by panel members. Recommendations for increases in staff or activities should be accompanied by analyses of their resource implications. Reports should be formally transmitted to the Chairman of TAC and the Executive Secretary of the CGIAR by panel Chairs.
National research systems include all those institutions in the public and private sectors, including universities, that are potentially capable of contributing to research related to the development of agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR EXTERNAL REVIEWS
These questions supplement the Terms of Reference and illustrate the types of question the panel should consider in each category. They apply to most, but not necessarily to all CGIAR Centres. In addition, TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat usually compile a short list of questions that are specific to the Centre under review. In preparation for each review, the questions are circulated to the members of the CGIAR and the Centre inviting them to comment and, if considered essential, to add supplementary questions. The panel is not required to answer all questions explicitly, but to take them into account in making its own assessment of the most important ones.
A. Recent Evolution of the Centre
1. What important changes have taken place in the Centre since the previous external review? What were the principal reasons for change? What are the likely effects of these changes on the future performance of the Centre?
2. How responsive was the Centre to the previous review.
B. Mandate
3. How appropriate are the Centre's operational mandate and mission statement in relation to the changing mission and goals of the CGIAR?
4. How well do the present and planned activities of the Centre relate to the mandate and the mission of the Centre?
C. Strategy and Programmes
5. Does the Centre have an up-to-date and well-reasoned strategy statement? In particular, does it:
(a) reflect a thorough understanding of the needs of the Centre's principal clients and of the relevant activities of its partners and collaborators?(b) take into account the major changes expected to occur in the Centre's external environment?
(c) spell out the Centre's aims and objectives in different programme areas and provide a clear justification for them?
(d) take into account the Centre's internal strengths and weaknesses and the financial constraints likely to be faced?
(e) provide a clear justification for the future scale of the Centre's operations?
6. Are national authorities satisfied with the Centre's strategy and did they have adequate opportunity to contribute to its formulation?
7. Does the Centre's allocation of resources to its programmes reflect the priorities appropriately? Are the planned directions and priorities within programmes appropriate?
8. Does the Centre's strategy sufficiently take into account the determinants of sustainable production, the alleviation of poverty and preservation of the quality of the environment?
9. Has the Centre analyzed the operational implications of its future strategy and priorities in terms of finance, staff and other aspects?
10. How well is the Centre's current strategy reflected in its programmes and activities?
11. How successful has the Centre been in reaching its major objectives in each major programme area since the previous external review? Have the approaches adopted been the most appropriate for the problems to be solved? What has been the quality of the Centre's work in each programme area?
12. How effectively does the Centre's training programme meet the needs of national research systems?
13. How much attention has the Centre paid to gender considerations in planning and implementing its programme activities. Is this adequate?
14. Does the Centre give appropriate attention to post-harvest technology?
15. Has the Centre made adequate provisions from its core funds for work on genetic resources? How effectively is this work exploited for the benefit of developing countries?
D. Centre Guidance, Values and Culture
16. Is the Centre's legal status appropriate for fulfilling its mission?
17. How effective has the Centre's board been in determining policy and providing oversight? How effective has it been in managing its internal affairs (e.g., planning, internal board structure, member selection and development, managing meetings, etc.)?
18. Are board-management relationships based on openness, respect for each other's roles, and mutual trust? Does the board regularly assess and provide feedback on the performance of the director general on the basis of explicit and objective criteria?
19. How effectively has the Centre been led by the director general and the management team since the previous external review? How well do senior managers work as a team?
20. What principal guiding philosophies appear to shape the action of the board, management and staff? Are they conducive to high performance? (Among others, consider attitudes towards creativity, accountability, efficiency, and organizational change.)
21. What are the main features of the Centre's current organizational culture? Do aspects of this culture serve as barriers to performance? Is the Centre's organizational culture in harmony with its strategy, structure and management practices?
E. Programme Organization and Management
22. Has the Centre developed an organizational structure suited to good programme performance? What coordination mechanisms are in place? Are they effective? Are there alternative structures that could serve the Centre better in the future in the light of the Centre's strategy?
23. How effectively are the Centre's decentralized activities linked with those at the headquarters? Do the staff outside the headquarters have adequate opportunities to contribute to overall planning and decision making?
24. How effective are the Centre's strategic and operational (i.e. medium term and annual) planning processes? How well are they linked to budgeting? Do these processes ensure sufficient consideration of the views of the Centre's clients and other key stakeholders?
25. Does the Centre have an effective planning and management system for projects or activities?
26. How effective are the Centre's programme monitoring and internal review systems and processes? Does the Centre have an effective peer review or a similar quality control process?
27. Do staff work effectively in teams? Do the structure and operating procedures of work-groups facilitate cooperation and teamwork?
28. Do the Centre's programme organization and management processes ensure efficiency and internal accountability? Are they conductive to innovation?
F. Resources and Facilities
29. How effective has the Centre been in organizing, staffing and managing its human, financial, administrative and information resources?
Human Resources
30. Has the Centre been able to attract and retain international and local staff of the highest calibre? Is the turnover rate one that ensures programme continuity as well as healthy infusion of new staff into programmes?
31. Does the Centre have appropriate personnel policies for international and local staff stationed at the headquarters and outside it? Are they seen to be fair and consistent? (Consider policies for staff recruitment, orientation, compensation, performance planning and assessment, career development, tenure, spouse employment, retirement, etc.)
32. Does the Centre actively promote recruitment, retention and career development of women? Are there barriers to women's advancement in the Centre?
33. How successful are managers and supervisors in managing people? In particular, how skilful are they in planning, coordinating and delegating work, communicating effectively, and motivating, developing and rewarding staff?
34. How satisfied are staff at all levels with their jobs? How are morale, trust, communication and teamwork perceived among the staff?
Finance
35. How successful has the Centre been in securing funds for its activities? How stable is the Centre's funding? Does the Centre have a fund/raising strategy, and how effectively is fund-raising managed?
36. Does the proportion of the Centre's budget received as restricted funding distort the Centre's strategy and the priorities accorded to its various activities?
37. How effective are the systems and processes used for financial management of headquarters and field operations? (Consider financial planning, analysis, reporting and control, accounting, budgeting, internal and external auditing, and cash and currency management.)
38. How strongly is financial management linked with programme management? How much financial responsibility do the programme staff have?
Administration
39. How successful has the Centre been in establishing an administrative infrastructure that meets the needs of staff in an efficient manner?
40. How cost-effective are the systems and policies used for managing the Centre's:
- property (e.g., maintenance, development, construction, rental);- general services (e.g., security, housing and dormitories, food services, transport, travel services);
- procurement operations (e.g., foreign and local purchasing, receiving, stores)?
Information
41. How successful is the Centre in acquiring, generating and managing the information it needs for decision-making, communication and integration of activities?
42. How effectively are information services and technology managed? (Consider computerization, telecommunications, records management, archives, library, and documentation.)
G. External Relationships
43. How successful has the Centre been in managing its relations with:
- clients in developing countries; institutions in the host country of its headquarters and of its substations in other countries;- public and private sector institutions in developed and developing countries (including other CGIAR centres);
- donors, the CGIAR and TAC;
- the media and the general public?
44. Is the Centre's strategy for collaboration with national research systems appropriate considering the sizes and stages of development of these systems? Are the priorities for collaborative work accorded to individual countries (in particular, the host country) appropriate? Does the Centre actively promote a strategy of collaboration in international research with national systems and regional research organizations?
H. Achievements and Impact
45. What mechanisms does the Centre have in place to monitor its achievements and impact? Are these adequate?
46. How does the need to demonstrate impact influence the Centre's priorities and strategies? Is there a tendency for long-term consideration to be sacrificed for short-term gains?
47. What have been the most notable achievements of the Centre since the previous external review?
48. What benefits have developing countries derived from the Centre's work since the previous review? What contributions has the Centre made to strengthening national research systems through training, institution building, collaborative research and technical assistance?
49. What is the Centre's potential for further impact, given its planned activities? Do these justify continued donor support for the Centre? Is there a case for increasing the Centre's funding level? Could funding be reduced without seriously affecting the Centre's potential for further impact?
1. BENIN (5 December 1994)
IITA - Benin
Mr. Bob Akinwumi, Engineering
Dr. Christian Borgemeister, Post-Doctoral Fellow, Entomologist
Dr. Braima James, Coordinator, ESCaPP
Dr. Georg Goergen, Post-Doctorate Fellow, Biosystematist
Dr. Winfred Hammond, Technology Transfer & Training Unit
Mr. Thomas Haug, Mass Rearing Expert
Ms. Birgit Kristensen, Associate Expert
Dr. Jurgen Langewald, Post-Doctoral Fellow
Dr. Chris Lomer, Leader, Biological Control Programme, Insect Pathologist
Mr. Benoît Megevand, Entomologist Associate Expert
Dr. William Meikle, Post-Doctoral Fellow
Prof. Wester Modder, Entomologist (vs)
Dr. Peter Neuenschwander, Director, PHMD
Mr. Jacob Quaye, Station Administrator
Dr. Manuele Tamo, Leader, Habitat Management Programme
Mr. Marc Versteeg, Research Liaison Scientist, RCMD
Dr. Steve Yaninek, Acarologist
Mr. Matthias Zweigert, Head, Technology Transfer & Training Unit
Mr. M. Dumont, CIRAD-CA, Yam Characterization
Institut National de Recherche Agronomique Benin, Ministry of Agriculture
Dr. E. Houssou, Director
Dr. G. Agbahungba, Deputy Director
Ministry of Education
Prof. N. Aho, Minister of Education and Director of the Comité de Suivi
Service de Protection des Végétaux (SPV), Porto Novo
Mr. Yacouba Bouraïma, Ingénieur Agronome
Mr, Aimé Bokonon-Ganta, Ingénieur Agronome
Mr. Jean-Charles Heyd, Chef de Mission Allemande, GTZ/SPV
Mr. André Houssou, Contrôleur de l'Agriculture
Dr. Chabowu Lawani, Chef, Service de Protection des Végétaux
Mr. Symphorien Saizonou, Ingénieur Agronome
2. CAMEROON (4-6 December 1994)
IITA Station for Humid Forest Zone Research (Mbalmavo Station)
Dr. Emmanuel Atayi, IITA Resident Representative
Dr. Doyle Baker, Director RCMD
Mr. Stan Claassen, Station Manager, HFS/IITA
Dr. Stefan Hauser, Soil Physicist/Biologist, HFP/RCMD
Dr. Jacqueline Henrot, Special Project at HFS, AB-DLO/IITA
Mr. Nakato M. Kidza, M.Sc. Student
Dr. Neal Menzies, Consultant Soil Chemist, University of Queensland
Ms. Lindsey Morgrove, Student Researcher in Soils
Mr. Nkem Johnson Ndi, Research Associate (Soil Physics)
Dr. Ousseynou Ndoye, Agr. Forest Economist, HFP/RCMD
Mr. Edward Ngallame, Agricultural Technician (Soil Chemistry)
Mr. Tarcisius Nyobe, Ph.D. Student
Mr. Edward Nyoge, Technician
Dr. Isabelle Rivière, Crop Ecologist
Mr. Nicodeme Tchamou, Botanist (Research Associate)
Dr. Stephan Weise, Weed/Vegetation Management, Programme Leader, HFP/RCMD
Institut de Recherche Agronomique (IRA)
Dr. J. Ayuk-Takem, Director
Mr. François Kaho, Agronomist
Mr. Blaise Nguimgo, Agronomist
Dr. Pauline Zekeng, Agronomist
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF)
Dr. D. Duguma, Regional Coordinator
Dr. D.O. Ladipo, MPT Specialist
Dr. T. Tiki Manga, ASB and AFNETA Coordinator
Ministry of Science and Technology
Dr. Jean-Blaise Nyobe, Director of Research
3. CÔTE D'IVOIRE (8-10 December 1994)
Food Crops Research Institute (FCRI)
Dr. Sylvestre A. Aman, Soil Scientist, IDESSA-DCV, AFNETA
Dr. N'Dri Coulibaly, Chercheur, Filières Racines-Tubercules
Dr. Sékou Doumbia, Chef du Département
Ms. Alice Ngoran, Chercheur, Filière Céréales
Ms. Boni N'Zué, Chercheur, Filière Racines-Tubercules
Mr. Johan Stessens, Chercheur Agro-économiste, IDESSA-K.U. LEUVEN
Mr. G. Subreviue, Chercheur, Filière Racines-Tubercules
Mr. Gbatto Topka, Chercheur, Filière Racines-Tubercules
Dr. Kassoum Traoré, Directeur Scientifique
IITA - Côte d'Ivoire (WARDA Facilities)
Dr. B. Badu-Apraku, Maize Breeder, West and Central Africa Maize Research Network (WECAMAN)
Dr. A. Diallo, IITA/CIMMYT Maize Breeder
Dr. J. Fajemisin, Maize Breeder, Research Liaison Scientist
IITA - Ferkéssedougou Station
Mr. Anoh F. Assamoi, Sorghum Breeder, IDESSA
Mr. Bamadou Coulibaly, Technicien, IITA-WECAMAN
Mr. Nienfoun Siaka Coulibaly, Technicien, IITA-WECAMAN
Mr. Yagouba Dosso, Technicien, Striga
Mr. Bernard Koffi, Site Supervisor
Mr. Kouatto Kouatto, Sorghum Breeder, IDESSA
Mr. Berthé Nouhoun, Mass Rearing
Mr. Yves Gnenerama Sekongo
Mr. Valentin Zana Soro, Technicien
Institut des Savannes (IDESSA)
Dr. Koffi Goli, Directeur Général
Dr. Félix Coulibaly, Directeur Général Adjoint
Mr. Kassoum Traoré, Sous-Directeur Scientifique
Ms. Alice Ngoran, Agronomie du Maïs
Ministry of Agriculture
Dr. B. Ouayogode, Director of Scientific Research
West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA)
Dr. Peter Matlon, Director of Research
4. GHANA (6-7 December 1994)
Biotechnology & Nuclear Agricultural Research Institute, Ghana Atomic Energy Commission, Legon
Dr. Delphina A. Adabie Gomez, Head, Department of Animal Sciences,
Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana
Dr. Beatrice Padi, Entomologist
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Secretariat
Prof. W.S. Alhassan, Director General
Mr. Biney, Secretary to the Director General
Prof. K.A. Haizel, Chief Technical Advisor, CSIR/NARP
Dr. S. Koli, Acting DDG, Agriculture Research
Dr. Odei, Chair, Deputy Director General, Agricultural Research
Mr. Saka, Secretary
Crops Research Institute (CRI), Kumasi
Mr. K. Amoo-Baffoe, Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), Ashanti Region
Dr. F.O. Anno-Nyako, Virologist
Dr. B. Asafo Adjei, Legume Breeder, GGDP Coordinator
Mr. S.R.K. Ashiamah, Ext. Communication Specialist, MOFA/CRI
Mr. Kofi Boa, Agronomist
Dr. O.B. Hemeng, PRO/Coordinator, NRTCIP & Plantain Project
Mr. A.F.K. Kissiedu, Agronomist (Root/Tuber)
Dr. K.O. Marfo, Legume Breeder, Savanna Agricultural Research Institute (SARI)
Dr. M. Owusu-Akyaw, Entomologist
Ms. Regina Sagoe, Agronomist (Root & Tuber)
Dr. P.Y.K. Sallah, Maize Breeder
Food Research Institute (FRI)
Mrs. Abigail Andah, Acting Director
IITA - Ghana
Dr. M.A. Hossain, Legume Breeder
Dr. Petra Schill, Entomologist
Dr. J.B. Suh, Entomologist and Research Liaison Scientist
Plant Protection and Regularotary Services Dept. (PPRSD), MOFA
Ms. Eunice Adams, Assistant Director, PPRSD
Dr. David Q. Annang, Agricultural Economist, PPRSD
Dr. Ben Blay, Pathologist, PPRSD
Dr. A.R. Cudjoe, Senior Agricultural Officer, Entomologist, PPRSD
Mr. Poa-Kwesi Entsie, PPRSD
Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA)
Hon. Victor Atsu-Ahedor, Deputy Minister Crops
Mr. S. Korang Amoako, Director, Department of Extension
Mrs. E. Ashitey, Rep. Director, Women in Agriculture
Mr. H.P. Batsa, Agr. Director, Agric. Eng. Service Dept.
