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 CIP Programmes and Performance
Appendix V - Documents Provided to the Review Panel
Appendix VI - Assessment of CIP's Progress in Implementing the Recommendations of the 1989 External Review
Appendix VII - Glossary of Acronyms
Chair
Dr. David R. MacKenzie
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Cooperative State Research Service
Suite 300 Aerospace Building
Washington, D.C. 20250-2200
U.S.A.
Members
Dr. Matthew Dagg
Willow Copse
The Birches
Bramhope
Leeds LS16 9DN
England
Ir. Louis R.K. Paul
Wittenburgerweg 176
2244 CJ Wassenaar
The Netherlands
Dr. Carlos Sere
Costa Rica 6509
Casilla de Correo 18944
11500 Montevideo
Uruguay
Resource Persons
Dr. Joan Joshi (Consultant)
874 East Pleasant Street
Amherst, MA 01002
U.S.A.
Dr. Donald Plucknett (Consultant)
Agricultural Research and Development International
7127 Little River Turnpike Suite 205A
Annandale
Virginia 22003
U.S.A.
Mr. Gordon MacNeil
Financial Officer
CGIAR Secretariat
World Bank
1818 H Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20433
U.S.A.
Dr. Amir Kassam (Panel Secretary)
Senior Agricultural Research Officer
TAC Secretariat
Research, Extension and Training Division
FAO
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome
Italy
Name: DAVID ROBERT MACKENZIE (USA)
Position: National Program Director, Cooperative Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES), U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Expertise: Plant Breeding, Crop Protection, Integrated Pest Management, Biotechnology, Research Management.
Education: B.S. Botany, University of New Hampshire (1964); M.S. Plant Pathology, The Pennsylvania State University (1967); Ph.D. Plant Pathology and Genetics, The Pennsylvania State University (1970).
Experience: 1970-73: Special Field Staff, The Rockefeller Foundation, stationed in Mexico (CIMMYT) and Asia (IRRI and AVRDC). 1973-83: Professor of Potato Breeding, Department of Plant Pathology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. 1983-88: Professor and Head, Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. 1988-Present: National Program Director, CSREES, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. USA.
Consultant: Food and Agricultural Organization; USAID; The World Bank; and Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. CIMMYT EMPR (1988); Crop Protection Stripe Review Chair 1989; INIBAP EMPR Chair (1992).
Name: MATTHEW DAGG (UK)
Position: Private Consultant.
Expertise: Research management, NARS, natural resource management, agroecology, crop management.
Education: B.Sc. Physics (1952), Ph.D. Physics, Jodrell Bank Experimental Station (1956), University of Manchester.
Experience: 1956-69: Scientific Officer (1956), Senior Scientific Officer (1959), Principal Scientific Officer and Head of Physics Division (1964), East African Agriculture and Forestry Research Organization, Muguga, Kenya. 1969-76: Director, Institute for Agricultural Research and Special Services, Samaru, and Professor of Agricultural Sciences, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria. 1976-81: Programme Officer (Agriculture), Ford Foundation, New Delhi; Liaison scientist between IRRI and Indian Council for Agricultural Research. 1981-93: Senior Research Officer, ISNAR, The Hague. Since August 1993: Present position.
Member of the US Academy of Sciences Committee on African Research Capabilities (1971-74). Member of CIAT Board of Trustees (1976-81). Member of TAC Study Team on the proposal for the establishment of IIMI (1981). Fellow of the Institute of Physics.
Research interests include soil and water management, and management of research programme formulation. Has been involved in many reviews of NARS.
Name: LOUIS R.K. PAUL (Netherlands)
Position: Private Consultant.
Expertise: Strategic Planning, Technology Management, R & D Management (Planning, Coordinating, Prioritizing, Evaluating).
Education: B.Eng. (Hons), Guindy Campus, Madras University, India (1953); Business Studies Programme for Senior Executives, Sloan School of Management, MIT, Boston, Mass., US (1983).
Experience: 1954-1991: A career in Shell International which commenced with mechanical engineering in petroleum refining and progressed through design engineering, project management and project economics to, (in the period 1973-1991), strategic planning, performance appraisal and R&D management. This involved service in Shell's operations in many parts of the world and in Shell's head-offices in London and The Hague. It also meant representing the Royal Dutch/Shell group of companies in discussions with governments, in international industry conferences and in the Commonwealth Consultative Group on Technology Management. Since retirement from Shell, served as a consultant on R&D Management and Evaluation, to the European Commission (Brussels), the German Ministry for Research and Technology (Bonn), and the Advisory Council for Science and Technology (The Hague).
Name: CARLOS SERE (Uruguay)
Position: Senior Program Specialist, Environment and Natural Resources International Development Research Centre, Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Expertise: Agricultural Economics.
Education: Diploma in Agriculture (1976) and Ph.D. Agricultural Economics (1981), University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Experience: 1977-80: Part-time consulting for ILCA, GTZ, Pan American Foot and Mouth Disease Centre. 1980-82: Post Doctoral Fellow, CIAT. 1982-90: Senior Economist, Tropical Pastures Programme, CIAT. 1986-87: Visiting Scholar, Department of Agricultural Economics, UC, Davis. 1990-94: Independent Consultant, mainly working in the fields of agricultural research management (priority setting, research planning, impact assessment) and natural resources management. Main clients were FAO, IBRD, GTZ, IDRC, CIAT, INTA (Argentina), FUNDAGRO (Ecuador).
Member of the 1992 External Review of ILRAD.
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.
1 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.
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.
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 skillful 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?
I. List of Supplementary Questions
1. How is CIP responding to the growing capacities of NARS particularly in Asia and Latin America? How does the Centre assess NARS capacity?
2. In the light of the fact that China accounts for over 90% of the world production of sweet potato and has a strong NARS, what is CIP's comparative advantage for research on sweet potato?
3. How important are CIP's activities on the sustainable management of Andean natural resources relative to the other ecoregions recommended by TAC for priority attention?
4. CIP has undertaken a number of case studies in the past five years to assess its impact. What has been achieved so far?
5. How is CIP coping with the declining financial fortunes of the CGIAR?
6. What have been the major changes in the orientation of CIP's research in the last five years. How much of CIP's research can be classified as strategic, applied or adaptive?
7. How has CIP integrated its global research, training and information activities to focus on issues that will have high payoff in farmers' fields in terms of productivity and environment?
8. CIP's organization has shifted budget responsibilities from Departments and Regional Offices to Programmes. Has this shift been a positive factor in enabling CIP to more efficiently utilize its resources in achieving its objectives?
9. The comparative advantage of CIP is in research. To what extent should CIP be involved in ensuring that the research translates into impact in farmers' fields?
