The Panel summarizes its findings and judgements in the form of answers to six questions, followed by the recommendations contained in this Report.
1. Is there a need for an international effort in potato and sweetpotato research?
The Panel's analysis shows that in aggregate, the researchable problems of potato and sweetpotato are considerable, and are often significantly beyond the research capacity of many national agricultural research systems, particularly among the developing country NARS. There is cause for concern because:
· both crops are important in the human food chain from the viewpoints of energy supply, income and food security; for the rural poor, sweetpotato is an important famine relief crop;· both crops are vegetatively propagated, and thus vulnerable from a pest and disease viewpoint; the crops already face some major pest and disease problems, with no quick solution in sight;
· potato and sweetpotato are not easy to breed as both crops have difficult genetic systems that are, scientifically, poorly understood, relative to other crops; concerted research effort in genetic enhancement is necessary for significant progress in either crop;
· while there is a relevant stock of knowledge to be tapped for potato, this does not apply to sweetpotato, which is almost exclusively grown in developing countries;
· the genetic base for both crops is narrow, particularly in Asia and Africa. On the other hand wild relatives with potentially valuable traits can be found in Latin America.
Strategic research is urgently needed, and CIP is well placed to lead the way in addressing the most difficult research problems. Such research requires the best scientists from advanced and developing countries and international centres. CIP is needed to help mobilize this effort, but to do so it must constantly aspire to be a centre of research excellence in its own field if it is to continue to play an effective, catalytic role.
2. Is CIP's strategy correct?
CIP's strategy has been largely derived from NARS stated needs. The Panel considers that this has over the years led the Centre to spread its effort too thinly. This has eroded the Centre's capacity to tackle major scientific challenges (e.g. late blight) with a critical mass of human and financial resources to make substantial progress.
CIP's strategy has been oriented mainly towards the needs of the weaker NARS. Over time a series of stronger NARS have evolved as have a series of other institutional stakeholders such as NGOs and farmer organizations. This has often taken place alongside the decline of public sector funded agricultural research and extension. CIP's strategy only partially adjusted for this change in the institutional landscape. CIP has not fully realized the potential for more actively sharing the research responsibilities with the stronger NARS and for involving a broader range of actors beyond NARS in the evaluation and diffusion of technology. CIP has the potential to increase its effectiveness by focusing its resources increasingly on those roles where it has the greatest special advantage as an IARC: strategic and applied research, which most individual developing country NARS cannot afford to undertake. While CIP does foresee some movement in this direction in its germplasm based activities, it is more actively pursuing a strategic research role in natural resources management of the Andes region.
3. Does CIP have a good record of achievements?
Early in its existence CIP established a good record for efficient collaboration in research both with industrialized country laboratories and with research services of NARS, demonstrating the potential for potato production around the world. However, the 1989 External Review found limited evidence of direct production impact at the farmer level. CIP therefore undertook a set of nine technology impact case studies to illustrate how improved technology from CIP had benefited farmers. The analysis has shown specific improvements in variety, seed production and IPM, with internal rates of return of between 27% and 106%.
The virology programme has been responsible for the use of convenient ELISA serology and DNA hybridization assays to pave the way for the transfer of clean improved seed around the world leading, after extensive screening, to releases of germplasm in collaborating countries. Two germplasm distribution centres (in Kenya and the Philippines) have been upgraded with CIP's assistance to facilitate this transfer.
CIP has also been very effective in collaboration with many individual countries where CIP staff worked with the national potato and sweetpotato teams, directly or through regional research networks, increasing their competence and confidence and generally improving their institutional strength. Meanwhile CIP has made great strides in improving its training courses by integrating them into each main programme, and by introducing a wide variety of programmed learning procedures using computers and video equipment. Similar progress has been made through major changes in CIP's information services, to cope better with the demands of both CIP and the countries it services.
4. Is CIP governed and managed effectively?
Yes. This can be attributed to the good interaction that exists between the Board and management, to CIP's organizational practices which adhere to good management principles, and that downsizing - while a painful necessity - has resulted in a leaner and more cost-effective operation. Staff morale is reasonably high under the circumstances. CIP's physical assets are appropriate and well maintained. Further evidence that CIP is responsive to its environment is the fact that it has support from a well-diversified funding base. Overall, the fact that CIP management has successfully steered the Centre through a politically and financially turbulent period, speaks for itself.
5. Should CIP take on additional responsibility in the CGIAR?
The Panel evaluated if CIP has unused capacity that could be applied to additional responsibilities and concluded that, at current core funding levels, the answer is: No. CIP's mandated crops carry with them an ethical responsibility to preserve and maintain germplasm. At current rates the complete collection will not be cleaned of pathogens until well into the next century. Moreover, the potato and sweetpotato genetic enhancement programmes presently require considerably more attention and resources if they are to attain expected impacts. Assigning more research responsibility to CIP without additional core support would not be justified, in the view of the Panel.
Within the present funding envelope the addition of new research responsibilities could only be justified if their payoff was considered to be substantially larger than that of further investments in the existing research portfolio.
6. Can CIP deliver?
Yes, CIP has a good record of past achievements, and this can be expected to continue into the future.