Dr. S.K. Dapaah, Chief Director
Mr. G.A. Dixon, Director, Dept of Plant Protection & Regulatory Services, MOFA
Dr. Franklin Donkoh, Deputy Director, DAES
Mrs. Ester Kwawu, Regional Director, GAR
Dr. F. Ofori, Director, Department Crop Services
Dr. P. Schroder, Advisor, GTZ
Sasakawa Africa Association & Global 2000
Mr. Toshiro Made, Programme Officer
University of Ghana, Legon
Dr. K. Afreh-Nuamah, Entomologist, Agric, Research Station, Kade
Prof. J.N. Ayertey, Department of Crop Science
Mr. L.L. Delimini, Ghana Soil and Water Management
Mr. E. Dosoo, Agricultural Officer, Department of Crop Sciences
Dr. D. Wilson, Department of Zoology
5. KENYA (7 December 1994)
Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP)
Dr. Peter Ewell, Regional Representative
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF)
Dr. Pedro Sanchez, Director General
Dr. Roger Leakey, Deputy Director General and Director of Research
Dr. Kwesi Atta-Krah, Coordinator, AFRENA
Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute (KARI)
Dr. J. Kabira, Coordinator, Roots & Tubers Programme
Mr. J. Kamau, Coordinator, Cassava Programme
Dr. A. Mailu, Deputy Director, Crops and Soils Programme
Mrs. M. N. Wabule, Assistant Director, Horticulture/Industrial Crops
International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE)
Dr. H. Herren, Director General
Dr. A. Hassanali, Principal Research Scientist
Dr. S. M. Lux, Senior Research Scientist, Biocontrol Programme
Dr. W. Overholt, Head, Biocontrol Programme
Dr. K. V. Sheshu Reddy, Programme Leader, Crops Pest Research Programme
6. NIGERIA (2-4 December 1994 and 24 April 1995)
Bauchi State Agricultural Development Project (BSADP)
Ms. Mallam Dauda Abdullahi, Assistant Director Agronomy
Mallam M. G. Ahmaj, Deputy Director, Extension, BSADP Headquarters
Engr. Ibrahim Babbaji, Director, Fadama, BSADP
Ms. Jummai Bappah, Programme Officer, Development Exchange Centre (NGO)
Ms. H.M. Gadam, Assistant Director, WIA
Mr. Yakubu D.G. Hassan, Officer-in-Chagre, Blacksmith Program
Engr. A.D. Kwatra, Irrigation Engineer
Engr. Ahmed A. Maigari, Farm Mech. Officer
Mallam R.Y. Massam, D/Agric., BSADP
Mallam A. Umar Tilde, Assistant Director, Extension
Mallam Mohammed Tufail, Irrigation Agronomist, BSADP Headquarters
Mallam Bala O. Suleiman, Director PME
Ms. Rista Y. Yakubu, Deputy Director Research
Dr. I.O. Akobundu, IITA, MSP
Mr. Ishaya B. Bajama, Village Leader, Bajama Village, Alkaleri LGA, Bauchi
Dr. R.J. Carsky, IITA, Ibadan
Ms. L. Halos-Kim, IITA, Ibadan
Dr. B.T. Kang, IITA, Ibadan
Mr. Ado Lawal, Assistant Leader, Community Farmers, Bajama Village, Bauchi
Dr. M. Manyong, IITA, MSP
Dr. N. Sanginga, IITA, MSP
Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (24 April 1995)
Dr. Alhaji Gambo Jimeta, Honourable Minister
Prof. A. Adesina, Honourable Minister of State for Agriculture
Dr. A.G. Lamorde, Director General
Dr. Adamu Aliyu, Director, Department of Agricultural Sciences
Dr. B.A. Adelaja, Director, NIHORT, Ibadan
Mr. J.O. Apochi, Agricultural Sciences Department
Dr. I.I. Dafwang, NAERLS, ABU, Zaria
Dr. I.E. Ero, Director, FRIN., Ibadan
Dr. E.N.O. Iwuafor, IAR, ABU, Zaria
Dr. B.A.O. Ogunbodede, IAR & T., Ibadan
Mr. Patrick S. Ogundare, IITA, Abuja
Dr. J.E. Okeke, NRCRI, Umudike, Ummahia
Mr. O.G. Olabanji, Lake Chad Research Institute, Maiduguri
Dr. S.M. Misari, Director, NCRI Badeggi
Mr. Mohamed Magaji Senahi, Department of Agricultural Sciences
IITA Kano Station
Dr. Olupomi Ajayi, Entomologist, ICRISAT-Kano
Dr. S. Blade, Agronomist
Dr. L.C. Dempster, IITA/ODA Virologist
Mr. G.I. Diggol, Kano State, Ch. ADB, Ministry of Agriculture
Dr. I. Ekanayake, Physiologist
Prof. A.M. Emechebe, Director, Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR), ABU, Zaria
Dr. D.A. Florini, Pathologist
Dr. S.C. Gupta, Breeder, ICRISAT
Mr. Wm C. Mayaki, Officer-in-Charge, IAR, ABU, Kano
Dr. D.S. Murty, Breeder, ICRISAT-Kano
Dr. B.B. Singh, Cowpea Breeder, Officer-in-Charge
Dr. R. Tabo, Agronomist, ICRISAT-Kano
Dr. T. Terao, Physiologist (JIRCAS), IITA-Kano
National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), Umudike
Dr. O.B. Arene, Plant Pathologist, Assistant Director, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation
Dr. T.N.C. Echendu, Entomologist, Coordinator IITA/ESCAPP-Nig. Project
Mr. O.M. Ejimonye, Secretary
Dr. John Ikeorgu, Agronomist, Coordinator Farming Systems Programme
Mrs. E.M.A. Mbanaso, Plant Physiology and Tissue Culture
Dr. Boniface O. Njoku, Soil Scientist, Coordinator, Ginger Programme
Dr. E.C. Nnodu, Coordinator Cassava Programme
Mr. H.N. Nwokocha, Plant Pathologist, Coordinator Sweet Potato Programme
Dr. S.O. Odurukme, Agronomist, Assistant Director, Farming Research and Extension Department
Mr. J.E. Okeke, Agronomist, Root Crops Research
Dr. O.O. Okoli, Acting Director
Dr. Elmer Okoro, Abia State, ADP, Umuahia, Nigeria
Dr. G.C. Orkwor, Agronomist, Coordinator Yam Programme
National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) and related Personnel
Dr. Stanley Akele, NAOC-Green Rivers Project
Prof. 'Bosel Okoli, UNIPORT
Mr. A. Lawrence, Shell Extension Service
Port Harcourt - Onne Station
Dr. Piers Austin, Head of IITA Research Farms Unit and Onne Station Manager
Dr. J.H. Crouch, Breeder and Molecular Biologist
Dr. S. Ferris, Plantain Postharvest Specialist
Dr. C. Gauhl, Plant Pathologist
Dr. F. Gauhl, Plant Pathologist
Dr. M. Gichuru, Soil Fertility Scientist
Dr. R. Ortiz, Breeder/Geneticist, Officer in Charge, Onne Station
7. UGANDA (8-9 December 1994)
IITA's East and Southern Africa Regional Centre (ESARC), Namulonge
Dr. Dirk Vuylsteke, Research Team Leader
Dr. Cliff Gold, Entomologist
Mr. Paul Hartley, Project Manager
Mr. Pheneas Ntawuruhunga, Head, Cassava Programme, ISAR, Rwanda/ESARC
Dr. Jim Whyte, EARRNET Coordinator
National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO)
Prof. Joseph Mukiibi, Director General
National Agricultural and Animal Research Institute (NARO), Namulonge
Mr. Antony Bua, Socio-Economist, Cassava Programme
Dr. Richard Gibson, Cassava Virologist, NRI
Dr. Justus Imanywoha, Research Officer, Breeder, Maize Programme
Dr. Bill Khizzah, Breeder, Cassava Programme
Dr. I. Kikafunde, Maize Economist
Dr. W.K. Ndyanabo, Programme Research Officer, Animal Nutritionist
Dr. William Nyanado, Acting Director
Dr. James A. Ogwang, Entomologist, Head, National Biocontrol Programme
Dr. Ssemakula-Nankenja, Breeder, Cassava Programme
Mr. P. Tukamuhabwa, Breeder, Soybeans/Beans
Dr. Romeo van de Grift, Food Technologist
National Banana Research Programme, Kawanda
Dr. E. Karamura, National Coordinator, Breeder
Ms. Imelda Kashaija, Nematologist (Banana)
Dr. Israel Kibirige-Sebunya, Director, KARI
Ms. Joséphine Namayanda, Nematologist (Root Crops)
1. APPROACH
In June 1994, on behalf of the Fourth IITA External Programme and Management Review Panel, the Executive Secretary of TAC distributed questionnaires to 250 individuals, in various institutions in the different regions of sub-Saharan Africa, who had professional or official links with IITA's research and related activities. The basis for selection of participants was the mailing list provided by IITA.
The objective of the survey was to elicit respondents' opinion on:
(a) the importance to them of various programmes and activities of IITA over the past five years (i.e. 1989-93);(b) expected importance of IITA's work during the Medium-Term Plan (MTP) period (i.e. 1994-98);
(c) the value of IITA's collaborative mechanisms, particularly Networks and Country Projects; and
(d) their views on IITA's mission and goals; on IITA's long-term research strategies and priorities for crop improvement and for the development of sustainable production systems; and
(e) their satisfaction regarding their interactions with IITA during its last medium-term planning exercise.