1. ARGENTINA (14-15 September 1994)
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA)
Ing. Agr. Carlos J. Torres, Director Nacional, Buenos Aires
Ing. Agr. David R. Hogg, Assistant Director, Control and Evaluation, Buenos Aires
Ing. Agr. Juan Carlos Zembo, Coordinator, Horticulture, Buenos Aires
Dr. Adolfo P.E. Casaro, Director, Balcarce Experimental Station
Dr. Ivan Butzonitch, Head, Virology Laboratory, Balcarce
Ing. Agr. Antonio Gualati, Coordinator, Agronomy, Balcarce
Ing. Juan Eduardo Cacace, Head, Potato Quality Laboratory, Balcarce
Dr. Elsa Camagro, Potato Breeder, Balcarce
Ing. Dora Carmona, Entomologist, Balcarce
Ing. Agr. Oscar A. Costamanga, Regional Director, Buenos Aires Center South Region
Dr. Esteban Hopp, Senior Scientist, Institute of Molecular Biology, Castelar
2. BOLIVIA (11-14 September 1994)
Instituto Boliviano de Tecnología Agropecuaria (IBTA), La Paz
Ing. Rafael Vara, Executive Director
Ing. Tito Rodríguez, Director of Research
Ing. Gerardo Rodríguez, Technical Director of Production Systems
Proyecto de Investigación de la Papa (PROINPA)
Dr. André Devaux, CIP Co-Director
Ing. Carlos Soria, IBTA Co-Director and Head Information Centre
Luis Iriarte, IBTA Asst. Technician, Nematology
Luciano Acuna, Leader, Community Development Centre, Miska Maya
Dr. Javier Franco, CIP Co-Leader, Nematology
Ing. Jorge Quiroga, IBTA Co-Leader, Social Science
Ing. Carmen Villarroel, IBTA Technician, Pre-basic Seed, Toralapa
Ing. Enrique Carrasco, IBTA Co-Leader, Breeding, Toralapa
Ing. Willman García, IBTA Researcher, Breeding, Toralapa
Ing. María Luisa Ugarte, IBTA Researcher, Breeding, Toralapa
Ing. Carla Carvajal, IBTA Researcher, Entomology, Toralapa
Ing. Noel Ortuna, IBTA Researcher, Nematology, Toralapa
Dr. Enrique Fernández-Northcote, CIP Co-Leader, Nematology, Toralapa
Ing. Carmen Calderón, IBTA Researcher, Pathology, Toralapa
Ing. Víctor Alvarez, IBTA Researcher, Pathology, Toralapa
Ing. Arturo San Martín, IBTA Director, Patacamaya Research Station
Ing. René Andrew, IBTA Head, Entomology, Patacamaya
Swiss Technical Cooperation (COTESU)
Ing. Giancarlo de Picciotto, Joint Coordinator
3. BRAZIL (9-13 November 1994)
Programa Cooperativo de Investigación en Papa (PROCIPA)
Dr. Fernando N. Ezeta, Coordinator
Directors Committee:
Dr. Roger Cortbaoui, CIP
Dr. Oscar Costamagna, INTA-Argentina
Dr. Rui Rezende Fontes, CNPH-EMBRAPA/Brazil
Dr. Primo Accattino, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA), Chile
Dr. José Schvartzman, DIA Ministerio de Agricultura, Paraguay
Dr. Armando Rabuffetti, INIA-Uruguay
Technical Committee:
Dr. Marcelo Huarte, INTA-Argentina
Dr. José Amauri Buso, CNPH-EMBRAPA/Brazil
Ing. Horacio López, INIA-Chile
Ing. José Féliz Barreiro, Instituto Agronómico Nacional, Paraguay
Dr. Francisco Vilaró, INIA-Uruguay
4. CHINA (24 November to 4 December 1994)
Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shandong Province
Wang Yinchi, Vice-President
Li Zhongjian, Director, Crop Institute
Zhang Liming, Director, SP Department, Crop Institute
Ku Chaole, Vice Director, Foreign Affairs Department
Jiuxian Commune, Pingyin County of Shandong Province
Hou Jiabin, Mayor of Jiuxian Commune
Ding Yilin, Vice-Mayor of Jiuxian Commune
Jiao Daoren, Vice-Director of Agricultural Bureau of Pingyin County
Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) of PRC
Ceng Jianjing, Head, Grain and Oil Office, Department of Agriculture
Liu Congmeng, Director General, Dept. of International Cooperation
Li Xijun, Senior Programme Leader, America and Australia Office, International Department of Cooperation
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Zhang Lijian, Vice President
Liang Keyong, Former Vice-President
He Liyuan, Professor, Plant Protection Institute
Cheng Tianqing, Research Fellow, Vegetables and Flower Institute
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Hu Angang, Professor, Research Center for Eco-environmental Sciences.
Xuzhou Sweet Potato Center
Li Guozhu, Associate Professor and Director
Yan Zhende, Professor and Vice-Director
Wu Jingyu, Associate Professor and Director of Germplasm Research Lab.
Sheng Jialian, Senior Professor
Yuan Baozhong, Senior Professor
Sun Jinyou, Assistant Researcher
Tang Jun, Assistant Researcher
Li Yuxia, Assistant
Ma Daifu, Assistant Researcher and Director of Plant Breeding Lab.
Zhu Chongwen, Associate Professor
Li Hongmin, Assistant Researcher
Wang Shengwu, Assistant Researcher
Yan Yongjia, Associate Professor
Xing Jiying, Assistant Researcher
CIP
Song Bo Fu, Director of CIP Beijing Liaison Office
Enrique Chujoy, Regional Plant Breeder
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
Mr. Ad Spijkers, Deputy FAO Representative in China
5. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (16 September 1994)
Junta Agroempresarial Dominicana, Inc. (JAD)
Mr. Osmar C. Benitez, Executive Vice-President
Mr. Juan José Espinal, Director of Administration
Ministry of Agriculture
Eng. Porfirio Alvarez, Entomologist and Coordinator for an Integrated Pest Management Project on Secondment to JAD
Ing. Vinicio Escarramán, Gerente Regional Norcentral, Programa Nacional de Manejo Integrado de Plagas
6. ECUADOR (11-13 September 1994)
Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIAP)
Dr. Jaime Tola Cevallos, Director General, INIAP
Ing. Carlos Nieto C., Director, Experiment Station, Santa Catalina, INIAP
Dr. Oswaldo Paladines, National Coordinator, CONDESAN, INIAP/FUNDAGRO
Ing. Héctor Andrade, Leader, National Potato Programme, FORTIPAPA
Dr. Julio Chang, Coordinator, Agricultural Sector Programme, Ministry of Agriculture
Dr. Susan Poats, Consultant
Dr. Rupprecht Schellenberg, Technology Transfer Specialist, IICA
CIP Staff at Santa Catalina Experiment Station
Dr. Charles Crissman, Chief of the Liaison Office
Dr. Albéric Hibon, Coordinator FORTIPAPA
Dr. Gregory Forbes, Plant Pathologist
Dr. Michael Hermann, Andean Crops Project Coordinator
Dr. Koshun Ishiki, Cytogeneticist, JIRCAS
Mr. Jukka Korva, Agronomist
Mr. Free de Koning, Agronomist
7. EGYPT
ARC Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation
Dr. Adel El-Beltagy
8. INDIA (4-13 December 1994)
CIP, South and West Asia Regional Office
Dr. S.G. Ilangantileke, Regional Representative
Capt. Panicker, Administrative Officer
Dr. M.S. Kadian, Agronomist
Dr. T.R. Dayal, Sweet Potato Breeder
Dr. V.M. Thakur, TPS Scientist
Dr. V.S. Khatana, Socio-Economist/Agronomist
Dr. M.D. Upadhya, Former Regional Representative
Central Potato Research Institute (CPRI)
Dr. G.S. Shekhawat, Director
Dr. N.P. Sukumaran, Head, Crop Physiology and Bio-chemistry
Dr. S.M. Paul Khurana, Principal Scientist, Plant Pathology and Coordinator All-India Potato Improvement Programme
Dr. P.C. Gaun, Head, Genetics
Dr. S.R. Yadav, Head Librarian
Dr. K.C. Sood, Soil Scientist
Dr. I.D. Garg, Pathologist
Dr. S.S. Mishra, Head, Entomology
Dr. P.S. Dahiya, Economist
Mr. J.S. Minhas, Plant Physiologist
Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Dr. R.S. Paroda, Director-General
Dr. K.L. Chadha, Deputy Director-General (Horticulture)
Centre for Technology Development, Bangalore (CTD)
Mr. P.C Nayak, Director
Mr. B.G. Rudrappa, Management Board
Mr. K.S.N. Murthy, Management Board
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore
Dr. K.V. Devaraj, Vice-Chancellor
Dr. M.M. Khan, Professor of Horticulture
Dr. T. Subbiah, Assistant Professor, Tissue Culture Laboratory
National Seeds Corporation (NSC)
Mr. U.K. Das, Regional Manager
Central Tuber Crops Research Institute (CTCRI)
Dr. G.T. Kurup, Director
Dr. S.G. Nair, Head, Genetics and Plant Breeding
Dr. N.M. Nayar, Emeritus Scientist (former Director CPRI)
Dr. Balagopal, Post-Harvest Technology
Dr. K.S. Pillai, Pest Management
Mahendra Agricultural Farm, Sadabad, Mathura (MAF)
Mr. S.N. Bhargava, Owner
9. INDONESIA (14-21 December 1994)
CIP, East and South East Asia Regional Office
Dr. Ann Braun, IPM Specialist
Dr. Yoshihiro Eguchi, Expert, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
Dr. Il-Gin Mok, Plant Breeder
Dr. Jurg Schneider, Coordinator, Swiss Development Cooperation, Biodiversity Project