Regarding the future of CIP, the Panel concluded that in its commodity research there is a strong need for CIP to focus on fewer, high priority opportunities. In its present approach to potato and sweetpotato research, CIP is attempting to be "all things to all people". This is not sustainable for any public institution. The Panel believes that by focusing its research capacity on a few important strategic challenges, CIP could "put a person on the moon".
RECOMMENDATIONS
Centre Mandate (Section 3.1 and Chapter 4):
1. With respect to CIP's vision and mandate, the Panel recommends that CIP define the Centre's nature by formulating a vision statement and clarify through its operational mandate CIP's degree of commitment to global germplasm research vis-à-vis assuming an ecoregional responsibility for the Andean region.
Relations with NARS (Section 3.2):
2. With respect to NARS-supporting activity, the Panel recommends that CIP disengage itself from technical assistance activities and non-research technology adoption activities.
Management of Programmes (Section 3.3):
3. With respect to organizational structure, the Panel recommends that CIP re-invent its matrix, incorporating good management principles, to obtain the full benefits from the structure.
Opportunity Analysis (Section 3.4):
4. With respect to priority-setting, the Panel recommends that CIP consolidate existing information into ex ante analyses, to develop analytically valid strategies for each mandated commodity, disaggregated by region.
Resource Allocation (Section 3.5):
5. With respect to programme expenditure shares, the Panel recommends that CIP continue to increase research spending to reach, by 1997, at least the mean level of the CGIAR centres, with spending on administration and operations reduced accordingly.
Impact Assessment (Section 3.6):
6. With respect to impact assessment, the Panel recommends that CIP develop a strategy for continuously monitoring and evaluating the performance of its research outputs in terms of their impact - both positive and negative - on welfare, gender, and the environment.
Germplasm Enhancement and Breeding (Section 3.7):
7. With respect to crop improvement, the Panel recommends that TAC commission a mid-term review (in 1997) of the potato and sweetpotato genetic enhancement and breeding efforts at CIP.
True Potato Seed (Section 3.8):
8. With respect to the future of TPS at CIP, the Panel recommends that CIP devolve true potato seed (TPS) technology to specifically-identified, research-strong NARSs and private enterprise.
Pest and Disease Management (Section 3.9):
9. With respect to crop protection research, the Panel recommends that CIP carefully select a small number of key crop protection research activities and, for these, move up-stream to do carefully-targeted, global-perspective strategic research for potato and sweetpotato.
10. With respect to deployment of scientists, the Panel recommends that CIP concentrate its crop protection research programme at a central location in order to provide a nucleus sufficient to undertake globally-important, strategically-significant crop protection research, to further the potato and sweetpotato mandate of the Centre.
International Movement of Research Germplasm (Section 3.10):
11. With respect to the global potato and sweetpotato germplasm collections, the Panel recommends that CIP accelerate the clean-up and pathogen-testing of potato and sweetpotato accessions, by developing plans and a strategy for doing this, including the necessary arrangements for partnerships, including contracts, to complete the work before the year 2000.
Seed Distribution to Farmers (Section 3.11):
12. With respect to the proposed seed distribution experiment, the Panel recommends that CIP undertake a limited number of clearly defined institutional experiments to test the hypothesis that potato cultivars with resistance to major pests and diseases will diffuse through the informal seed sector if an initial volume of seed is made available.
Post-Harvest Technology (Section 3.12):
13. With respect to post-harvest technology, the Panel recommends that CIP expand macroeconomic ex ante studies of the competitiveness of major sweetpotato-based products in the key countries that the programme has selected for potential impact.
Science Leadership and Quality (Section 3.13):
14. With regard to scientific quality and its relation to scientific leadership in dealing with global responsibilities for potato and sweetpotato, the Panel recommends that CIP take early steps to enhance the quality of CIP's research, both at CIP-Lima as well as in the regions.
CIP Governance (Section 3.14):
15. With respect to the Centre's financial health, the Panel recommends that the Board continually monitor CIP's liquidity and operating fund levels, and establish a timetable for achieving what CIP management proposes as prudent and reasonable targets.
Finance and Resources (Section 3.15):
16. With respect to CIP's fixed assets and certain associated operating costs, the Panel recommends that CIP periodically review its investments in service areas, where local alternatives exist, in order to determine whether or not to dispose of possible excess capacity, thereby adding to capital fund reserves and possibly reducing operating costs overall.
Research Focus (Chapter 4):
17. With respect to CIP's research focus, the Panel recommends that CIP engage in formal strategic planning to "put a person on the moon" (e.g. growing potatoes profitably without pesticides). The selected research should represent priority research challenges employing CIP's special advantages and science capacity.
Partnerships with NARS (Chapter 4):
18. With respect to CIP's relationship with NARSs, the Panel recommends that CIP increase its strategic partnerships for collaborative research and training with research-strong NARSs, to take advantage of growing research capacities of national systems, particularly in Asia and Latin America.
Scientific Leadership (Chapter 4):
19. With respect to scientific leadership, the Panel recommends that CIP pay greater attention to the necessary balance between science quality, programme responsiveness (to donors' priorities), and research relevance (to NARSs' needs) as a continuing research management responsibility, leading to scientific leadership.
Germplasm Responsibilities (Chapter 4):
20. With respect to germplasm responsibilities, the Panel recommends that CIP accelerate its clean-up, documentation, and distribution of the global collections of its mandated crops.