Respondents were asked to evaluate IITA's programmes and collaborative mechanisms (i.e. objectives a, b and c above) in terms of a ranking using the scale: 1, not valuable; 2, slightly valuable; 3, moderately valuable; 4, very valuable; 5, extremely valuable. Each programme was evaluated in terms of research, training and information dissemination activities. Respondents were asked to evaluate their views on IITA's mission and goals, and on long-term research strategies and priorities (i.e. objective d above) on the scale: 1, do not agree; 2, slightly agree; 3, moderately agree; 4, mostly agree; 5, completely agree. Respondents were asked to evaluate their opinion on their satisfaction with regard to their interaction with IITA during its last medium-term planning exercise (i.e. objective e above) on the scale: 1, not satisfactory; 2, slightly satisfactory; 3, moderately satisfactory, 4, mostly satisfactory; 5, completely satisfactory.
In addition to the above numerical evaluation, respondents were requested to comment on IITA's strengths and weaknesses, and on IITA's major contributions to their respective countries.
2. RESULTS
Although responses were anonymous, the respondents were asked to indicate their current position, their regional location, and relationship and period of association with IITA. Of the 60 responses received (representing some 25% return), 35 were from West Africa, 12 from Central Africa and 8 from East Africa and Southern Africa. The regional location of the remaining 5 responses could not be identified. Of the total, 31 respondents were research scientists or managers, and the rest were administrators and policy-makers. There were 34 respondents with more than 5 years of association with IITA, where as 45 respondents had more than 2 years of association. There were 11 respondents who were active collaborators of IITA, and another 23 respondents had participated in IITA organized workshops. In all, there were 52 respondents who were users of IITA generated information.
Responses by programme area for each activity type (i.e. research, training and information dissemination) for the past five years are summarized in Table 1, and for the MTP period in Table 2. Responses IITA's collaborative mechanisms (i.e. Networks and Country Projects); IITA's mission and goals; long-term research strategies and priorities; and interactions with national collaborators during the last medium-term planning exercise are presented in Table 3.
2.1. Numerical Evaluation
Table 1 records the combined score assigned by respondents for all IITA's activities for the past five years (1989-93). The overall score for all activities combined was 3.6 (above moderately valuable). The overall scores for crop improvement activities, plant health management activities, and resource and crop management activities were similar, i.e. 3.6, 3.5 and 3.5 respectively.
In terms of specific programmes within crop improvement, the cassava and maize programmes were considered the most valuable (mean overall scores of 4.0 and 3.8 respectively), and banana/plantain and soybean programmes the least valuable (3.1 and 3.3 respectively). Within plant health management, the biological control programme was considered the most valuable (3.8) and the habitat management programme the least valuable (3.0). Within resource and crop management, determinants of sustainability in cropping systems programme was the least valuable (3.2), whereas the rest of the programmes were ranked higher but received similar scores (3.5 or 3.6).
Overall, research scientists placed relatively lower values than administrators/policy-makers on IITA's activities (3.3 vs 3.6 respectively for research and information dissemination; and 3.3 vs 3.5 respectively for training).
Table 2 records the survey results on IITA's activities during its current 1994-98 MTP period. All activities were rated generally higher than those during the past 5 year period. The overall assessment for all activities combined was 4.1 (very valuable) against 3.6 (above moderately valuable); for crop improvement activities it was 4.0 vs 3.6 respectively; for plant health management activities, 4.1 vs 3.5 respectively; for resource and crop management activities, 4.1 vs 3.5 respectively.
Among crop improvement activities, higher overall importance was given to cassava and maize programmes (4.2) followed by cowpea; banana/plantain and yam programmes were given lower importance (3.7 and 3.8 respectively). Among plant health management activities host plant resistance and biological control programmes were given higher importance (4.2 and 4.1 respectively); habitat management programme was given lower importance (3.8). Among resource and crop management activities, biology and control of weeds and biology and fertility of soils were given higher importance (both 4.3); alley cropping was given lower importance (3.8).
There was insignificant difference in the mean responses between scientists and administrators/policy-makers on IITA's activities: research, 4.0 vs 3.9; training, 4.0 vs 3.9; information dissemination, 4.2 vs 4.1.
Table 3 records the responses on IITA's: collaborative mechanisms (networks and country projects); mission and goals, long-term research strategies and priorities, and interactions with national collaborators during the last medium-term planning exercise. With regard to collaborative networks, respondents considered CORTIS and COMBS to be more that "very valuable" (mean scores 4.2 and 4.2 respectively), and ESARRN to be less than "moderately valuable" (2.9). SAFGRAD, AFNETA and SPALNA were considered less than "very valuable" (3.9, 3.8, 3.8 respectively).
With regard to collaborative country projects, respondent considered IITA's strengthening research capacity as "very valuable" (4.0) and information dissemination as nearly "very valuable" (3.9). Strengthening institution capacity was considered less than "very valuable" (3.6), and strategic and long-term planning to be "moderately valuable" (3.1).
Respondents were "mostly in agreement" (mean score 4.0) with IITA's mission and goals. They were less than "mostly in agreement" (3.8) with the statement "IITA has a sound long-term strategy for the improvement of its mandate crops and for the development of sustainable production systems, and its priorities are clearly defined". The respondents consider the interaction with IITA during the last MTP exercise to be more than "moderately satisfactory" (3.3).
2.2. Respondents' Comments
Respondents comments on IITA's strengths and weaknesses, and IITA's major contributions provide further supplementary insights to some of the views summarized above. The following is a selection of comments to indicate respondents' views, and to note some interesting individual comments.
(a) Strengths:
· Crop improvement; multidisciplinary training; knowledgeable scientists and good working environment. (West Africa)· Strong and result-oriented research and support team. (West Africa)
· Research in crop improvement. New cassava varieties leading to increased profits. (West Africa)
· Dissemination of information, collaborative trials, training, capacity for organization and planning; crop development and improvement. (Central Africa)
· High level of organization; data bank, training and information dissemination. (Central Africa)
· Good researchers; knowledge of topics. (East Africa)
· Qualified scientists; access to information and funds; impressive collection of germplasm. (Central Africa)
(b) Weaknesses
· Political instability in host country; mandate crop not for international trade; inadequate contacts with national systems. (Central Africa)· Must improve on stability of researchers; high scientist turnover. (Central Africa)
· NARS not adequately involved; puts more emphasis on field research than research management. (West Africa)
· Lacks research in physical and biophysical factors of production. (East Africa)
· High staff turnover due to job insecurity and absence of career development in the system. (West Africa)
· Lack of joint planning with NARS; IITA distant from East Africa, thereby reducing interaction; mandate overlap with other CGIAR centres thereby resource use efficiency reduced. (East Africa)
· Research on agronomy of mandate crops not strong enough. (West Africa)
(c) Major contribution:
· Biocontrol of cassava mealybug. (Central Africa)· Immense contribution on research and training. (Central Africa)
· High yielding varieties; manpower development and revival of cassava industry through mealybug control. (West Africa)
· Release of improved varieties of maize, soybean and cassava. (West Africa)
· Dwarf cowpea cultivars released for commercial production. (East Africa)
· Research through AFNETA and ESARRN; training and information dissemination. (East Africa)
· Development of improved and high yielding crop varieties of cowpea and cassava; disease and pest control. (West Africa)
Table 1: Survey on IITA Programmes for the Past 5 years (1989 -1993)
|
Programme Area |
Research |
Training |
Information |
Mean | |
|
Crop Improvement | |||||
|
|
1. Cowpea |
3.7(0.17) |
3.6(0.16) |
3.5(0.19) |
3.6(0.10) |
|
|
2. Soybean |
3.3(0.18) |
3.0(0.21) |
3.4(0.20) |
3.3(0.11) |
|
|
3. Cassava |
4.1(0.16) |
4.0(0.13) |
4.0(0.15) |
4.0(0.08) |
|
|
4. Maize |
3.9(0.14) |
3.6(0.17) |
3.8(0.17) |
3.8(0.09) |
|
|
5. Banana/plantain |
3.1(0.23) |
3.1(0.27) |
3.0(0.24) |
3.1(0.14) |
|
|
6. Yam |
3.4(0.18) |
3.5(0.18) |
3.6(0.23) |
3.5(0.11) |
|
|
Mean |
3.6(0.07) |
3.5(0.07) |
3.6 (0.08) |
3.6(0.04) |
|
Plant Health Management | |||||
|
|
1. Biological control |
3.7(0.21) |
3.8(0.22) |
3.8(0.19) |
3.8(0.12) |
|
|
2. Host plant resistance |
3.5(0.22) |
3.6(0.23) |
3.6(0.23) |
3.6(0.13) |
|
|
3. Habitat management |
3.1(0.26) |
3.0(0.29) |
3.1(0.26) |
3.0(0.15) |
|
|
Mean |
3.5(0.13) |
3.5(0.14) |
3.5(0.13) |
3.5(0.08) |
|
Resource and Crop Management | |||||
|
|
1. Characterization of environments, resources and constraints |
3.6(0.19) |
3.5(0.19) |
3.6(0.19) |
3.6(0.11) |
|
|
2. Adaptability and adoptability of alley cropping |
3.5(0.20) |
3.6(0.19) |
3.5(0.20) |
3.5(0.11) |
|
|
3. Adaptability and adoptability of improved cropping systems |
3.6(0.21) |
3.6(0.19) |
3.7(0.18) |
3.6(0.14) |
|
|
4. Determinants of sustainability in cropping systems |
3.2(0.22) |
3.3(0.24) |
3.1(0.26) |
3.2(0.14) |
|
|
5. Development of resource management models and decision support system |
3.1(0.24) |
3.6(0.22) |
3.7(0.23) |
3.5(0.14) |
|
|
6. Biology and fertility of soils |
3.6(0.22) |
3.5(0.24) |
3.6(0.27) |
3.6(0.14) |
|
|
7. Biology and control of weeds |
3.3(0.23) |
3.5(0.19) |
3.7(0.27) |
3.5(0.13) |
|
|
Mean |
3.5(0.08) |
3.5(0.08) |
3.5(0.09) |
3.5(0.05) |
|
Overall Mean |
3.6(0.05) |
3.5(0.05) |
3.6(0.05) |
3.6(0.03) | |
Note: Values in table are mean scores, with standard error of the mean in ( )Scale: 1 - not valuable; 2 - slightly valuable; 3 - moderately valuable; 4 - very valuable; 5 - extremely valuable
Table 2: Survey on IITA Programmes for the Current MTP (1994 - 1998)
|
Programme Area |
Research |
Training |
Information |
Mean | |
|
Crop Improvement | |||||
|
|
1. Cowpea |
4.0(0.16) |
4.0(0.16) |
4.3(0.12) |
4.1(0.08) |
|
|
2. Soybean |
3.7(0.15) |
3.7(0.16) |
4.0(0.15) |
3.8(0.09) |
|
|
3. Cassava |
4.3(0.15) |
4.1(0.16) |
4.3(0.16) |
4.2(0.09) |
|
|
4. Maize |
4.2(0.12) |
4.1(0.13) |
4.3(0.11) |
4.2(0.07) |
|
|
5. Banana/plantain |
3.8(0.20) |
3.6(0.21) |
3.8(0.21) |
3.7(0.12) |
|
|
6. Yam |
3.7(0.20) |
3.8(0.18) |
3.9(0.20) |
3.8(0.11) |
|
|
Mean |
4.0(0.07) |
3.9(0.07) |
4.1(0.06) |
4.0(0.04) |
|
Plant Health Management | |||||
|
|
1. Biological control |
4.0(0.15) |
4.1(0.15) |
4.2(0.14) |
4.1(0.09) |
|
|
2. Host Plant Resistance |
4.1(0.14) |
4.2(0.12) |
4.3(0.11) |
4.2(0.07) |
|
|
3. Habitat Management |
3.8(0.17) |
3.8(0.17) |
3.8(0.17) |
3.8(0.10) |
|
|
Mean |
4.0(0.09) |
4.1(0.09) |
4.1(0.08) |
4.1(0.05) |
|
Resource and Crop Management | |||||
|
|
1. Characterization of environments, resources and constraints |
4.0(0.14) |
4.0(0.13) |
4.1(0.15) |
4.0(0.08) |
|
|
2. Adaptability and adoptability of alley cropping systems |
3.7(0.16) |
3.8(0.15) |
4.0(0.16) |
3.8(0.09) |
|
|
3. Adaptability and adoptability of improved cropping systems |
4.2(0.11) |
4.2(0.09) |
4.3(0.10) |
4.2(0.06) |
|
|
4. Determinants of Sustainability in cropping systems |
4.1(0.14) |
4.1(0.15) |
4.3(0.12) |
4.2(0.09) |
|
|
5. Development of resource management models and decision support systems |
4.0(0.14) |
3.9(0.14) |
4.1(0.15) |
4.0(0.08) |
|
|
6. Biology and fertility of soils |
4.4(0.12) |
4.2(0.14) |
4.2(0.14) |
4.3(0.08) |
|
|
7. Biology and control of weeds |
4.2(0.12) |
4.3(0.11) |
4.3(0.11) |
4.3(0.06) |
|
|
Mean |
4.1(0.05) |
4.1(0.05) |
4.2(0.05) |
4.1(0.03) |
|
Overall Mean |
4.1(0.03) |
4.0(0.03) |
4.2(0.03) |
4.1(0.02) | |
Note: Values in table are mean scores, with standard error of the mean in ( )Scale: 1 - not valuable; 2 - slightly valuable; 3 - moderately valuable; 4 - very valuable; 5 - extremely valuable
Table 3: Collaborative Mechanisms (Networks and Country Projects) and General Considerations
|
Networks | |||
|
|
1. Collaborative Group on Maize Based Systems (COMBS) |
4.0(0.28) |
|
|
|
2. Collaborative Group on Root and Tuber Improvement (CORTIS) |
4.2(0.16) |
1 = not valuable |
|
|
3. Semi-Arid Food Grains Research and Development (SAFGRAD) |
3.9(0.20) |
2 = slightly valuable |
|
|
4. East and Southern African Root Crops Research Network (ESARRN) |
2.9(0.55) |
3 = moderately valuable |
|
|
5. Alley Farming Network for Tropical Africa (AFNETA) |
3.8(0.21) |
4 = very valuable |
|
|
6. Soil and Plant Analytical Laboratory Network of Africa (SPALNA) |
3.8(0.31) |
5 = extremely valuable |
|
|
Overall Mean |
3.8(0.11) |
|
|
Country Projects | |||
|
|
1. Strengthening Research Capacity |
4.0(0.17) |
|
|
|
2. Strengthening Institutional Capacity |
3.6(0.26) |
|
|
|
3. Information Dissemination |
3.9(0.19) |
|
|
|
4. Strategic and Long-term Planning |
3.1(0.35) |
|
|
|
Overall mean |
3.7(0.12) |
|
|
General Considerations | |||
|
|
1. Assessment on mission and goals |
4.0(0.10) |
1 = not agree or satisfactory |
|
|
2. Agreement on long-term strategy |
3.8(0.10) |
2 = slightly agree or satisfactory |
|
|
3. Assessment of effectiveness of interactions |
3.3(0.19) |
3 = moderately agree or satisfactory |
Note: Values in the table are means, with standard error of the mean in ( )
A. Documents Provided by the TAC and CGIAR Secretariat
1. Review Process in the CGIAR, 1988
2. Report of the Third External Programme Review of IITA
3. Report of the Third External Programme and Management Review of the West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) - (as an example of a recent review)