Dr. Chris C. Wheatley, Processing Specialist
Dr. Peter Schmiediche, Regional Representative
Mr. Alwyn Chilver, Agricultural Economist (ODA)
Lembang Horticultural Research Institute (LEHRI)
Dr. A.A. Asandhi, Director
Dr. R. Sinung-Basri, Socio-Economist
Dr. A.H. Permadi, Plant Breeder
Dr. R. Sumerman, Agro-Economist
Dr. A. Koswara, Plant Breeder
Ms. K. Karjadi, Tissue Culture
Dr. N. Gunadi, Agronomist
Dr. S. Sahat, Potato Breeder
World Education (WE) (NGO - Lembang)
Mr. Paul Musante, Project Director
Central Research Institute for Food Crops (CRIFC)
Dr. A.M. Fagi, Director
Dr. A. Dimyati, Coordinator, Root Crop Research
10. KENYA (8-10 January 1995)
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF)
Dr. Pedro Sanchez, Director General, ICRAF
Dr. Bruce Scott, Deputy Director General, ICRAF and Coordinator, East African Highlands Initiative
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
Dr. Hank Fitzhugh, Director General ILRI
Dr. Ross Gray, ex-Director General ILRAD
CIP, Sub-Saharan Africa Regional Office
Dr. Peter Ewell, CIP Regional Representative and Agricultural Economist
Seminar with CIP staff, SSA Regional Office
Dr. Florence Wambugu, Adjunct Scientist Virology, ISAAA
Dr. Haile-Michael Kidanemariam, Potato Breeding
Dr. Edward E. Carey, Sweetpotato Breeding
Ms. Nicole E.J.M. Smit, Associate Scientist Entomology
Dr. Jan Low, Economist (Rockefeller)
Dr. Vital Hagenimana, Post-Harvest (0.5 NRI/0.5 CIP)
Dr. Stachys Muturi, ex Board Member, CIP
Prof. Karuri, Food Science and Technology, University of Nairobi
Dr. John Flynn, USAID Nairobi
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI)
Dr. Cyrus G. Ndiritu, Director
Dr. Agnes Kihurani, Sweetpotato Pathology
Dr. Andrew Michieka, Bacterial Wilt
National Agricultural Research Centre (NARC), KARI, Muguga
Dr. A.M. Kilewa, Director NARC, Muguga
Mr. Robert Musioki, Plant Quarantine Station
Ms. C. Bideri, PQS Technician
Mr. P.K. Njoroge, PQS Pathology (M.Sc. student)
National Potato Research Centre, Tigoni
Dr. Jackson Kabira, Director, NPRC, Food Science
Mr. Charles Lung'abo, NPRC, Seed Production
Mr. Makwa Cornelius, NPRC, Technician
Ms. Mercy Anyango, NPRC, Food Science
Ms. Alice Walingo, NPRC, Food Engineering
11. MEXICO (12 November 1994)
Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN Unidad Irapuato
Dr. Ariel Alvarez Morales, Director, Irapuato campus
Dr. Rafael F. Rivera Bustamante, Plant Virologist, Irapuato campus
12. NICARAGUA (14 September 1994)
Ministry of Agriculture
Ing. Luis Osorio Garcia, Director General Instituto Nicaraguense de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA)
Ing. Boanerges Mairena Santos, Coordinator, National Potato Programme
Ing. José Ramón Jirón, Regional Coordinator, INTA
Ing. Lesbia Aguilar B. Plant Physiologist
CIP
Dr. Noël E. Pallais, Plant Physiologist
13. PERU (September 1994 - January 1995)
Ministry of Agriculture
Ing. Rodolfo Masuda Matsuura - Deputy Minister
CIP - Cusco
Ing. Gregorio Meza, CICA - Centro de Investigación de Cultivos Andinos, University of Cusco
Ing. Ramiro Ortega
Ing. Wilfredo Catalán, IPM Specialist, CIP
Ing. José Torres, Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agrícola, Cusco
Sr. Augusto Choque, Farmers Cooperative Association, Chinchero
Sr. Mamerto Quispe, President, Farmers Cooperative Association, Chinchero
Sr. Segundino Huarhua, Mayor of Chinchero
Sra. Maritza Perez, Women's Association of Urquillos
CIP - Huancayo
Dr. Peter Gregory, Deputy Director General, Research
Dr. Mahesh Upadhya, Programme Leader, Propagation and Crop Management
Dr. Zósimo Huamán, Germplasm Curator
Dr. Carlos Arbizu, ARTC Specialist
Dr. Juan Landeo, Breeder
Dr. Bodo Trognitz Breeder
CIP - Lima
Dr. Klaus Raven, Professor Entomology, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina
Dr. Richard Sawyer, Ex-Director General, CIP
CIP - San Ramón
Dr. Fausto Cisneros, Programme Leader, Disease Management
Dr. Ali Golmirzaie, Programme Leader, Germplasm Management and Enhancement
Coleridge and Associates, Lima
Mr. Luis Coleridge
Mr. Rafael Barúa
14. UGANDA (11-16 January 1995)
National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO)
Prof. J.J. Mukiibi, Director General
Dr. Joseph Kalunda, Deputy Director General
Mr. D.R. Akumanzi, Ministry of Agriculture Coordinator National Potato Programme
Dr. Berga Lemaga, Head, Potato Research Programme, Institute of Agricultural Research, Ethiopia
Programme Régional de l'Amélioration de la Culture de la Pomme de Terre et de la Patate Douce en Afrique Centrale et de l'Est (PRAPACE)
Dr. Martin Bicamumpaka, Coordinator, PRAPACE
Dr. N.B. Lutaladio, Assistant Coordinator, PRAPACE
National Agriculture and Animal Research Institute (NAARI), Namulonge
Dr. Theresa Sengooba, Director
Dr. Robert Mwanga, Head, Sweetpotato Research Programme
Mr. Sam Kasule, Technician
Mr. Fred Lugoja, Entomology
Dr. C. Ocitti-Obwoya, Agronomy
Dr. Benson Odongo, Agronomy
Dr. Richard Gibson, Natural Resources Institute (NRI), ODA, UK, Virology, Cassava and Sweetpotato
Potato Research Station, Kalengyere (NAARI)
Dr. J.J. Hakiza, Officer-in-Charge
Mr. G.M. Turyamiremba, Breeding
Mr. D.K. Tibanyendera, Farm Manager
Mr. A. Byamugisha, Extension Officer
Other Institutes, Kampala
Dr. D.R. Vuylsteke, Leader IITA Team, NAARI, Namulonge
Dr. Andrew Hall, NRI, ODA Project on Non-Grain, Starch Staple, Post-Harvest Transfer of Technology
National Agricultural Research Institute, Kawanda
Dr. Howard Gridley, CIAT, Bean Breeding
Dr. Salim Nahdi, NARO, Post Harvest Programme
Dr. Ambrose Agona, NARO, Post Harvest Programme
Ms. Constance Owari, NARO, Post Harvest Programme
Makerere University, Kampala
Prof. Aseni R. Semana, Dean, Faculty of Agriculture
Dr. Adipala Ekwamu, Entomology
Dr. Samuel Kyamanywa, Entomology
Dr. Morris Ogenga-Latigo
Dr. Batasari, TPS
Dr. Magambo, Biotechnology
15. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
US Department of Agriculture
Dr. John Bamberg
Dr. Henry Shands*
Dr. David Spooner
Dr. Chuck Brown*
Dr. Joe Pavek*
Dr. Ken Deahl*
* via phone
North Carolina State University
Dr. Durward Bateman
Cornell University
Dr. Ronnie Coffman
Private Consultant, Arizona
Dr. John Niederhauser
16. UNITED KINGDOM
Scottish Crops Research Institute
Dr. Derek Perry
Dr. Robbie Waugh
Dr. George MacKay
Dr. Hugh Barker
1. APPROACH
In June 1994, on behalf of the Fourth CIP External Programme and Management Review Panel, the Executive Secretary of TAC distributed a questionnaire to 100 individuals in various institutions in Latin America, sub-Sahara Africa, West Asia and North Africa (WANA), and Asia, who had professional links with potato and sweet potato research. The basis for selection of participants was the mailing list provided by CIP.
The objective of the survey was to elicit respondents' opinions on:
· (a) the importance to them of various programmes and activities of CIP over the past five years (i.e. 1989-1993);· (b) the expected importance of CIP's work during the next decade (i.e. 1994-2003);
· (c) the value of CIP's collaborative mechanisms, particularly Networks and Country Projects; and
· (d) their agreement: on CIP's goals and priorities; on CIP's long-term strategies for crop improvement; on the degree to which CIP's Medium-Term Plans reflect discussions with key partners; and on the regularity of workshops and meetings with CIP to discuss issues and results.
Respondents were asked to evaluate CIP'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, valuable; 4, very valuable. Each programme was evaluated in terms of research, strengthening of research capacity, training, and information dissemination activities. Respondents were asked to evaluate their agreement with CIP's goals and priorities, crop improvement strategies, Medium-Term Plan proposals, and workshops and meetings with CIP (i.e. objective d above) on the scale: 1, do not agree; 2, partially in agreement; 3, in agreement; 4, completely in agreement.
In addition to the above numerical evaluation, respondents were requested to comment on CIP's strengths and weaknesses, and on CIP's major contributions to their respective countries.
2. RESULTS
Although responses were anonymous, the respondents were asked to indicate their current position, relationship to CIP, period of association with CIP. Of the 33 responses received (representing 33% return), 10 were from Latin America, 16 from Asia and 7 from WANA and sub-Sahara Africa. Of the total, 20 respondents were research scientists and the rest research administrators and policy-makers. There were 21 respondents with more than 5 years of association with CIP on potato, whereas 14 respondents had more than 5 years of association with CIP on sweetpotato.
Responses by programme area for each activity type (i.e. research, strengthening research capacity, training, and information dissemination) for the past five years are summarized in Table 1, and for the next ten years in Table 2. Responses regarding CIP's goals and priorities; long-term strategies for crop improvement; Medium-Term Plan; workshops and meetings; and collaborative mechanisms (i.e. Networks and Country Projects) are presented in Table 3.
2.1. Numerical Evaluation
Table 1 records the combined scores assigned by respondents for all CIP's potato activities for the past five years (1989-93). The score for potato was 2.8, and for sweetpotato 2.6. Assessments for research, strengthening research capacity, training, and information dissemination were considered more or less of equal value for potato and sweetpotato, respectively, but with higher scores for potato compared to sweetpotato. Mean overall scores were 2.8, 2.7, 2.9 and 2.9 respectively for potato; 2.6, 2.4, 2.6 and 2.5 respectively for sweetpotato.
In terms of specific programmes for potato, germplasm management and enhancement and disease management were considered most valuable (mean overall scores of 3.2 and 3.0 respectively), and post-harvest management and marketing the least valuable (2.5). In terms of specific programmes for sweetpotato, germplasm management and enhancement was considered most valuable (2.8), followed by propagation and crop management (2.6), insect and nematode management (2.5) and production systems (2.5). Post-harvest management and marketing (2.4) and disease management (2.4) were considered the least valuable.
Overall, research scientists placed relatively higher values than administrators and policy-makers on CIP's research programmes (2.9 vs 2.6 respectively for potato, and 3.0 and 2.2 respectively for sweetpotato). Compared to research scientists, administrators and policy-makers placed the lowest value on post-harvest management and marketing in potato (1.9 vs 2.7 respectively). Similarly, for sweetpotato, administrators and policy-makers assigned the lowest value to post-harvest management and marketing (1.5 vs 3.3 respectively), and to production systems (1.8 and 2.9 respectively).
Table 2 records the survey results on CIP's future programmes. The overall importance given to CIP's future (1994-2003) in potato and sweetpotato bore a similar pattern to that for the period 1989-1993 (3.3 and 3.2 respectively). The importance given to programme activities (the overall mean) was higher, compared to the past five years, for both potato and sweetpotato (overall mean scores of 3.3 vs 2.8 respectively for potato, and 3.2 vs 2.6 respectively for sweet potato) (Tables 1 and 2). Future activities for all programmes of both potato and sweetpotato were valued higher than during the past five years.
· For potato:- research, mean score 3.3 vs 2.8;
- strengthening research capacity, 3.3 vs 2.7;
- training, 3.4 vs 2.9; and
- information dissemination, 3.4 vs 2.9.· For sweetpotato:
- research, 3.2 vs 2.6;
- strengthening research capacity, 3.2 vs 2.4;
- training, 3.1 vs 2.6; and
- information dissemination, 3.2 vs 2.5.
For potato, the highest overall importance was given to post-harvest management and marketing (3.5), and disease management (3.5); the lowest to production systems (3.2) (Table 2). However, for research activities, germplasm management and enhancement was rated as most valuable (3.6), followed by disease management (3.5) and post-harvest management and marketing (3.4). For sweetpotato, the highest overall importance was given to post-harvest management and marketing (3.5), the lowest to disease management (2.9) and propagation and crop management (2.9). However, for research activities, post-harvest management and marketing was rated as most valuable (3.6), followed by germplasm management and enhancement (3.3), and production systems programme (3.2).
The importance assigned to programme activities in potato by scientists (3.4) and by administrators and policy-makers (3.2) was similar. This was also true for sweetpotato (3.2 and 3.1 respectively).
Table 3 records the responses on: CIP's goals and priorities; crop improvement strategies; Medium-Term Plan proposals; workshops and meeting; and Networks and Country Projects. Respondents were in agreement (mean score 3.2) with the statement that "CIP's institutional goals and priorities are clearly stated". They were more than 'in agreement' (3.3) with the statement that "CIP has a sound long-term strategy for improvement of potato", but were less than 'in agreement' (2.8) with a similar statement on sweetpotato. The respondents were less than 'in agreement' with the statement that "the CIP Medium-Term Plan (MTP) proposals 1994-98 are based on discussions with key partners" (2.8); and with the statement that "the CIP MTP clearly outlines research goals, resources requirement and roles of partners" (2.8). The respondents were less than 'in agreement' with the statement that "regular workshops and meetings are held to discuss major research issues and results" (2.8). Research scientists and administrators/policy-makers did not differ in their response to the above statements.
Networks and Country Projects were considered to be of equal value (i.e. 'valuable') for potato (3.2 for both), and of similar value for sweetpotato (3.1 and 2.9 respectively). Differences in the responses between research scientists and administrators/policy-makers were small, except with regard to Country Projects for potato which were considered valuable (3.0) by the research scientists, but more than valuable (3.5) by the administrators and policy-makers.
2.2 Respondents' Comments
Respondents, comments on CIP's strengths and weaknesses, and CIP's major contributions provide further supplementary insights to some of the trends summarized above. The following is a selection of comments to indicate respondents' views, and to note some interesting individual comments.
(a) Strengths:· A wide germplasm collection, important breeding lines, strong training and documentation facilities at Headquarters. (Asia)· Germplasm enhancement and development of new clones/cultivars; close collaboration with NARS; training. (Asia)
· Germplasm bank, coordination of NARS, training for scientists. (Latin America)
· Availability of a good potato germplasm collection. Efforts to harness disease/pest resistance genes from wild species to produce parental lines. Good staff and well equipped laboratories and infrastructural facilities. Some of the special projects and contract projects. Presence of CIP in various regions. (Asia)
· Global germplasm collections, regional research programme closely linked to NARS, funding for collaborative research, training. (Latin America)
(b) Weaknesses:
· Very little say in identifying actual working associates from country programme. (Asia)· Lack of contract research programmes in countries which have strong national potato improvement programme. (Asia)
· Personnel relationships with national scientists could be improved. (Africa)
· CIP has acted in a very centralized way on some occasions. Weak in biotechnology, important new food and non-food uses for the crop, basic studies of sweet potato starch characteristics. (Latin America)
· In some areas CIP has competed for resources with NARS that are equally strong or stronger in those fields. The importance of 'breeders' rights is ignored, even though these are not in conflict with CIP's objectives. CIP has at times acted as a broker in some cases adding to the cost of the activity. Weak development of basic research up to date (biotechnology, studies of cooking quality and advanced agronomic management of crops, crop simulation models). The so called regional activities were not successful in several cases due to personalities, mandate and functions of CIP's regional staff. (Latin America)
(c) Major contributions:
· The supply of germplasm and other research materials is the major contribution to our country. (Asia)· Helped in development of TPS technology specially for non-conventional seed potato areas; and exchange of germplasm especially in vitro cultures. (Asia)
· Supply of potato germplasm/parental lines. Development of hybrid TPS in collaboration with the national potato programme. Training of scientific personnel. (Asia)
· CIP has made sound contribution to our programme in the supply of germplasm, enabling our staff to participate in training, workshops, seminars and conferences (though not adequate), in the supply of scientific publications and also material support though far below our need. The diffuse light store developed by CIP has been widely adopted even by potato farmers. Some technical assistance was provided. (Africa)
· Germplasm, training of researchers, joint breeding programme, potato seed technology and TPS technology. For greater future contribution, CIP should recuperate its capacity for regional cooperation, activate mechanisms for regional consultation with NARS. CIP should modernize its approach to dealing with the private sector and agroindustrial food chains for potato and sweetpotato. (Latin America)
Table 1: Evaluation of Potato and Sweetpotato Activities, 1989-1993
|
Potato Programmes |
Research |
Strengthening Research Capacity |
Training/ Workshops |
Information Dissemination |
Overall Mean |
|
1. Production Systems |
2.6(0.19) |
2.5(0.18) |
2.7(0.17) |
2.6(0.19) |
2.6(0.09) |
|
2. Germplasm Management and Enhancement |
3.4(0.13) |
3.2(0.18) |
3.2(0.15) |
3.1(0.16) |
3.2(0.08) |
|
3. Disease Management |
3.1(0.18) |
2.8(0.19) |
3.2(0.15) |
3.1(0.14) |
3.0(0.09) |
|
4. Insect and Nematode Management |
2.5(0.19) |
2.6(0.19) |
2.7(0.18) |
2.8(0.19) |
2.7(0.09) |
|
5. Propagation and Crop Management |
2.8(0.21) |
2.5(0.22) |
2.8(0.19) |
2.9(0.20) |
2.7(0.10) |
|
6. Post-Harvest Management and Marketing |
2.4(0.18) |
2.4(0.19) |
2.6(0.19) |
2.7(0.19) |
2.5(0.09) |
|
Overall mean |
2.8(0.08) |
2.7(0.08) |
2.9(0.07) |
2.9(0.07) |
2.8(0.04) |
|
Sweetpotato Programmes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Production Systems |
2.5(0.31) |
2.4(0.29) |
2.8(0.26) |
2.5(0.26) |
2.5(0.14) |
|
2. Germplasm Management and Enhancement |
2.9(0.24) |
2.7(0.24) |
2.8(0.23) |
2.8(0.22) |
2.8(0.11) |
|
3. Disease Management |
2.4(0.25) |
2.3(0.23) |
2.5(0.22) |
2.4(0.21) |
2.4(0.11) |
|
4. Insect and Nematode Management |
2.6(0.26) |
2.3(0.26) |
2.7(0.28) |
2.5(0.25) |
2.5(0.13) |
|
5. Propagation and Crop Management |
2.9(0.30) |
2.5(0.31) |
2.6(0.24) |
2.6(0.23) |
2.6(0.13) |
|
6. Post-Harvest Management and Marketing |
2.5(0.33) |
2.5(0.29) |
2.5(0.31) |
2.3(0.27) |
2.4(0.15) |
|
Overall mean |
2.6(0.11) |
2.4(0.11) |
2.6(0.10) |
2.5(0.10) |
2.6(0.05) |
Note: Values in table are average scores, with the standard error of the mean in ( ).