4. TAC Priorities and Strategies Paper - Parts I and II
5. Relevant extract from TAC 59 report on IITA MTP submission.
6. Relevant extract from Review and Approval of Centre Medium-Term Plans
7. Report of the Stripe Study of Genetic Resources in the CGIAR
8. The Role of Biotechnology in the CGIAR
9. The CGIAR in the 21st Century: Options for Structural Change
10. 1992 CGIAR Annual Report
11. CGIAR Directory
12. 1990 EMR of IITA
13. 1993 volume of "CGIAR - The Boards of Trustees of the International Agricultural Research Centers"
14. "Organization and Management of the CGIAR System: A Review" (Ozgediz, 1993)
15. CGIAR 1993 Financial Report
16. Review and Approval of Center Medium-Term Plans 1994-98
17. 1993 ICW Summary of Proceedings and Decisions
18. 1993 Core Program Funding Update (June 28, 1993)
19. Re: Trends in CGIAR Funding - Preliminary Observations (May 24, 1993)
20. Re: Overhead Recovery
21. Re: Financial Management Indicators
22. Accounting Policies and Reporting Practices Manual
23. CGIAR Resource Allocation - Annual Budget Manual for 1993
24. IITA Draft 1993 Financial Statement
25. CGIAR Governance and Organization: Is There a Need for Change?
26. Interim Recommendations on Organizational Matters
27 Sustainable Agriculture for a Food Secure World: A Vision for the CGIAR
28. "Governance and Management of the CGIAR Centers" (Ozgediz, 1991)
B. Standard Documents Provided by IITA at the Request of the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats
Documents provided by the IITA prior to the Panel's initial Briefing
1. 1993 IITA Annual Report
2. IITA 1989 - 2000 Strategic Plan
3. IITA 1989 - 1993 Medium - Term Plan
4. The 1995 Programme and Budget document
5. The current Organizational Chart
6. IITA agreements with other centers and institutions on cooperative activities
7. List of on-going and recently completed contracted projects
8. Papers summarizing the main achievements, constraints and impact of IITA programmes 1990 - 1994 by Division
9. Summary of:
- actions taken in response to the last External Management and Programme Reviews; and
- other significant management changes IITA since the last External Review
Documents provided by the Center at the time of the Panel's initial visit
1. International Staff list with summary of qualifications
2. Summary of Staff minimum qualifications, characteristic for generic titles
3. Table summarizing staffing pattern, with the number of staff in each category per programme and location for the current year, and an indication of the male: female ratio in each staff category
4. IITA Library and Documentation Center - a summary
5. Reports of major planning conferences, internal reviews, expert meetings, etc., which have had a major influence on the direction of the specific programmes of the Centre
6. Charter and other basic documents establishing the Center, along with subsequent amendments
7. A paper describing the evolution of the mandate of the Center over the years
8. Table showing composition of the Board over the last five years, along with an indication of the term of office of current members and their roles on the Board
9. The Board handbook
10. Set of minutes covering Board and Board committee meetings since the last External Review (and reports of Board committees to the full Board if not included in the minutes)
11. Description of the internal management structure, including the composition and terms of reference of each committee
12. Set of minutes of the meetings of the Director General's management committee covering the period since the last External Review
13. Staff manual or a description of current personnel procedures for international and locally-recruited staff
14. Table showing allowances, benefits, and salary ranges for each category of staff
15. Local compensation surveys used by IITA
16. Table showing personal data on internationally recruited staff by programme, including each job title, incumbent's location, tenure, gender, nationality, age, salary over the last three years, and source of funding (Names to be excluded)
17. Tables summarizing turnover of staff over the last five years by staff category
18. List of international staff vacancies and how long positions have been vacant
19. Reports of external auditors, including management letters, and financial officer's reports to the Board since the last External Review
20. Most recent internal audit reports
21. Internal management reports or reports written by consultants on assets of the Center's management that are of a non-confidential nature
22. Brief description of IITA's:
- management information systems and procedures
- library and documentation systems
- archives and records management systems
- computer and information technology systems and procedures
23. Summary information on each administrative and finance unit
24. Annual Report - 1993 Plant Health Management Division
25. Annual Report - 1993 Plantain and Banana Improvement Program
26. Archival Report - 1989 - 1993 Root & Tuber Improvement Program
27. Legislation Governing & Legal Status of IITA in Nigeria
28. IITA Project Summary Sheets & Research Protocols
29. Crop Improvement Division - EPMR Briefing session
30. IITA Review & Planning meeting - 1990 - 1994
31. IITA's Publications Review Panel and Publications output of IITA scientists: A retrospective summary
The 1990 External Programme and Management Review made 36 recommendations of which 19 were on programme and 17 on management.
IITA's response to the 1990 Review have been taken into account in appropriate sections of the Report, and are tabulated in this Appendix together with this Panel's comments and implementation scores.
Of the 36 recommendations, IITA has implemented 21 recommendations in full, and 19 partially. Six recommendations have not been implemented.
1. PROGRAMME RECOMMENDATIONS
|
Recommendations |
IITA's Response and Panel's Comments |
Score |
|
Recommendation 1 - The Panel recommends that IITA establish a capacity for crop management research outside the systems groups and which addresses the better understanding of plant-soil interactions. |
Response 1990: IITA acknowledges the Panel's view that crop management research (CMR) should be strengthened, but would prefer to do so within the framework of the "Systems Research Groups." This is not just a superficial difference with the above recommendation, but it reflects a significant divergence in view of the fundamental basis of the Systems Working Groups. IITA's philosophy regarding the Systems Working Groups is that they provide a systems approach to issues of food production for small scale farmers. This involves more than simple descriptive diagnosis of these farming systems, but rather analyses which lead to an understanding of the farmers' needs, their resources and their current and potential uses of these resources. This quantitative diagnosis and feedback role is coupled with adaptive research and "descriptive" diagnosis, through on-farm activity carried out in collaboration with NARS. In contrast, the Panel's recommendations focus on the adaptive research function. IITA believes that their approach would move research back to conventional On Farm Client Oriented Research (OFCOR) as practiced by NARS. The Panel rightly saw the adaptive function devolving to the NARS as they develop increasing strength, and thus recommend the eventual termination of the Systems Research Groups. IITA differs in that it believes that such devolvement should free resources for the Systems Working Groups. This would enable them to increase quantitative analyses of farming systems with a longer term perspective and particular orientation to the on-farm sustainability of improved technologies. IITA believes that effective systems research is critically dependent on teams of scientists (representing biological and social sciences) working within the same unit, on the same project, in a concerted effort. Hence IITA's modification of the Panel's recommendation concerning the structure of this research. Response 1994: Since the last EPMR, attempts have been made to implement the systems working groups, but difficulties have been encountered not because the rationale was faulted, but because their organizational structure lacked a sustaining element and the groups' operational structure did not fit a zonal framework. The need for a research structure with an ecoregional mandate persisted until the reorganization of the Resource and Crop Management Division (RCMD) into two programmes along agroecological zones, the Moist Savanna Programme and the Humid Forest Programme. This reorganization provided the needed impetus to implement the Institute's research within an agroecological framework. Thus the former systems working groups became subsumed in the new research programmes. This made it possible for IITA to maintain both a geographical focus in its technology development efforts and a systems perspective in its resource management research. Within each of these broad agroecological zones, IITA has undertaken a tripartite research initiative on characterization and diagnosis, analysis of operational processes in the ecosystems, and development of technologies based on principles derived from these analyses. The agroecological framework has encouraged inter-divisional cooperation, thus making it possible to fit improved varieties and plant health management practices to specific requirements of the major agroecosystems within IITA's mandate area. These activities are carried out at various levels in partnership with NARS in each of the two main agroecological zones. Panel's Comments: The recommendation has been addressed by the structural reorganizations of RCMD in 1991 and 1992. |
2 |
|
Recommendation 2 - The Panel recommends a shift from a crop to a zonal base for the systems groups. |
Response 1990: The Systems Working Groups were established three years ago to provide integration and a systems focus to the research of the Institute. They were explicitly recognized as an institutional innovation that would require careful assessment and possible modification after a three year trial period. The review of the Systems Working Groups started with the Internal Programme Review of RCMP in 1989. The Panel noted the "strong debate ongoing in the Institute on improving the operational effectiveness. The Systems Working Groups were established three years ago to provide integration and a systems focus to the research of the Institute. They were explicitly recognized as an institutional innovation that would require careful assessment and possible modification after a three year trial period. The review of the Systems Working Groups started with the Internal Programme Review of RCMP in 1989. The Panel noted the "strong debate ongoing in the Institute on improving the operational effectiveness of the SWG" and the fact that "one option under consideration is reorienting them from a crop to a zonal base." The Panel has contributed constructively to this evaluation process, and IITA agrees with their recommendation that SWG should shift to a zonal base, concentrating within these zones on the major food crop systems within IITA's commodity improvement mandate. Response 1994: The Humid Forest and Moist Savanna Programmes of RCMD reflect IITA's implementation of the Panel's recommendation. Each programme concentrates on the management of both the resources and the major food crop systems within IITA's agroecological mandate area. Panel's Comments: The recommendation has been addressed through the creation of the two zonal programmes in RCMD in 1993. |
2 |
|
Recommendation 3 - The Panel recommends that, in collaboration with CIAT, IBPGR and the Genetic Resources Unit, a characterization of the most important African cassava varieties is undertaken without delay |
Response 1990: IITA agrees with this specific recommendation for the formal characterization of important African cassava varieties. There are now more than 1500 clones in collections held by various African NARS, and 400 clones at IITA in Ibadan. For the collections held by IITA, the Institute will allocate resources for their characterization without delay, and will share the records with IBPGR and CIAT. Because the other collections in Africa cannot be easily moved from the countries where they were collected, their characterization must be done in situ. This is a large task for which assistance from IBPGR will be sought. That the characterization of this African genetic resource has not been systematically carried out does not mean that the resources are not formally used for the improvement of cassava in Africa. IITA has systematically introduced as seed, genes of this material through selective hybridization in situ of improved clones with the best materials of the local collection and through seed collections in the country which are transferred to IITA. Some of these materials used and maintained as breeding lines, will also be added to the cassava collection being characterized by IITA. Response 1994: A computerized database, developed with the software ORACLE, was established in 1991 to document information on cassava genetic resources. IITA then began a more concerted effort to characterize cassava germplasm. By year ending 1993,400 accessions of cassava planted at IITA, Ibadan had been characterized and evaluated for up to 57 agro-botanical descriptors (31 shoot characters, 11 inflorescence characters and 15 root characters). The 400 accessions comprised African land races (102 accessions), pre-1988 introductions from Brazil and CIAT (63 accessions) and pre-1988 hybrids between local and exotic germplasm (235 accessions). The pre-1988 dating identifies germplasm movement from Latin America which occurred before the CIAT liaison scientist post was established at IITA. In the course of this characterization work, it was found that 18 African local materials, 25 accessions from IITA old breeding materials and one accession from CIAT appeared highly resistant to ACMV. Work on agro-botanical characterization has continued in 1994. Over the forthcoming five year period, 2000 accessions of cassava will be characterized. In 1992 and 1993, the cassava breeding programme characterized the IITA improved (elite) clones and the breeding lines which had reached the uniform yield trial (UYT) evaluation stage or beyond. An archive is available giving details of this characterization and the associated database is held by TRIP. The intention is that national programmes will have copies of this database. Currently a test version on diskette (database and 'help' documentation) has been given to the EARRNET Coordinator to determine its usefulness. The database covers up to 69 descriptors for two batches of germplasm: (1) 428 improved clones and breeding lines which were evaluated at three locations (Onne and Ibadan in Nigeria, and Niaouli in Benin); (2) 566 improved clones and breeding lines which were evaluated at the IITA Humid Forest Station at Mbalmayo, Cameroon. We are aware that the above information only partly satisfies the recommendation of the last EPMR. That panel focused their attention on the collection, characterization and documentation of African land races, envisaging one centralized place for conservation of this germplasm, presumably IITA, Ibadan. In reality, we cannot assemble landraces from all relevant African countries at one single location owing to quarantine regulations for germplasm movement and the prohibitive time and costs that would be required to comply with them. The scale of what is required makes the objective (a consolidated collection) untenable, certainly in the medium term. But there is a positive side to this. A number of national programmes have decent collections and we are aware that we could assist them to do more. We have in fact already made progress in this direction in Nigeria, Uganda, Benin, Cameroon, Congo, Guinea and Ghana (GRU Annual Report, p 4-6 and Table 1 refers). We can see that comprehensive adoption of a strategy of decentralized collections and centralized documentation could work. Probably a special project approach would be the best way to achieve faster progress in this area. We can nevertheless report progress in conservation of African land races even if not quite as envisaged by the last EPMR. Panel's Comments: Proportion of African landraces is rather low in those characterized so far. The Panel does not see why a centralized collection should not be considered in the long run. |
1 |
|
Recommendation 4 - The Panel recommends that IITA should provide stronger support for its plantain and banana breeding programme at Onne with the major focus on the development of black Sigatoka resistance in plantain. |
Response 1990: The Institute appreciates the support and high praise given by the Panel for recent research achievements with plantains, and will continue to provide strong support for this work. Indeed, urgent action has been taken to recruit a pathologist within TRIPP primarily for work on black Sigatoka disease of plantains and a short list of three candidates has already been drawn up. In addition, a senior administrative officer is being recruited for the management of the Onne station. Response 1994: Actions taken, and research outputs since the EPMR of 1989 have conformed entirely with the EPMR recommendation. Black Sigatoka resistance in plantain has been a major research focus over the past five years. A breeder/geneticist joined the research team of the Plantain and Banana Improvement Programme (PBIP) in January 1992, replacing a Musa agronomist. A plant pathologist (one post, two persons) for Musa was appointed in January 1991. The entire research team of PBIP (CID) and the Musa pathologists of the Host Plant Resistance Programme (HPRP/PHMD) are based at the Onne High Rainfall Station, the main site for IITA's plantain and banana research for the humid lowland tropics. At the same time, the relationships between diseases, banana weevil, and nematodes are being addressed in the East African highlands and West African lowlands through special project support. Commencing in 1992, the Belgium Administration for Development Cooperation has funded a project for the upgrading of Onne Station. Additional research land (20 ha) has been acquired and fenced. Infrastructural improvements include expansion of office facilities, improvements in laboratory space, housing including hostel accommodation for trainees, and road improvements. This project will be completed by the end of 1994. By 1991, four years after the crossing programme began, a number of interesting tetraploid hybrids (3x x 2x crosses) had been selected for advanced evaluation. By 1992, fourteen improved tropical Musa plantain hybrids (TMPx) with BS resistance and offering three times the yield of existing varieties were submitted for registration to Journal HortScience to place them in the public domain (HortScience 28(9): 957-959,1993). Based on excellent progress in breeding for BS resistance in the period 1987 to 1993, combined with new findings on Musa genetics, IITA submitted the research for the King Baudouin award in March 1994. Panel's Comments: Full and adequate response. IITA received the 1994 King Baudouin Award for the development of high yielding Black Sigatoka resistant plantain. The Panel notes that while pathologist(s) have been appointed to Onne, the interaction with CID is unsatisfactory. |
2 |
|
Recommendation 5 - The Panel recommends the inputs of an entomologist and a pathologist to the Grain Legume Improvement Programme at Kano as soon as possible. |
Response 1990: A pathologist appointed to GLIP in 1989 has a primary research focus on cowpeas in the cereal system of the savanna zone where Kano is located. Research on the control of cowpea insect pests for this zone is a different and more complex issue. The Institute 's major thrust in this programme, described in the Medium Term Plan, is to seek host-plant resistance to cowpea pests. In making difficult choices for the allocation of scarce resources, priority in entomological research in this programme has therefore been given to the search for sources of resistance. A systems analysis of cowpeas and its pests with their associated enemies in the cereal-cowpea systems of the savanna zone is presently a component of the work of the Biological Control Programme. Such work will identify opportunities and needs for further studies to develop components for integrated pest management for the savanna. Response 1994: The analysis of pests and associated natural enemies is done in the Habitat Management Programme (HMP) and covers both savanna and forest zones. Another entomologist and pathologist working on cowpea are in HPRP. Priorities are being discussed on the basis of information from HPRP/HMP, in close collaboration with CID and the scientists of the Biotech Unit. The final modalities of this priority setting still have to be worked out. Panel's Comments: The pathologist is based at Ibadan and is also the Head of the Seed Health Unit. Complementary pathology input from Seed Health Unit and a post-doctoral fellow in bacteriology. Entomological input through post-doctoral fellow and support from Host-Plant Resistance programme at Ibadan and Habitat Management programme at Cotonou. |
2- |
|
Recommendation 6 - Given the widespread and increasing importance of Striga and other parasitic weeds to IITA mandate crops, the Panel recommends the appointment of a Striga biologist as soon as possible. |
Response 1990: IITA agrees with the Panel's assessment of the importance of Striga. Unfortunately the CGIAR is currently underfunded so that the Institute is unable to proceed to implement all the priorities in the Medium Term Plan. However, while management had to impose a freeze on new recruitment in 1990, the Trustees approved an exception to permit an appointment in the maize programme to deal with Striga and other pathogens. Management has decided that first priority should be given to the recruitment of a pathologist with special interest in Striga for the maize programme. If funds are available in 1990, a second exception will be made to permit the recruitment of a Striga biologist, but this may have to be delayed until 1991. Response 1994: A Striga biologist has been appointed in PHMD. Striga is being tackled in a Research Working Group involving all three divisions This Working Group has become an excellent example of how a complex problem can be effectively addressed in a multi-disciplinary manner. Panel's Comments: The multi-disciplinary working group on Striga has obtained valuable results. |
2 |
|
Recommendation 7 - The Panel recommends in view of the important economic constraints caused by pathogens the input of a pathologist at the international scientist level to the Maize Research Programme. |
Response 1990: It should be noted that the maize research programme pathologist left the Institute in December 1989. Highest priority is therefore given to the recruitment of a replacement, as described in the response to recommendation 6. Response 1994: Constraints in maize are being compared in HMP. Pathology has acquired special urgency with the increasing spread of downy mildew in Nigeria, occupying a good part of the time of a pathologist. Additional studies in HMP concern stored maize, where Aspergillus and post harvest pests, among them the newly introduced larger grain borer, interact. The streak resistance project, on the other hand, is winding down and being transferred to NARS. Finally, a Seed Health Unit has been developed in PHMD., under the leadership of a HPRP pathologist, with major involvement in maize. Panel's Comments: Screening technologies for downy mildew were developed and focus is now on post-harvest problems. |
2 |
|
Recommendation 8 - The Panel recommends in transferring the IITA Rice Research Programme to WARDA that: (i) WARDA appoint and fully support a rice breeder to be based IITA as of 1 January 1991 in order to complete the evaluation, documentation and successful transfer of rice germplasm to the Association, and that (ii) the INGER liaison scientist be transferred to WARDA as soon as office, laboratory and field facilities are available, in order to service African requirements as an IRRI/WARDA activity from the Association's headquarters in Côte d'Ivoire. The full cost of the INGER programme shall be the responsibility of WARDA and IRRI as of 1 January 1991. |
Response 1990: IITA is pleased that its excellent relations with WARDA are recognized. The location of a WARDA rice breeder at the Ibadan campus would be welcome. This would permit effective use of the rice paddies developed at the IITA Ibadan station which represent a considerable investment of CGIAR resources. It would also strengthen inter-center collaboration, particularly for systems research for the inland valleys. The transfer of the IRRI liaison scientist responsible for INGER from IITA to WARDA is in line with policy agreed upon between the three Centers. IITA would like to see the transfer implemented as soon as possible because significant resources of the Institute are devoted to this work (housing, laboratories, land, and seed stores). Response 1994: The INGER liaison scientist is still located at IITA due to disagreement between IRRI and WARDA about the overall operation of INGER in Africa. Further proposals have been prepared recently and arrangements have now been worked out for the transfer at the latest in early 1995. |
2 |
|
Recommendation 9 - The Panel recommends that the Biological Control Programme evolves into a Biological and Integrated Control Programme (BICP) and that a Thematic Working Group on Plant Protection is established, including all plant protectionists, no matter where they are located. |
Response 1990: IITA has been conscious to promote more contacts between scientists of the same discipline, and it agrees with the concept of the Thematic Working Group. IITA prefers to name the proposed programme the Pest Management Programme to reflect the entire concept within which Biological Control is an important component. Response 1994: All plant protection activities are now concentrated in the new Plant Health Management Division, which collaborates closely with the Crop Improvement and Resource and Crop Management Divisions. The new Division replaces the suggested Biological and Integrated Control Programme and favors a holistic approach. It encompasses three programmes, namely the Biological Control Programme (BCP), the Habitat Management Programme (HMP) and the Host Plant Resistance Programme (HPRP). This latter programme constitutes a logical enlargement of the recommendation. Through this action the institute acknowledges that entomologists and pathologists have a larger role in their collaboration with breeders than the production of insects for homogeneous infestation or the development of scoring scales. Though this support role remains, new dimensions are being added in the HPRP, namely the study of resistance mechanisms and interactions of these resistance mechanisms with biological control and habitat management. The HMP goes beyond studies on cultural control and focuses on the study and later exploitation of interactions at all tropic levels between the crop, other crops, and the environment (fallow fields, natural vegetation). In addition to these vertical structures, the institute has started to develop horizontal projects of various topics executed by scientists drawn from several Programmes within the various Divisions. In PHMD, the implementation of this project structure is complete; but some of the cross-divisional linkages still need to be worked out. In PHMD, there are generally two types of projects. In a first step, pests, diseases, or weeds of a particular region are characterized and losses attributed. In a second step, according to the results of the characterization, particular pest problems are being tackled through integrated pest management. Special emphasis then is either on biological control, on habitat management, or on resistance breeding, the latter in collaboration with CID. Panel's Comments: The creation of PHMD is a success in increasing collaboration among plant protectionists for development of IPM strategies with CID and RCMD inputs. |
2 |
|
Recommendation 10 - The Panel recommends that IITA secures as soon as possible a location for conservation of its valuable yam collection. |
Response 1990: The greater part of IITA's yam germplasm is already safely preserved in vitro, and the entire collection will soon be so in the near future. IITA agrees with the need to duplicate it and to provide better facilities for the storage of tubers. IITA proposes to discuss with the IBPGR the duplication of the yam germplasm at a suitable West African national programme. This discussion must include the need for funding to enable the national programme to receive the collection. Response 1994: Responsibility for the conservation and management of yam germplasm was transferred from TRIP to GRU at the end of 1990. In 1991 and 1992, yam germplasm management focused on the improvement of the field gene bank conservation technique, using minisett propagation combined with intensive care of the germplasm in the field and in storage. Details are reported in the GRU Annual Report for 1992 (section 4 refers). In order to strengthen the conservation of yam biodiversity, a proposal has been developed for yam germplasm collection and conservation. Submission to possible donors was a joint undertaking between IITA and IPGRI. The proposal is linked to NARS through the African Yam Network which was inaugurated in 1993. Panel's Comments: It is not clear what progress has been achieved with IBPGR with regard to the duplication of the yam germplasm. No duplication location yet identified. |
0 |
|
Recommendation 11 - The Panel recommends that IITA seeks funds to ensure the conservation of its unique bambara groundnut collection. |
Response 1990: IITA agrees that the conservation of its unique Bambara groundnut collection is important. However, the crop is not presently within the focus of IITA's research, nor is the Institute able to allocate the resources needed for the essential evaluation, documentation and preservation implicit in the term "conservation". In response to this recommendation the Institute will therefore take up the matter with IBPGR. Response 1994: The present collection of 2000 accessions of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) is preserved at -20°C for conservation. Over 1200 accessions have been characterized with up to 46 descriptors. This information and the passport data are available in a computerized database. Some 50 selected germplasm accessions are kept in active collection (5°C) for distribution on request. Demand for seeds of this crop is relatively high. During the past 10 years, IITA has distributed 1349 samples of the germplasm to researchers world-wide. During 1988-1993, we received 47 requests from Nigerian scientists and supplied 538 samples to them. Panel's Comments: A proposal has been formulated. |
1 |
|
Recommendation 12 - The Panel recommends that IITA defers activities in molecular biotechnology at Ibadan and concentrates on cellular biotechnology, cytogenetics and modem serology. |
Response 1990: IITA accepts the recommendation to defer activities in molecular biotechnology, with the exception of the use of RFLP probes. The Institute places high priority on the use of RFLP probes as "enabling techniques" for its current breeding programmes. There are already a number of advanced laboratories collaborating with IITA in developing probes that will be of use in marking genes for African specific constraints. The Institute has developed plans for the use of such probes, and several of its scientists are experienced in the necessary method. IITA will send the necessary germplasm to the advanced laboratories that will construct the probes. Because the use of RFLP probes requires a radio-isotope laboratory, IITA is renovating a suitable facility away from the crop improvement laboratories that will be a component of the biotechnology unit which will include cellular biotechnology and eventually cytogenetics. Response 1994: The Biotechnology Research Unit (BRU) was formally opened in November 1990. Additional facilities (laboratory, containment rooms and screenhouse) were recently completed which will enable IITA to expand biotechnology research. In the four year period (1991-94) research was undertaken in four main fields: cellular biotechnology, cytogenetics, modem serology and molecular markers. The first three fields accord with the EPMR recommendation. Research in the fourth field was anticipated in IITA's response at the time of the EPMR. Onwards from 1993, IITA assisted the Nigerian Government to develop Biosafety Guidelines. These were submitted for ministerial signature in April 1994. With the increased effort to identify insect resistance genes in wild Vigna, we anticipate that we move into the field of molecular cloning in one year's time. Building on existing links with advanced institutions, we expect some sharing of information and research materials e.g. gene promoters and selection markers. Panel's Comments: Molecular biotechnology is now the major component. The recommendation has been ignored. |