Scale: 1 = not valuable, 2 = slightly valuable, 3 = valuable, 4 = very valuable.
Table 2: Evaluation of Potato and Sweetpotato Activities, 1994-2003
|
Potato Programmes |
Research |
Strengthening Research Capacity |
Training/ Workshops |
Information Dissemination |
Overall Mean |
|
1. Production Systems |
2.9(0.17) |
3.1(0.18) |
3.4(0.16) |
3.3(0.17) |
3.2(0.08) |
|
2. Germplasm Management and Enhancement |
3.6(0.11) |
3.3(0.14) |
3.3(0.15) |
3.2(0.15) |
3.4(0.07) |
|
3. Disease Management |
3.5(0.15) |
3.4(0.17) |
3.4(0.14) |
3.5(0.13) |
3.5(0.07) |
|
4. Insect and Nematode Management |
3.2(0.17) |
3.2(0.17) |
3.2(0.16) |
3.4(0.14) |
3.3(0.08) |
|
5. Propagation and Crop Management |
3.3(0.13) |
3.2(0.14) |
3.4(0.15) |
3.3(0.12) |
3.3(0.07) |
|
6. Post-Harvest Management and Marketing |
3.4(0.16) |
3.4(0.15) |
3.5(0.13) |
3.5(0.13) |
3.5(0.07) |
|
Overall mean |
3.3(0.06) |
3.3(0.06) |
3.4(0.06) |
3.4(0.06) |
3.3(0.03) |
|
Sweetpotato Programmes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Production Systems |
3.2(0.16) |
3.2(0.15) |
3.2(0.18) |
3.2(0.17) |
3.2(0.08) |
|
2. Germplasm Management and Enhancement |
3.3(0.19) |
3.2(0.20) |
3.2(0.21) |
3.2(0.21) |
3.2(0.10) |
|
3. Disease Management |
2.9(0.20) |
2.9(0.18) |
2.8(0.22) |
2.9(0.20) |
2.9(0.10) |
|
4. Insect and Nematode Management |
3.1(0.21) |
3.2(0.19) |
3.2(0.17) |
3.2(0.19) |
3.2(0.09) |
|
5. Propagation and Crop Management |
2.9(0.21) |
3.0(0.19) |
2.9(0.19) |
2.9(0.21) |
2.9(0.10) |
|
6. Post-Harvest Management and Marketing |
3.6(0.15) |
3.5(0.15) |
3.5(0.15) |
3.5(0.15) |
3.5(0.07) |
|
Overall mean |
3.2(0.08) |
3.2(0.07) |
3.1(0.08) |
3.2(0.08) |
3.2(0.04) |
Note: Values in table are average scores, with the standard error of the mean in ( ).
Scale: 1 = not valuable; 2 = slightly valuable; 3 = valuable; 4 = very valuable.
Table 3: Evaluation of Goals and Priorities, Long-term Strategies for Crop Improvement, MTP Proposals, Networks and Country Projects
|
1. |
CIP's Institutional goals and priorities are clearly stated |
3.2(0.10) |
|
2. |
CIP has a sound long-term strategy for improvement of |
|
|
|
(a) Potato |
3.3(0.12) |
|
(b) Sweetpotato |
2.8(0.14) |
|
|
3. |
The CIP Medium-Term Plan (MTP) proposals (1994-98) are based on discussions with key partners |
2.8(0.19) |
|
4. |
The CIP MTP clearly outlines research goals, resources requirements and roles of partners |
2.8(0.18) |
|
5. |
Regular workshops and meetings are held to discuss major research issues and results |
2.8(0.18) |
Scale:1 = not valuable
2 = slightly valuable
3 = valuable
4 = very valuable
|
6. |
Networks |
|
|
|
a) Potato |
3.2(0.20) |
|
b) Sweetpotato |
3.1(0.29) |
|
|
7. |
Country Projects |
|
|
|
a) Potato |
3.2(0.09) |
|
b) Sweetpotato |
2.9(0.10) |
|
Scale:1 = do not agree
2 = partially in agreement
3 = in agreement
4 = completely in agreementNote: Values in table are average scores, with the standard error of the mean in ( ).
A. Documents Provided by the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats
1. Report of the Third External Programme Review of CIP
2. Report of the First External programme and Management Review of the International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI)
3. TAC Priorities and Strategies Paper - Parts I and II
4. Relevant extracts from TAC 62 (October 1993) and draft TAC 63 (March 1994) Reports
5. Report of the Stripe Study of Genetic Resources in the CGIAR
6. The Role of Biotechnology in the CGIAR
7. 1992 CGIAR Annual Report
8. 1992 CGIAR Financial Report
9. 1994 CGIAR Directory
10. Report of the last (1990) External Management Review of CIP
11. Overview of Management in the CGIAR Centers (1990)
12. Review and Approval of Center Medium-Term Plans 1994-1998
13. Trustee Directory - The Boards of Trustees of the International Agricultural Research Centres, October 1993
14. "Roles, Relationships and Responsibilities of Trustees of the International Agricultural Research Centers", 1984
15. "Some Thoughts Toward Ensuring the Successful Performance of Boards in the CGIAR System", 1987
16. CGIAR Accounting Policies and Reporting Practices Manual
17. Annual Resource Allocation Guidelines
B. Standard Documents Provided by CIP at the Request of the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats
18. CIP Annual Report 1992 and 1993
19. CIP Strategy for the 1990's and Beyond
20. CIP Medium-Term Plans for 1988-1992 and for 1994-1998
21. Programme and Budget for 1994 and 1995
22. The Organizational Structure
23. List of Agreements with other Centres and Institutions
24. List of ongoing and recently completed contracted projects
25. Achievements, Constraints and Impacts during the previous five years
26. Summary of actions taken in response to the last External Review
C. Documents Provided by CIP
27. Staff list with summary of qualification
28. Table summarizing staffing pattern
29. List of staff publications
30. Reports of major internal reviews, expert meetings, etc.
31. Charter and other basic documents establishing the Center
32. Paper describing the mandate of the Center
33. Terms of Board Members
34. Board Handbook
35. Set of minutes covering Board and Board committee meetings
36. Description of the internal management structure
37. Set of minutes of the management committee meetings
38. Staff manual for international and nationally-recruited staff
39. Table showing allowances, benefits, and salary ranges
40. Local compensation surveys used by the Center
41. Table showing personal data on internationally recruited staff
42. Table summarizing turnover of staff over the last five years
43. List of international staff vacancies and how long positions have been vacant
44. Reports of external auditors
45. Most recent internal audit reports
46. Internal management reports
47. Brief description of the Centre's:
- management information systems and procedures,
- library and documentation systems,
- archives and records management systems,
- computer and information technology systems and procedures
48. Summary information on each administrative and finance unit
49. CIP Research in 1994 and 1995
50. List of CONDESAN sub-projects
51. CIP varietal releases
52. Program Leaders' staff ratios report
53. CONDESAN funding report
54. Financial results for 1994
55. Report on spending for maintenance repairs and improvements
56. CGIAR 1993 financial report
57. Funding advisories and other financial recommendations
58. Gender Issues
59. Regional action plans
60. Case Studies of the Economic Impact of CIP-Related Technologies
61. Priority Setting at CIP
The 1989 External Programme and Management Review (EPMR) made 42 recommendations of which 20 were on programme, 17 on research organization and management, and 17 on management. CIP's actions in response to the 19989 EPMR have been taken into account in appropriate sections of this Report, and are tabulated in this Appendix, together with this Panel's remarks and implementation score
Of the 42 recommendations, CIP has implemented 24 recommendations in full, and 18 partially.
I. RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE THIRD EXTERNAL PROGRAM REVIEW
|
Recommendations |
CIP's Responses |
Panel's Remarks |
Score |
|||
|
Potato Research |
|
|
|
|||
|
Recommendation 1: that CIP continue to give high priority to the process of pathogen testing cultivated potato clones so that they will be freely available on request; |
Pathogen testing of CIP germplasm is an extremely high priority. The number of pathogen-tested clones has more than doubled over the past four years (see table). During this period, 1,600 germplasm shipments were distributed to 164 countries. |
|
2 |
|||
|
CIP Pathogen-Tested Clones |
||||||
|
Year |
Potato |
Sweetpotato |
Total |
|||
|
1990 |
734 |
57 |
791 |
|||
|
1992 |
1,018 |
218 |
1,236 |
|||
|
1994 |
1,214 |
472 |
1,686 |
|||
|
Additional resources will be allocated to this effort and we expect to clean up the entire potato collection within three to five years. |
||||||
|
Recommendation 2: that arrangements be made immediately for the control of the entire collection of wild Solanum species to be transferred to CIP; |
The collection has been placed under the operational control of the Genetic Resources Department. All available wild accessions, some 1,500 in all, were transferred to the Center's seed storage facility as true seed in 1992. |
|
2 |
|||
|
Recommendation 3: that a complete inventory with appropriate passport and evaluation data should be distributed for all wild Solanum species as soon as possible; |
Full passport data has been published (C. Ochoa. 1990. Cambridge University Press, 512 p.) for 24 Bolivian wild species, roughly a quarter of the Center's collection. Similar information on 50 Peruvian species will be available for publication in April 1995. Complementary volumes on the wild species of Ecuador and the cultivated species of Peru are planned. Additional forms will be added to accelerate evaluation of the collection for genetic enhancement purposes. |
Progress appears to be slow. 74 accessions represent a small part of the total collection of 1,500. |
1- |
|||
|
Recommendation 4: that the wild Solanum species collection be duplicated and maintained as true seed, in at least two locations, as soon as possible; |
Half the collection has been regenerated and multiplied as true seed. Regeneration activities continue year-round at three high-altitude locations in Peru. Transfer of duplicate sets to sites overseas is scheduled for 1996. |
Slow progress, probably due to past disruptive effects of political troubles in Peru. |
1 |
|||
|
Recommendation 5: that CIP consider mechanisms to integrate component technologies into sustainable potato cropping systems; |
Various measures have been taken to incorporate sustainability into the Center's research and development agenda, including the establishment of the CONDESAN Andean ecoregional consortium. CONDESAN plays an important role as an integrator of component technologies into sustainable cropping systems in the Andes, and will likely play a similar role in East Africa (in conjunction with ICRAF). The seven research networks associated with CIP also serve as integrators of component technologies and are increasingly active in the area of sustainability. |
IPM activities are included and linkages as well limited in-house capabilities have been established for agro-forestry, land use systems and water management. |
2 |
|||
|
Sweetpotato Research |
|
|
|
|||
|
Recommendation 6: that a comprehensive plan and priority listing of sweet potato and potato clones for pathogen testing be prepared with input from genetic resources and plant breeding scientists. |
Reference to pathogen testing of CIP potato clones is contained in the response to recommendation 1. Priorities for pathogen testing of both potato and sweetpotato are as follows: 1) materials from advanced breeding programs; 2) well-known varieties and advanced materials from national programs that are ready for release; 3) materials with specific resistances or special characteristics from CIP collections; and 4) native cultivars. |
No written plan to clean materials was given by CIP. |
1 |
|||
|
Recommendation 7: that plans be made to increase seed of those wild species of Ipomoea which are in urgent need of seed to preserve the collection; |
Seed increase of wild Ipomoea species is in progress, with priority assigned to accessions for which only a small number of seeds are available or for those whose taxonomic identification is unknown. Species in the section Batatas that are more closely related to sweetpotato receive priority over other sections. CIP is developing plans for a core collection of botanical seed in collaboration with IPGRI. |
|
2 |
|||
|
Recommendation 8: that CIP develop a clear long-term strategy for breeding sweet potatoes encompassing both Headquarters and regional programs. |
A breeding strategy has been developed and is being refined in response to the recommendations from an international panel that met in June 1994. Since 1993, CIP has augmented its research activities related to sweetpotato through staff recruitment and transfers. A full-time sweetpotato breeder, who also serves as CIP's global coordinator for sweetpotato, has been posted to East Africa. In addition, the Center now has two full-time IPM specialists assigned to the regional programs in Asia and Africa, as well as postharvest and germplasm specialists in Southeast Asia. The breeding strategy will be finalized following the arrival of the Center's new Director for Genetic Resources. |
No written document was made available that had a clearly articulated long-term strategy for sweetpotato, although the results of a sweetpotato breeding workshop involving international collaborators have been published. The operational strategy that is in place sets out various targets in the regions to focus on NARS' needs. Most of the programme activity is screening. Hybridization done only at CIP HQ and in Indonesia focused on starch and dry matter content. Some pest resistance work is conducted through contract research in the USA. |
1 |
|||
|
Recommendation 9: that CIP develop a coordinated and prioritized worldwide strategy for research on important insect pests of sweet potato. |
CIP's strategy for sweetpotato pests is geared almost entirely to integrated pest management of the four dominant weevil species found in developing countries. IPM receives a high priority among all sweetpotato research projects, having ranked third for research priority in the humid tropics and fourth in the semi-arid tropics. A sweetpotato entomologist now based in Southeast Asia was recruited in 1993 to augment the Center's IPM program for weevil pests. The availability of sex pheromones and a strong commitment from national program cooperators should help to further strengthen collaborative activities in sub-Saharan Africa. |
Steps have been taken, but current activities are not yet reflected in a coordinated and prioritized world-wide strategy. No written document articulates a world-wide strategy. |
1- |
|||
|
Recommendation 10: that CIP re-evaluate its current projects in sweet potato physiological research and seek ways to increase research on post-harvest production and utilization. |
CIP has greatly increased research on postharvest production and utilization for sweetpotato. Efforts currently focus on priority countries in Asia (China, Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia), Africa (Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, and Rwanda), and Latin America (Peru). Strong efforts have been made to increase research on postharvest production and utilization through special project mechanisms. |
A large effort, but widely dispersed rather than a tightly coordinated search. |
2 |
|||
|
Recommendation 11: that research strategies be developed to address specific production technologies of potential high impact for sweet potato within the framework of sustainable systems; |
Such strategies are reflected in the Center's strategic and medium-term plans. Execution is based on characterization studies designed to generate information that will address location-specific production problems. |
Current activities do not reflect such strategies. Little thought has yet been given to the role of sweetpotato in sustainability issues. |
1- |
|||
|
Recommendation 12: that a plan be developed to accumulate appropriate baseline data for future assessment of the impact of CIP's research and training programs in sweet potato; |
CIP has invested heavily in production surveys and diagnostic research for the major sweetpotato-producing countries. Baseline studies have been completed in Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, and Burundi. Similar studies are underway or are planned for other locations. |
Individual studies have been done, and a survey of NARS has been undertaken and CIP plans to analyse it. |
1 |
|||
|
Recommendation 13: that a strategic plan for sweetpotatoes be developed as soon as possible to give momentum and direction to the overall sweetpotato program. |
A research strategy for sweetpotato was outlined in CIP's strategic plan. The Center's strategy for the medium term emphasizes focussed investments in genetic enhancement, pest and disease management, and management of abiotic stresses. As more pathogen tested material becomes available, increasing emphasis will be given to the production and distribution of planting materials through regional seed units. An international workshop on sweetpotato breeding was held in Lima in June 1994. The proceedings of this workshop have been published in "Vines to Roots." In the Workshop CIP's progress in sweetpotato breeding and the progress of collaborating institutions and networks was reviewed, greater regional and global integration of sweetpotato breeding activities was fostered, global context and coordination for sweetpotato breeders was developed and CIP's global sweetpotato breeding strategy was refined. |
A reasonably clear outline strategy appears to have been set out, but only elements of such a strategy were provided in any detail. |
1 |
|||
|
Training, Information and Communication |
|
|
|
|||
|
Recommendation 14: that CIP give greater attention to experimental design and statistical analysis, an area for which the Panel perceived a great need during its visits to collaborating national programs; |