0 |
|
Recommendation 13 - The Panel recommends that IITA appoints a second statistician. |
Response 1990: The Institute agrees with the concern expressed by the Panel about the need for a second biometrician. Indeed, this need was expressed forcibly in recent internal programme reviews at IITA. The search process has been in progress since mid-1989, and interviews of two potential candidates have been held. Response 1994: The position of a second biometrician was never filled in part because several scientists made extensive use of packaged computer softwares for their data analysis. The need for a second biometrician was however kept under review and was to be met whenever it was judged necessary. There is a need for the Biometrics Unit to have capacity to get into mathematical modelling and programming. This second international position could be used with cost savings, by hiring a postdoctoral fellow, or by establishing a consultancy arrangement with a biometrics group of another research institute, e.g. the Institute of Arable Crops Research at Rothamsted, UK. Panel's Comments: Budgetary constraints have prevented action. |
0 |
|
Recommendation 14 - The Panel recommends that IITA management encourage the publication of the findings of IITA research in peer-reviewed, international scientific journals. |
Response 1990: IITA agrees with the Panel's concern about the publication of research findings, and will continue its efforts to improve the situation. Among the steps which have been taken to achieve this are: the consideration of scientists' refereed publications record in their annual evaluation and salary adjustments; research organized into clearly defined projects, for each of which there is the expectation of a published result and; an internal peer review of papers submitted for publication to ensure high scientific standards. Response 1994: This recommendation has been implemented fully. A system for internal peer review of research papers was established in December 1989. It has worked well, a considerable proportion of the papers published by IITA scientists now appears in peer-reviewed scientific journals or as book chapters that are readily available to the external scientific community. See also the list of IITA staff publications. Panel's Comments: Production of refereed journal articles has steadily increased during the review period. However, the publication record varies enormously with individuals. |
2 |
|
Recommendation 15 - The Panel recommends that wherever possible, Research Leaders be relieved of undertaking travel for other than primarily scientific purposes. |
Response 1990: Management recognizes that travel by IITA research leaders has been extensive and attributes this partly to the need to support IITA outreach projects and NARS in Africa. In fact, the demand for such services has always been greater than IITA staff have been able to meet. IITA agrees, however, that some of this travel has been at the expense of their responsibilities to their research programmes at headquarters. This has been an important reason for initiating the Research Liaison Scientist scheme which will relieve directors of some of their responsibility to travel in response to requests from NARS. Research travel budgets for 1990 have already been reduced. Response 1994: Research leaders' (Programme Leaders, Unit Heads) professional travel is now entirely work-related. |
2 |
|
Recommendation 16 - The Panels recommend that: research management at IITA should be reorganized to bring the crop-based working groups fully into the research structure to enable collaborative research projects based on cropping systems to involve scientists from Resource and Crop Management (RCM), Crop-Improvement (CI), and Biological and Integrated Control (BIC). 1. Research projects should have a leader drawn from any part of the collaborating team whether from RCM, CI or BIC and that projects should be of fixed duration with evaluation points and a budget: the portfolio of projects should be dynamic with continual turnover. 2. Research Leaders who are close to the working scientists should be responsible for the research groups working on resource management and crop management, crop improvement and biological and integrated control: they will ensure that research quality and output are high. 3. There should be three Directors respectively for Resource and Crop Management, Crop Improvement and Biological and Integrated Control: this will reduce the heavy load presently borne by the DDG(R) and enable him to delegate and to concentrate to a greater extent on broad strategic issues. 4. The Institute confirms its intention to have each substation in the control of an active scientist designated as Officer-in-Charge who should report to the DDG(R). 5. The Farm Unit, as the principal research tool of the Institute/should report to the DDG(R). |
Response 1990: IITA invited the two panels to contribute to current discussions underway by management on the organizational structure of the research programme. It was clear the present structure impaired the DDG(R)'s ability to deal with longer-term issues of research policy and planning, but this problem had been deferred until recently when other related issues had been resolved. IITA appreciates the efforts the two panels devoted to this important issue. Management benefited greatly from the constructive interaction with the panel chairmen in the discussion of alternative organizational arrangements. The specific recommendations in the chapter, written jointly by the two panels, are welcomed as useful contributions to the advancement of deliberations on this topic. Brief comments on the five specific points follow. 1. IITA agrees with the concept of research projects as described in the chapter, and several such projects are being developed. 2. IITA agrees that research leaders should be close to the working scientists; in fact, they should be "hands on" scientists themselves. This is amplified in the answer to recommendation 15 in the EPR on travel. 3. The organization structure recommended will be discussed internally at all levels of the research programme before final recommendations are formulated by management for consideration by the Board of Trustees in April. 4-5. IITA appreciates the panels' strong support for its decentralization of research and for the Farm Unit, as well as their endorsement of planned arrangements for management of the substations and the farm. Response 1994: In the course of 1991 the crop-based working groups were transformed into the humid forest programme and the moist savanna programme, which included most of the staff of the Resource and Crop Management Division (RCMD). Staff of the other two research divisions are closely cooperating with these programmes. 1. In the course of 1993 all the research activities undertaken by IITA were organized into projects with well defined objectives, expected outputs, time frames and manpower requirements. In line with the ecoregional approach of the CGIAR, these projects have been grouped according to five research domains (crop improvement and agronomy, integrated pest management, systems development and management, soils and vegetation management, and diagnosis and impact), and three agroecological zones (humid forest, moist savanna and mid-altitude). 2. Each research division is divided into programmes that are headed by programme leaders. These programme leaders are selected in consultation with the programme members, the present research leaders indeed are hands-on scientists. The new structure places responsibility for research coordination in the Research Directors Committee and has, with general approval, eliminated the post of a single DDG(R). Through the fact that two of the three research directors are now located outside Ibadan, the proposed decentralization has gone far beyond what was envisaged in 1989. Recent developments confirm the wisdom of this decision. The Institute needs, however, some more discussions and decisions to come to grips with the requirements imposed by such decentralisation. In addition certain Research Working Groups have come into being: Striga; Post-harvest; Cowpea Wide-Crosses and Biotechnology; Legumes. Members of the Research Working Groups are partly or fully involved in the subject matter concerned and come from various divisions. The team of the East and Southern Africa Regional Center (ESARC) has some similarity to a research working group except that the Research Team Leader has official recognition (i.e. an additional salary remuneration). Given the nature of the ESARC project, this official status clearly is needed. Each Research Working Group, (except ESARC) has a divisional reporting channel through the Chairperson of the Group: Striga to PHMD; Post-harvest and Cowpea to CID; and Legumes to RCMD. Working Groups do not have cost center codes but budgets have been allocated to them from time to time e.g. Striga Working Group had a budget in 1993. ESARC has a multi-disciplinary work plan and budget. 3. In 1991 three research divisions were established: Crop Improvement (CID), Plant Health Management (PHMD) and Resource and Crop Management (RCMD). The three division directors, together with the DDG for international cooperation and the DG constitute the Research Directors Committee (RDC). This committee is chaired by the DG. The DDG research upon his departure to IRRI in the course of 1991 has not been replaced, his functions being overtaken by the RDC and the DG. 4. Each of the substations is headed by an Officer-in-Charge, who is an active scientist, except for the Cotonou Station which is headed by the Director of PHMD. 5. The Farm Unit now reports to the Director of CID. |
2 |
|
Recommendation 17 - The Panel recommends that future Resident Scientists are appointed as IITA core staff and wherever possible drawn from existing personnel. |
Response 1990: IITA has been seeking to minimize the differences between scientists supported by core funds and scientists on outreach projects supported by special-project funds. To this end, IITA proposed in its Medium Term Plan that about half of the Resident Scientists be classified as "essential" or "core" staff. The TAC rejected this proposal, with the consequence that all Resident Scientists will continue to be classified as "desirable" and to be dependent upon special project funding. While IITA must continue to employ Resident Scientists on the basis of contracts with bilateral donor agencies, it will endeavor to provide conditions of service as similar as possible to those of "core" staff. The terms of employment of Resident Scientists are identical to those of core staff, but the support services that can be provided for them are strictly limited by the terms negotiated with individual donors. There has been some transfer of scientists between core and special project positions, and it is agreed that this should be done whenever possible. Response 1994: During the last EPR in February 1990, IITA had a total of 37 staff classified as Resident Scientists. Since then, all the projects have been phased out with the exception of the Ghana Grains Development Project, and only one additional project, the Rwanda socio-economics project with one staff, has been implemented. Therefore, to date, IITA employs only two Resident Scientists. As a result, even with its willingness to do so, IITA could not fully implement the Panel's recommendation because only one resident scientist was recruited during the period under review. The sharp decrease in number of Resident Scientists is due to (1) the end of the two large institution-building type projects in Cameroon and Zaire, and IITA had decided that it will no longer be involved in such large projects (2) the general improvement at NARS level in Africa of scientific capability because of the considerable efforts made in training during the past 20 years by countries themselves, donors and CGIAR centers. However, with the recruitment of network and outstation scientists significant progress has been made during the period under review. In addition to the Research Liaison Scientist scheme, PHMD established a Technology Transfer and Training Unit (TT&TU) with special project funding, which developed an informal network of national biological control programmes. Recently, these programmes have become the basis for the wider implementation of plant protection activities, but the focus remained on biological control. Activities are planned jointly by scientists from different organizations within a country, joined in a national committee, and IITA scientists. In each country, biological control activities are only undertaken on demand from this committee. Apart from the support of technical activities (importation of beneficials, release, and monitoring, impact assessment) TT&TU assists national programme development and training (courses, degree related training), to enable participating countries in developing their own projects with or without IITA involvement. |
1 |
|
Recommendation 18 - The Panel recommends that the Research Liaison Scientist scheme be reviewed and rejustified after two years of operation. |
Response 1990: The Panel has accurately captured the rationale for the new Research Liaison Scientist scheme in paragraph 2 of page 68 of their report. To quote: "The production of new technologies by IITA should be demand pulled, the clients being the NARS and ultimately the farmers of the region." Thus, IITA needs ongoing monitoring of demand for technology. Such demands will be influenced primarily by the general macroeconomic environment, by the resource endowments of the farming community, and by the capacity of the NARS to respond to farmers' needs. Because this is a new scheme, it will be reviewed after two years as a matter of standard Institute policy. Response 1994: In April 1991, following intensive discussion within the IITA community and a broad endorsement by the Board of Trustees, the Research Liaison Scientist (RLS) scheme was revised, decentralized and restructured. RLS are now based in carefully selected host countries based on agroecologies, logistics and absorptive capacity for IITA technologies: Ferkessedougou (Côte d'Ivoire) for the moist savanna, Kumasi (Ghana) for the forest savanna transition zone, Cotonou (Benin) for the coastal savanna, and Brazzaville (Congo) for the humid forest. In addition to resident research activities, consistent with host NARS priorities, they have liaison responsibilities for the host NARS and IITA. and additional lead neighbouring NARS. Because of political problems, the RLS office in Congo has been temporarily closed. The new scheme will be reviewed in 1995. |
2 |
|
Recommendation 19 - The Panel recommends that unless the existing and sound agreement between IITA and CIMMYT for maize research in Africa can be operated productively in 1990, TAC advise the system and the donors that the two Institutes have failed to resolve their differences. |
Response 1990: The Institute notes the recommendation on page 70 of the report, and confirms its commitment to the agreement with CIMMYT which it believes to be sound and workable. IITA is in the process of operationalizing it, and is moving forward with plans to develop a sub-station in Côte d'Ivoire. A CIMMYT adjunct breeder has already joined the IITA office operating in Côte d'Ivoire. Response 1994: Differences between IITA and CIMMYT have been resolved. In early 1993, soon after the arrival of the CID Director, the Director of the CIMMYT Maize Programme, Dr. D. Hess visited IITA. He was accompanied by Dr. D. Jewell (CIMMYT entomologist, who was transferring to CIMMYT's Africa-base in Harare) and Dr. A. Diallo (CIMMYT plant breeder based in Côte d'Ivoire). After several discussion sessions, an agreement was drafted, along similar lines to that of 1988. After some further revisions, it was endorsed by all parties (dated 24 November 1993). The CIMMYT varieties which are developed in Côte d'Ivoire are routinely included in the IITA West and Central Africa Regional International Trials. Panel's Comments: The Agreement between IITA and CIMMYT defines the division of labour rather than collaboration. Lowland maize breeding activities of CIMMYT maize breeder (for West Africa) introduces again a certain element of overlap with the Ibadan-based Maize Improvement Programme. |