This is a persistent area of difficulty, though to a lesser extent than in the past. The Statistics Unit has conducted training courses on experimental design and statistical analysis for headquarters staff and national program cooperators. It has also provided support and advice at the experimental planning stage to PROINPA in Bolivia and will offer similar services to FORTIPAPA in Ecuador. Currently, all CIP headquarters and regional staff have access to statistical software and can consult with a CIP biometrician via electronic mail. |
|
2 |
|||
|
Recommendation 15: that Management consider that organization of an information planning conference, similar to the type it uses for its priority research areas; |
This recommendation received a low priority from management in the light of competing demands for funding. A 1992 internal review of the Center's communication and information programs highlighted several problem areas and led to important structural and staffing changes. |
CIP has followed an alternative route, using mainly internal inputs. It is not clear whether "customer needs" were met. |
1 |
|||
|
Recommendation 16: the development of publication policies with respect to authorship and mechanisms for review of documents prepared in the region; |
The hiring of a science editor, combined with greater access to telecommunication facilities through Internet, has increased the Center's ability to provide editorial services to regional staff. The mandate of CIP program leaders acts as an additional stimulus and quality-control mechanism for scientific documentation at headquarters and in the regions. |
There is no clear documented publications policy, despite improvements. |
1 |
|||
|
International Cooperation and Linkages |
|
|
|
|||
|
Recommendation 17: that guidelines be developed for research carried out in the regions to meet CIP's international research and technology transfer objectives, including criteria for project selection, contract conditions, appropriate categories of resources and procedures for monitoring quality; |
The restructuring of CIP's research and regional programs into six global programs provides the mechanism needed to set priorities, allocate resources, and monitor the performance of regional research and development projects. A board-approved policy for technology transfer and implementation was developed in 1993. |
Guidelines were not available to the Panel. However, there is progress in priority setting and incorporation of regional research projects into programmes. All contracts and in-house projects pass through a standard version process, covering relevance, design and financial aspects. |
1+ |
|||
|
Research Organization and Management |
|
|
|
|||
|
Recommendation 18: that CIP consider modifying its present research organization structure by: creating a DDG-Research position and a Sweet Potato Program Director position; significantly reducing the number of thrusts and departments; and assigning budgetary authority to thrust managers and project leaders; |
CIP established a DDG Research position in 1992 and has appointed a global coordinator for sweetpotato. The number of thrusts (now programs) has been reduced from 10 to 6, Program leaders and project and subproject leaders have been assigned full budgetary authority, including the flexibility needed to reassign funds to areas of greatest need. The departments are now organized to provide a base for disciplinary discussions and for payroll and personnel support. All staff are "housed" in departments, although principal lines of authority rest with program leaders. All accounting is project-based. The main budgetary unit is the subproject. |
A global coordinator was appointed instead of a Sweetpotato Programme Director |
2 |
|||
|
Recommendation 19: that CIP consider reorganizing its regional operations by: creating a DDG-Regional Programs position; reducing the number of regional offices to about half their present number and appointing a CIP Regional Director to each, with budgetary and management authority over all staff stationed at the regions; |
An Associate Director for International Cooperation was appointed in 1992 (recently upgraded to full director status). The position reports to the DDG-Research. Regional offices have been reduced from 8 to 5. Regional Representatives have specific, clearly defined roles in program planning, budgeting, and implementation. All staff respond to program and regional supervision, and are evaluated on an annual basis. All activities are integrated at the program and regional levels. A Director for International Cooperation position has been created under the DDG Research (thus avoiding a potential division between headquarters and regional programs). The number of regional offices has been reduced from eight to five. |
|
2 |
|||
|
Recommendation 20: that during 1990 CIP pursue an aggressive course of assembling and analyzing information vital to the formulation of its future strategy and ensure that the new Director General can play a leadership rote in the drafting of the strategic plan; |
Work on the strategic plan was initiated in 1990 and finalized in 1991 following the appointment of the new Director General. A new strategic plan was drafted by a team appointed and supervised by the new Director General. A scoring procedure was used to elicit information from scientists to establish program and project priorities, a process that provided much-needed guidance on resource allocation. |
|
2 |
|||
|
Recommendation 21: that CIP integrate its planning conferences with an ongoing Center-wide strategic planning system; |
The Center has de-emphasized, to some extent, its reliance on planning conferences for micro-research topics. However, detailed planning sessions were held at several locations to develop both the strategic and medium-term plans. In the case of natural resources management and Andean root and tuber crops projects, a professional facilitator was employed to help carry out a "project planning by objectives" workshop. The PPO format offers several advantages over the planning conference approach and will be used more extensively in the future. The Center will also make greater use of electronic mail and electronic conferencing for planning purposes. A formal strategic planning system has not been instituted because of staff reductions and funding cuts. |
Links of external inputs to planning process are still weak and informal. There has been some activity in this area, but the Andean meeting was by no means a detailed planning conference involving international 'peers'. The Panel feels that there may have been a possible misinterpretation of the intent of the recommendation. |
1- |
|||
|
Recommendation 22: that CIP: (1) realign its planning and review systems to ensure an adequate degree of vertical integration among these activities; and (2) provide a clear organizational focus to the coordination of planning and impact assessment activities; |
Realignment of planning and review processes, and vertical integration were explicit objectives of the strategic and medium-term plans. Decentralized decision-making and clearer lines of authority have been incorporated into all facets of Center operations, both at headquarters and in the regions. The use of an independent facilitator from ISNAR helped staff identify research priorities and provided an important step toward the de-evolution of centralized planning and decision-making at CIP. Responsibility for impact assessment currently rests with the program leader for Production Systems, although scientists from different programs and disciplines are involved. |
(1) Vertical integration linkages are weak. (2) Priority setting was a good step forward and the review process for project proposals is clear. Mainly ex-post impact assessment has been done, with a strong focus on downstream activities. Ex-ante impact assessment is needed for planning, and CIP is not strong in this area. Most case studies were just finished at the time of this review; how they will contribute to planning is too early to assess. |
1 |
|||
|
An Appraisal of CIP |
|
|
|
|||
|
Recommendation 23: that CIP develop a mechanism to ensure continuous feedback on the suitability and usefulness of the genetic materials it supplies to national programs; |
A detailed questionnaire on the generation and diffusion of potato materials was sent to all NARS cooperators in 1992. A database is being established using the information obtained from this exercise. In addition, a research subproject known as "The Diffusion of CIP-Related Breeding Materials" has been established in the Production Systems Program. Its aim is to document the diffusion of CIP genetic materials and to highlight the constraints that limit diffusion. |
Exiting data sources provide weak basis for assessment of suitability and usefulness of genetic materials. The steps taken do not adequately meet the need. However, sub-project progress reports should help if they are read carefully. |
1- |
|||
|
Recommendation 24: that CIP develop mechanisms to ensure that ex ante impact assessment becomes an integral part of the planning of commodity thrusts, collaborative project and contract activities; |
Information on the ex ante impact of major research projects was elicited and analyzed for the development of the medium-term plan. The results were published in "Priority-Setting at CIP: An Indicative Framework for Resource Allocation" (Collion and Gregory, 1993). Results largely supported earlier perceptions of NARS on the characterization of production constraints and demand opportunities for potato and sweetpotato cultivation. Emphasis on impact in research planning and priority setting has led to a significantly greater use of impact assessment. |
No formal ex-ante studies were provided to the Panel. |
1- |
|||
|
Recommendation 25: that a mechanism for both potato and sweet potato be developed to incorporate information derived from global constraints studies into the research planning process to effectively allocate resources. |
The establishment of a program committee and CIP's investment in characterization research, particularly for sweetpotato, provided the framework and inputs needed for such a mechanism. The Center's new project-based budgeting system adds transparency to the process and helps management and staff evaluate potential research trade-offs. Because budgets are determined simultaneously for all projects, estimates of opportunity cost are implicit in the funding decisions of program leaders. |
The comments from CIP do not address the issue. CIP's effort is of an intuitive nature |
1- |
|||
0 - No implementation; 1 - Partial Implementation; 2 - Full Implementation
II. RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE THIRD EXTERNAL MANAGEMENT REVIEW
|
Recommendations |
CIP's Responses |
Panel's Remarks |
Score |
|
Evolution, Philosophy and Performance |
|
|
|
|
Recommendation 26: that CIP capitalize on the momentum generated by the self study and the change plan by: establishing a continuous internal management and operations review process; and, linking this process to the board's involvement in policy making and oversight on administrative and operational matters. |
To support the implementation of its new project and programme structure, the Centre has issued an authorization checklist for all administrative processes and procedures. Care has also been taken to revitalize the management Committee. Formal meetings are held according to an established calendar. Agendas are developed by the numbers, in consultation with headquarters and regional staff, and are distributed in advance of meetings. Minutes are prepared within 5 days and circulated to all board members and staff. Meeting minutes are complemented by the Director General's quarterly report to the board (also sent to staff and donors). |
|
2- |
|
Legal Status and Governance |
|
|
|
|
Recommendation 27: that CIP complete its review and up dating of the Center's basic statutes and bylaws and publish them in a small, readily accessible handbook. |
CIP by-laws are structured according to the Center's home-base agreement. Changes to the by-laws will therefore require direct negotiations with the host country. Management has analyzed this topic and believes that necessary modifications are best left until after the 1995 presidential and legislative elections. CIP's agreement with the government of Peru ends in 2000. (We differentiate statutes from by-laws and have published the latter in English). |
|
2 |
|
Recommendation 28: that the board critically examine its internal operational procedures. |
The board has been wholly reorganized and is considerably more independent than in the past. A board manual has been published and distributed. Internal procedures are revised periodically. Board committees have been reorganized and currently include executive, program, audit, and nominations committees. |
|
2 |
|
Recommendation 29: that the board strengthen the role that it plays in the formulation and oversight of center-wide strategic concerns. |
The board contributed actively to the development of the strategic and medium-term plans. Board meetings now include a two-day interactive research review. Board recommendations, based on the reviews, are routinely communicated to management and staff for follow-up. |
The Board tries hard, but is not always effective in obtaining the required results. It is a difficult job as described in the report, for reasons outlined. |
1 |
|
Recommendation 30: that the board establish processes for evaluating the performance of the DG and the trustees. |
The board has established a formal instrument for evaluating the performance of the director general, the board chair, and the board as a corporate entity. Performance evaluations are carried out during the annual meeting. |
|
2 |
|
Leadership and Senior Management |
|
|
|
|
Recommendation 31: that CIP's Management Committee hold regular meetings (at least biweekly) and that the Assistant to the DG be responsible for gathering agenda items, preparing and circulating the agenda prior to the meeting, and circulating the minutes. |
(Also see Response to Recommendation 26.) |
|
2 |
|
Recommendation 32: that the Management Committee undertake a searching review of all committees to establish their continuing justification. |
The management committee periodically reviews the roster of standing committees. The number of committees has been reduced from 19 to 11. |
|
2 |
|
Management of Human Resources |
|
|
|
|
Recommendation 33: that CIP move towards an integrated performance planning and review system to replace its present annual evaluation process. |
Evaluation forms and procedures have been updated and improved. Emphasis is placed on joint planning involving staff members and supervisors. Performance is evaluated yearly in relation to stated goals. Discussion by the participants is encouraged. Program leaders and regional representatives are directly involved in the evaluation process and in determining salary increases. |
Panel believes that improvements are still in progress. |
2- |
|
Recommendation 34: that CIP consider creating a grading system for international scientists which provides opportunity for career advancement. |
The following categories and salary ranges have been established: Associate Scientist 1 (up to $30,000); Associate Scientist 2 ($25,000 to $40,000); scientist 1 ($35,000 to $55,000); Scientist 2 ($50,000 to $70,000); Principal Scientist (no range). Staff have been assigned category ratings according to experience, job responsibilities, and performance. |
The effectiveness of this new classification is not clear. |
2- |
|
Recommendation 35: that CIP consider developing its own training plan and programs, for international and especially for local staff, as an additional means of helping carry forward the beneficial results and insights generated by the self study. |
Training programs are routinely conducted for nationally recruited staff under procedures established by the management committee. Full implementation has been constrained by funding. |
There is no coordinated, career development plan in place. Training appears to be ad-hoc. |
1- |
|
Recommendation 36: that CIP clarify personnel management authority of staff in management and supervisory positions. |
Lines of authority have been clarified, with staff grouped for operational purposes in disciplinary departments. Program leaders have been given authority and responsibility for allocating, supervising, and evaluating international and national staff. Four administrative managers were recently appointed under the executive officer: 1) human resources; 2) general services (maintenance, motor pool, security); 3) visitors and auxiliary services (travel, visitors, dormitories, and cafeteria); 4) logistics (imports, warehousing, and purchasing). |
|
2 |
|
Financial Management |
|
|
|
|
Recommendation 37: that CIP produce and put into use the planned financial delegation of authority manual as soon as possible. |
A comprehensive authorization checklist covering all CIP activities, including finance, has been developed. The checklist system is now operational. |
|
2 |
|
Recommendation 38: that all trustees receive a quarterly "summary" financial report designed to meet their specific information needs. |
Board members receive monthly financial reports. |
|
2 |
|
Recommendation 39: that CIP design and implement a new operating expense chart of accounts which is geared towards meeting the financial information needs of its managers. |
Financial information is available on-line through the Center's local area computer network to all headquarters-based budget managers. The system will soon be available to regional staff through Internet. |
|
2 |
|
Recommendation 40: that the regional offices be audited each year. |
It has not been possible to audit all regional offices on a yearly basis. However, regionally-based audits have been conducted for LAC and ESEAP, as well as for the SEINPA, FORTIPAPA, and PROINPA country programs and the UPWARD research network. External audits have also been conducted for the PRECODEPA, SAPPRAD, PROCIPA, PRAPACE networks. |
The Panel agrees with the management and has evaluated CIP's action on the basis of appropriateness. |
2 |
|
Administration |
|
|
|
|
Recommendation 41: that CIP develop standard procedures for finance and administration in its regional offices. |
Standard procedures have been put into place in all regional offices, although differences exist because of local labor practices. When CIP staff are sponsored or "umbrellaed" by another IARC, the sponsoring center's procedures are followed. |
|
2 |
|
Information Management |
|
|
|
|
Recommendation 42: that CIP assess the information needs of its board in the light of the board's policy formulation and oversight responsibilities and modify its governance information systems as appropriate. |
This recommendation was implemented to the best of our understanding of its spirit and substance. The Board receives quarterly reports from the director general. It also receives monthly financial reports and the Center's internal newsletter. The Board's oversight function is supported by an annual program presentation. |
|
2- |
0 - No implementation; 1 - Partial Implementation; 2 - Full Implementation
|
ARTC |
Andean Root and Tuber Crops |
|
CGIAR |
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research |
|
CIP |
Centro Internacional de la Papa |
|
CIPFIS |
CIP Financial Information System |
|
CONDESAN |
Consortium for the Sustainable Development of the Andean Ecoregion |
|
DG |
Director General |
|
DDG |
Deputy Director General |
|
ELISA |
Enzyme Linked Immune Serological Assay |
|
EPMR |
External Programme and Management Review |
|
ESEAP |
East and South East Asia Office |
|
IARC |
International Agricultural Research Centre |
|
ICIMOD |
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development |
|
ICRAF |
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry |
|
INIA |
Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias |
|
IPM |
Integrated Pest Management |
|
ISNAR |
International Service for National Agricultural Research |
|
LAC |
Latin America and the Caribbean |
|
MENA |
Middle East and North Africa |
|
MTP |
Medium-Term Plan |
|
NARS |
National Agriculture Research System |
|
NASH |
Nucleic Acid Spot Hybridization Test |
|
NGO |
Non-Governmental Organization |
|
ODA |
Overseas Development Agency |
|
PC |
Personal Computer |
|
PROINPA |
Proyecto de Investigación de la Papa |
|
QTL |
Quantitative trait loci |
|
RTC |
Root and Tuber Crops |
|
SMAD |
Sustainable Mountain Agriculture Development |
|
SSA |
Sub-Saharan Africa |
|
SWA |
South and West Asia |
|
TAC |
Technical Advisory Committee |
|
TPS |
True Potato Seed |
|
WANA |
West Asia and North Africa |