1+ |
Score: 0 - not implemented, 1 - partially implemented, 2 - fully implemented
2. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
|
Recommendations |
IITA's Response and Panel's Comments |
Score |
|
Recommendation 20 - Upon gazetting of the headquarters agreement, IITA should initiate efforts to get the decree modified to include the agreement and reflect the recommendations of the 1983 EMR as it relates to the role of the two Foundations. |
Response -1990: The Decree has been amended twice since it was first promulgated on July 27,1967. The most recent amendment was in October 1989. IITA agrees that it would be desirable to tidy up the decree in respect of the role of the two foundations. Since the process of amending the decree is a major undertaking this will be done when it is necessary to amend the decree for other additional reasons. Response 1994: The changed role of the foundations, the headquarters agreement and other relevant modifications have been included in an amendment to the degree. This amendment has been approved by the authorities concerned, but the official publication is still pending. |
2- |
|
Recommendation 21 - Members of the Board of Trustees should make every effort to interact informally with their scientists, trainers and other specialists to improve their understanding of the Institute's work. |
Response 1990: The Board of Trustees has already adopted several ways of interacting with staff - working lunches, breakfasts and dinners during Board meetings; going on field trips; being observers at internal reviews; arriving early before and leaving late after Board meetings with the purpose of having discussions with individual staff members. However, the Board continues to explore further ways of interacting with staff. Response 1994: Board members continue to be encouraged to interact with staff. Panel's Comments: The steps taken are useful, but given IITA's complexity, additional efforts are needed. |
1+ |
|
Recommendation 22 More participatory forms of management should be instituted at IITA. |
Response 1990: The Board is particularly pleased to note that the panel mentions that "no praise is too high for the determination and skill with which the present Director General has planned and carried through major improvements in the personnel, fiscal and management processes at IITA." It may be that the style adopted to accomplish these improvements gives rise to the impression of a top down style of management, but it was, in the Board's view, the appropriate way to bring order to what the panel rightly describes as a "disturbed system". Notwithstanding this impression IITA reviewed its communication processes in 1989. In consequence its Executive Management reinforced its commitment to programme meetings of all its scientific and professional staff. In addition, fora were established to involve junior staff in a consultative mechanism which cut across all programmes. Currently, no cross programme body exists for scientific and professional staff and the appropriate form is still being examined. The suggestion of creating a scientific council will be considered. At the same time IITA intends to reinforce its efforts to stimulate its monthly scientific seminars to become more interactive. IITA does not believe that mechanisms alone can stimulate greater freedom of debate which it agrees is essential for a healthy research institute. It will continue to encourage free exchange of views and to demonstrate by its response that this is an essential element of its management process. Response 1994: In 1991, management requested IITA employees to form three new associations: The Senior Staff Association, The Management Staff Association and the International Staff Association. The associations comprise national senior staff grades 6 to 10, national management staff grades 11 to 15 and Internationally recruited staff respectively. The primary objective of these associations is to encourage discussions among their respective constituents on matters of concern and convey these and related recommendations to management. Each association has a governing group elected by the members and a constitution formulated and agreed by the members. The staff associations have been active and meetings are held regularly. The International Staff Association (ISA) in particular has been meeting and interacting with management on a regular basis. This association was very much involved with the revision of the Internationally Recruited Staff Personnel Policy Manual. The Senior and Management Staff Associations meet with management at least two times annually. There is no staff association for regular staff. Regular staff of Pay Grades 1 through 6 belong to a national agricultural workers union. The Executive Management Committee (EMC), the Management Consultative Committee (MCC) and the Research Directors' Committee (RDC) now have formalized Terms of Reference that were reviewed by and discussed with the International Staff Association (The MCC is referred to as the General Management Committee, or GMC, in the 1990 External Review). These clearly define membership, periodicity of meetings, scope of activities, and minutes distribution. The DDG(IC) is now a regular member of the RDC. Detailed minutes are now kept of each MCC meeting. The lack of a record of this committee's meetings was criticized by the 1990 External Review panel: "Moreover, no record is kept of the GMC's (MCC's) business although the Institute describes it as being involved in......the formulation of policies and decision making.....". The Director General organizes an annual Work Planning Week in February. During this week, all division directors, programme leaders, and scientists discuss the detailed research agenda to be followed the upcoming year. A representative from management attends all Community Council meetings. Although this is not a group associated with the official activities of the Institute, the nature of the IITA community requires community issues be heard and acted on before they affect community morale which, in turn, has a negative effect on research. Panel's Comments: Considerable progress has been made in setting up these mechanisms. |
2- |
|
Recommendation 23 - IITA should examine by internal review the management of the International Cooperation Programme to assess where improvements in efficiency can be made and take appropriate action. |
Response 1990: IITA recognizes that management of the International Cooperation Programme which comprises widely scattered components throughout diverse countries with poor communication is both complex and difficult. It is particularly aware that "back-stopping" of a large number of resident scientists by Ibadan-based scientists has not always been sufficient. The problem will decrease in future because the Medium-Term Plan indicates that it is the intention to more than halve the number of resident scientists over the next few years. IITA does not believe that the difficulty arises from the line of reporting of Resident Scientists or the possibility that there may be "crossed lines of reporting" regarding the DDG(IC) and DDG(R). The two DDG's are closely located and frequent liaison should minimize the amount of "crossed lines of reporting". Appointment letters clearly set out reporting relationships. As already indicated, managing the International Cooperation Programme is an extremely complex and challenging task and IITA agrees that an internal review is necessary. Response 1990: Since the last EPMR of IITA, three important steps have been taken to address internally the management of the now International Cooperation Division. 1. In April 1990 a discussion paper was prepared for the Board on "Interactions between International Cooperation and Research Programmes in strengthening National Agricultural Research Systems". It looked critically at all the mechanisms used by IITA to collaborate with NARS, including Research Liaison Scientists(RLS), Resident Scientists(RS), Visiting Scientists and Training. It analyzed how effectively Research Programmes(RP) and International Cooperation were interacting in the implementation of these mechanisms. It concluded that (1) there was little support from RP for the RLS scheme, (2) technical backstopping of outreach scientists working in special projects as Resident Scientists was insufficient and (3) overall commitment of RP to training was uneven, many scientists viewing training as not being a part of their duties, but as added responsibilities on top of their research activities. 2. To follow up on issues raised by the April 1990 paper and to try to address the shortcomings identified, a new paper was prepared for discussion by the Board in April 1991 on "Relationships between IITA and NARS in Africa: an issues paper". The different mechanisms were assessed against three criteria: impact of IITA research, contribution to IITA research efforts, and cost effectiveness. The following decisions were taken: (1) to phase out IITA's involvement in large institution building projects, (2) to concentrate work on small resident teams and research networks and to address the backstopping issue by integrating backstopping visits into the research programmes' annual workplans and (3) to decentralize the RLS scheme. The status of the implementation of these is reported in the document dealing with the EPR recommendations (recommendations 17 and 18). 3. The December 1990 Board meeting took the decision to conduct an internal review of the Training Programme. The review was conducted from 26-28 November 1991. It reconfirmed that training at IITA was a research based activity. It was recommended to decentralize production-oriented group training, in concert with NARS. This recommendation has been vigorously pursued during the last two years. In addition a set of steps has been taken to better integrate training and special project management at the Institute level, and to cope with budget reductions faced by the Institute. 1. Consistent with the management structure adopted for research, an International Cooperation Division(ICD) was formally created. 2. The former position of Director of Training has been eliminated, reducing the international positions in training from 3 to 2. The new head of training has been redesignated as Leader of the Training Programme. 3. In view of the termination of several outreach projects with resident scientist staff (only 2 remaining as of August 1994), one of the two Project Coordinator positions has also been eliminated. 4. The DDG of International Cooperation is member of the Research Directors Committee and brings to the Committee technical and management issues of the projects under his supervision. Panel's Comments: The reviews were done in 1990 and 1991, but follow-up has achieved mixed results. |
1 |
|
Recommendation 24 - Systematic evaluation of scientific staff be given priority by management, programme leaders, scientists, and the Human Resources Department. |
Response 1990: This recommendation reflects IITA management's view. The systematic evaluation of scientists is a high priority and steps are already in hand to improve this process, namely the establishment of criteria by which contribution to research can be evaluated. Response 1994: Human resources administers a staff appraisal system covering senior and management grades of national staff as well as internationally recruited staff. For internationally recruited staff, this system takes into account the differences between scientific and support responsibilities. For scientific staff, the system comprises individual detailed goals and objectives set by the respective division director following the broad outlines of the Medium Term Plan and, more specifically, the annual Work Planning Week mentioned in the Senior Management section above. These goals/objectives must be agreed to by the scientists concerned. Individual goals/objectives are then given priorities or "weights", thus imparting work focus as desired by the division director. Goals and objectives are reviewed periodically as required. The annual appraisal is the division director's evaluation of a scientist's performance with respect to the goals/objectives agreed at the beginning of the period. These are discussed with the Director General before a final appraisal score is established. For support staff, the system is similar, but the goals and objectives are related to the tasks required of the department concerned. These are established by the department head in collaboration with the DDG-Management. In all cases, the concerned individual must agree to the goals. As with scientists, these are reviewed periodically as required and a final score given at the end of the period. These are reviewed by the DDG-Management and the Director General. The primary objectives of the staff appraisal system are to provide a mechanism whereby directors can communicate their objectives to staff, obtain agreement from staff on how to reach those objectives, control progress, and take corrective actions or make changes as work is performed. Ideally, the system will "drive" staff resources toward agreed Institute objectives. The system requires the involvement of all staff starting with the Director General and ending with the staff member responsible for the research or support activity. Panel's Comments: The evaluation system has been formalized, but its effective implementation is still a problem. |
1+ |
|
Recommendation 25 - The Human Resources Department give priority to management development of managers and scientists. |
Response 1990: IITA is pleased that the panel endorses its work in this area. Currently senior staff participate in CGIAR training programmes. IITA is now developing a programme of resource management training for its scientists. It is intended to run such courses at IITA using resources from UK based business schools. Exploratory discussions are already in progress with London and Cranfield Business Schools. Response 1994: As reported after the 1990 EMR, IITA currently sends senior internationally recruited staff to CGIAR sponsored management training programmes. This training is allowed to be put in practice by management changes that were initiated in 1991: Prior to 1991, many of the management tasks within scientific and support programmes were relegated to the administrative and human resources departments of the Institute. These included all aspects of personnel management such as remuneration policies, recruitment, staff promotions, disciplinary actions, and appraisals; capital budgets/policies and control; and operating budget planning/control. As a result, many management activities were identified with individual "personalities" instead of with transparent, policy driven systems through which managers/scientists could have direct access to management processes and affect strategic action on issues of concern. In 1991, major management processes were "opened" to include representation from both research and support staff: - Human Resources: An Establishment Committee was formed. Members of the committee included representatives from all major divisions and programmes (10 management members). This is a standing committee and has the following Terms of Reference: The Establishment Committee examines IITA's objectives, assesses actual existing and projected non-international manpower resources in Nigeria, and recommends allocations to programmes/divisions on a three-year cycle. The existence of this committee is not only helping to dissipate dissatisfaction with past personnel management practices, but is involving all layers of Institute management in the personnel management process, thus providing "hands-on" management training. All managers are part of the staff disciplinary process. - Capital and Operating Budget Planning/Policies/Control: In addition to human resources, all managers are involved in capital management and budget planning/control. Budgets are done on an annual basis in collaboration with the Director of Budget & Finance and the DDG-Management. Once the capital and operating budgets are agreed, the individual division directors, programme/unit heads, and managers are responsible for control of those budgets. Management, as a team, discusses and agrees on policies affecting capital and budget spending. Control is placed m the hands of all managers through the monthly Financial Information System reports. Panel's Comments: Senior managers have been sent for training, but the management development function has not yet been institutionalized. |
1 |
|
Recommendation 26 - The policy of offering continuing employment to international staff be changed to renewable fixed-term contracts. |
Response 1990: This recommendation is noted. Greater definition of contract terms has been a major achievement in 1989 and the issue of fixed term is one which the senior management is continuing to debate. Response 1994: This recommendation has been put into effect by IITA Board ruling. All internationally recruited staff at IITA now have renewable, fixed-term contracts. Any contract renewal beyond 11 years total requires approval from the IITA Board of Trustees. Contracts are for periods of 1, 2,3,4, and 5 years depending on contract type. |
2 |
|
Recommendation 27 - The Board of Trustees approve a resolution outlining the borrowing powers of the Director General. The Board of Trustees should also approve an investment policy outlining the financial instruments in which IITA may invest and any limitations they wish to place on the level of investment in any one institution. |
Response 1990: IITA agrees with both recommendations and appropriate resolutions will be placed before the Board of Trustees at its April 1990 meeting. Response 1994: The IITA Board of Trustees, in the April, 1990, meeting, passed resolutions governing the investment policy of IITA, securities in which IITA may invest, and borrowing powers of the Director General. |
2 |
|
Recommendation 28 - The current budget process continue to be reviewed to ensure that the budget reflects the goals of the Institute, that the process of budgeting is simplified and consultative and provides only the necessary information to monitor the performance, and that the process is automated. |
Response 1990: IITA strongly supports this recommendation which endorses the user orientated process which is already under way. Response 1994: The IITA budget attempts to reflect the Medium Term Plan. Each annual budget is planned by the Director of Budget and Finance in collaboration with the research division directors, the DDG's, and the Director General. Once agreement is reached, the budget is presented to the Board of Trustees for approval. Over the past several years, approved budgets have had to be modified due to funding shortfalls. Necessary modifications are performed in collaboration with the same team of managers. Reporting of operating costs compared to budget, by cost center, is monthly and a budget report is presented and discussed at each Executive Management Committee meeting by the Director of Budget and Finance. Budget control is possible through the cost center reports issued by the automated Financial Information System to each cost center manager. The budget planning process is presently being modified to make it even more user oriented. This will involve starting the process earlier in the planning period, thus allowing managers below director and DDG level to become more involved. |
2- |
|
Recommendation 29 - The system personnel be instructed to review the reasons for the lengthy processing time and to make whatever adjustments are necessary technically to improve the software. This should be followed up by transferring the FIS System staff to Computer Services. |
Response 1994: IITA is aware that the reasons for the long processing time are a combination of several factors including: the size of the chart of accounts; the large number of cost centers; the high volume of transactions; and hardware capacity. IITA agrees that it is ultimately desirable to combine the FIS staff and the staff in Computer Services into a single unit. Response 1994: The reasons processing time is lengthy are already presented under the 1990 response. The first three items have been thoroughly reviewed by the Director of Budget and Finance and have been modified to the extent possible given the nature of the Institute's reporting requirements. The head of Computer Services, the Director of Budget and Finance, and the head of Internal Audit are presently investigating the best hardware/software environment that will resolve the last item. This investigation involves visiting sister institutes that have upgraded their systems. It is expected the new system will be in place by middle 1995. Presently, FIS is viewed as one user, among many, of Computer Services. Combining these staff with Computer Services may not be desirable in a multi-user environment in which the final system architecture will be a decentralized network. This issue will be further reviewed as the new system architecture and operating environment become familiar. Panel's Comments: Users remain concerned about this. |
1 |
|
Recommendation 30 - The immediate creation of a task force to review the number of accounts required and to determine the level of detail required in monthly reports. It is doubtful that more than 10 line items are required to manage a project or department. |
Response 1990: Any reduction in the number of accounts must recognize the reporting requirements of individual donors who sometimes require significantly more detailed information than could be provided by 10 line items. By the time this report is presented a task force of IITA will already have reviewed the number of accounts required. Response 1994: As mentioned above, this review has been done. |
2- |
|
Recommendation 31 - When and only when the above two steps have been taken and management is satisfied that it has done what can be done to streamline the process, should it consider a minor upgrade to the hardware which would then be able to operate the latest version of the software package currently in use. The cost of this investment definitely appears desirable as it would provide more on line capability, speed up the processing time and is not considered unduly expensive. |
Response 1990: IITA agrees that once these steps have been completed it will then be appropriate to consider upgrading the system. Since the cost of such upgrading is unknown any upgrading will be dependent on budgetary considerations. Response 1994: Computer industry hardware and software advances have overtaken this recommendation. The changes envisioned by the Institute include a complete replacement of hardware from a centralized mainframe CPU to decentralized networked PC's or minicomputers. The software will also be entirely new in order to be compatible with the new system architecture. The software will not be a proprietary product, but a standard FIS package. Panel's Comments: VAX upgrade is being purchased. |
0 |
|
Recommendation 32 - The Institute should refrain from making a large investment on any new mainframe for the FIS. All major new investments should be in establishing decentralized systems which are interactive and more user friendly. |
Response 1994: The direction the Institute is now taking, as stated above, is in complete agreement with this recommendation. Panel's Comments: VAX Alpha is being purchased. |
0 |
|
Recommendation 33 - Assuming the operating costs are acceptable, IITA proceed with the purchase of a telephone satellite dish and establish the controls necessary over the use of the facilities. |
Response 1990: IITA is presently investigating the cost implications of using a telephone satellite communications system and will adopt such a system if expected operating costs are shown to be consistent with budget constraints. IITA is also investigating other possible ways of improving international communications using new network systems available in Nigeria such as "EXECNET". Response 1994: The recommendation was implemented in 1991 with the purchase of an INMARSAT facility allowing the Institute to communicate via satellite in three different modes: voice, email and fax. Use of the system is controlled by the executive office which records user time and affects charges to appropriate user budgets. Total operating costs of this system are included in FIS reports. |
2 |
|
Recommendation 34 - Management place a high priority to the improvement of Materials Management in general. We support the actions taken to date to strengthen this function and believe further support will be required for some time. |
Response 1990: Recruitment of an experienced Materials Manager in March 1989 was a first step in the process of making the needed improvements. Much needs to be done and is being accomplished on a phased basis. The overall aim is to improve further control over purchasing, standardizing materials and equipment supplies, reducing inventory levels and eliminating all unnecessary paper work. This is a major undertaking. Response 1994: As reported to the EMR panel in 1990, IITA had created a Materials Manager position in 1989. This position was judged to be Management Staff level PG 14 by the Establishment Committee mentioned in Chapter 6 above (Only three nationally recruited staff have pay grades higher than 14), thus attesting to the importance of that position in the Institute. In 1993, all PPS stores and PPS purchasing were placed under the responsibility of the Materials Manager. This was the last phase of placing all purchasing, outside small local purchases, and all IITA, Ibadan materials stores under the control of the Materials Manager. The Materials Manager has issued a purchasing policy manual. This department continues to refine purchasing procedures, establish approved supplier lists, set minimum/maximum stock levels, and standardize imported materials clearing procedures. This department also maintains close relations with IITA's two buying agents in the UK and the US. Panel's Comments: The addition of a professional materials manager has been a positive development, but system needs further improvement. |
2- |
|
Recommendation 35 - The publications arrangements be carefully reviewed by establishing a Publications Committee and perhaps by centralizing the publications budgets. |
Response 1990: IITA agrees a mechanism must be established to determine priorities between scientific and other publications. This mechanism could be a Publications Committee which, after consideration of priorities, would make decisions based on editing and printing capacity, internal/external printing costs, time constraints, and budget controls. The suggestion that publication budgets be centralized is being examined by management. Response 1994: The publications programme was carefully reviewed shortly after the External Review of 1990, and again during the Internal Review of Information Services held during 23-25 April 1992. As a result, the publications programme has been streamlined and a Publications Committee established. The matter of centralizing all publications budgets was discussed extensively. It was concluded that a centralized budget might lead to avoidable bureaucracy in our circumstances; therefore, research divisions may budget for certain publications. Panel's Comments: The Committee has not met so far. |
0 |
|
Recommendation 36 - IITA establish a Library Policy against which to assess the long-term space requirements of the Library and if necessary provide additional space by reexamining the use of existing buildings. |
Response 1990: IITA accepts the need for a Library Policy. This policy will be developed by management for approval by the Board of Trustees. The need for additional library space must be determined from the policy and its impact on the quantity/scope of publications held. Response 1994: A new Library Policy was approved by the Board of Trustees at its April 1990 meeting. A small amount of additional space (30 square meters) was provided for the Library, but the overall space requirements have not been fully met due to budget constraints. |
2 |
Score: 0 - not implemented, 1 - partially implemented, 2 - fully implemented
|
ABU |
Ahmadu Bello University |
|
AC |
Audit Committee |
|
AFNETA |
Alley Farming Network for Africa |
|
ASB |
Global Initiative on Alternatives to Slash and Burn |
|
AGDC |
Administration générale de la coopération au développement (Belgium) |
|
BCP |
Biological Control Programme |
|
BoT |
Board of Trustees |
|
BSV |
Banana streak virus |
|
CGIAR |
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research |
|
CCB |
Cassava bacterial blight |
|
CGM |
Cassava green mite |
|
CMV |
Cassava mosaic virus |
|
CID |
Crop Improvement Division |
|
CIDA |
Canadian International Development Agency |
|
CIMMYT |
Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo |
|
CIP |
Centro Internacional de la Papa |
|
CIRAD |
Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement |
|
CNP |
Cyonogenic potential |
|
COMBS |
Collaborative Group on Maize-Based Systems Research |
|
CORAF |
Conférence des responsables de la recherche agronomique africains et français |
|
CORTIS |
Collaborative Group for Root and Tuber Improvement Systems Research |
|
COSCA |
Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa |
|
DG |
Director General |
|
DGIS |
Directorate General for Development Cooperation (Netherlands) |
|
EARRNET |
East African Root Crops Research Network |
|
EC |
Executive Committee |
|
EEC |
European Economic Community |
|
ESARC |
East and Southern African Regional Centre |
|
ESARRN |
East and Southern Africa Root Crop Research Network |
|
ESCaPP |
Ecologically Sustainable Cassava and Plant Protection |
|
GLIP |
Grain Legume Improvement Programme |
|
GTZ |
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit |
|
HCN |
Hydocyanic acid |
|
HFP |
Humid Forest Programme |
|
HM |
Habitat Management Programme |
|
HPRP |
Host Plant Resistance Programme |
|
IAR |
Institute of Agricultural Research |
|
ICD |
International Cooperation Division |
|
ICIPE |
International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology |
|
ICRISAT |
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics |
|
IDESSA |
National Agricultural Research Institute for the Savannas |
|
INIBAP |
International Network for Improvement of Bananas and Plantain |
|
INRA |
Institut National de Recherche Agronomique |
|
IPGRI |
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute |
|
IPM |
Integrated pest management |
|
IRDC |
International Development Research Centre |
|
IRRI |
International Rice Research Institute |
|
ISNAR |
International Service for National Agricultural Research |
|
ISRIC |
International Soils Research and Information Centre |
|
JICA |
Japan International Cooperation Agency |
|
MIP |
Maize Improvement Programme |
|
MSP |
Moist Savanna Programme |
|
NARES |
National Agricultural Research and Extension Service |
|
NARS |
National Agricultural Research System(s) |
|
NBCPs |
National Biological Control Programmes |
|
NC |
Nominating Committee |
|
NGO |
Non-governmental organization |
|
NRCRI |
National Root Crops Research Institute |
|
NRI |
Natural Resources Institute, UK |
|
ODA |
Overseas Development Administration (UK) |
|
ORSTOM |
Institut Français de Recherche Scientifique pour le Développement en Coopération |
|
PASCON |
Pan-African Striga Control Network |
|
PBIP |
Plantain and Banana Improvement Programme |
|
PC |
Programme Committee |
|
PEDUNE |
Protection écologiquement durable du niébé |
|
PEU |
Postharvest Engineering Unit |
|
PHMD |
Plant Health Management Division |
|
RENACO |
West and Central Africa Cowpea Research Network |
|
RAPD |
Random amplified polymorphic DNA |
|
RCMD |
Resource and Crop Management Division |
|
RFLP |
Restriction fragment length polymorphism |
|
RLS |
Research Liaison Scientist |
|
SAFGRAD |
Semi-Arid Food Grains Research and Development |
|
SARRNET |
Southern Africa Roots Crops Research Network |
|
SADC |
Southern Africa Development Community |
|
SGRI |
Systemwide Genetic Resources Initiative |
|
SGRP |
Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme |
|
SHU |
Seed Health Unit |
|
SPAAR |
Special Programme for African Agricultural Research |
|
SPALNA |
Soil and Plant Analysis Laboratories Network for Africa |
|
SPIPM |
Systemwide Programme for Integrated Pest Management |
|
SSA |
Sub-Saharan Africa |
|
SSY |
Senior Staff Year |
|
TAC |
Technical Advisory Committee |
|
TRIP |
Root and Tuber Improvement Programme |
|
TT&TU |
Technology Transfer and Training Unit |
|
UNEP |
United Nations Environment Programme |
|
WARDA |
West Africa Rice Development Association |
|
WECAMAN |
West and Central Africa Maize Research Network |
