2.1 Nature of Such Reviews
2.2 Results of Program Reviews
2.3 Results of Management Reviews
Since ICLARM's admission to the CGIAR in 1992, and in preparation for this Mid-Term Review, the Center commissioned a number of external reviews. All areas of ICLARM's work have now been subject to such reviews at least once, and all but the review of the Information Division and the second GIFT review have been considered by the Board of Trustees.
The reviews covered:
|
· Management Services Division |
1992 and 1994 |
|
· Coastal and Coral Reef Resource Systems Program |
1994 |
|
· Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapia Project |
1993 and 1994 |
|
· Integrated Resource Management Thrust |
1993 |
|
· Information Division |
1994 |
To date, the reviews have proceeded in the following manner:
- An external panel (or individual) was selected by the Director General and the Board Chair and provided with terms of reference prepared by the Director General and approved by the Board;- Panel members met at ICLARM with individual staff and staff groups as appropriate;
- Members presented their summary observations and recommendations to Management for discussion prior to departure;
- A final report was subsequently submitted to both the Director General and the Board Chair;
- The Director General and staff prepared a formal response to the report for presentation to the Board.
Both the Board and Management have found these reviews useful in identifying issues that need attention and in emphasizing institutional transparency and accountability as desirable organizational values. They have also served to improve internal communication and a keener awareness of management responsibilities. The Board is considering a schedule whereby each program or division will be reviewed every other year. The Panel is entirely supportive of this notion in view of the evident value of the studies to date as indicated below.
2.2.1 Review of the Coastal and Coral Reef Resource Systems Program (CCRRSP)
2.2.2 Review of the Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapia (GIFT)
2.2.3 Review of the Inland Aquatic Resource Systems Program (IARSP)
2.2.4 Review of the Information Division
Reviews of CCRRSP were conducted in 1994 by Jeffrey J. Polovina, National Marine Fisheries Service, Hawaii, U.S.A., and A.J. Pitcher, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. An internal review of this program was also made by the Program Committee of the Board during the same year.
Drs. Polovina and Pitcher were asked to provide general comments on the focus, scope and quality of the work carried out under the three CCRRSP thrusts, based on interviews conducted with staff members, perusal of project documentation and attendance at a formal presentation to the Program Committee. They covered the efforts of ICLARM related to modelling of natural fish resources, including coral reef fisheries. There was general support for the various models, although a question was raised about the applicability of the Multispecies Virtual Population Analysis (MSVPA) as a tool.
Appreciation for the Socioeconomic Analysis for Coastal and Coral Reef Co-management project was expressed, although these appeared to be little integration in the work of the program. Progress in the Bioeconomic Modelling and Valuation of Coastal and Coral Reef Resources project was questioned because of the linear programming research approach, and the need for a senior economist was stressed. The Comparative Analysis of Coastal Cross Sections project was appraised positively, although the feasibility of the time schedule was questioned.
The Aquaculture and Resource Enhancement project in Coral Reef Ecosystems was appraised positively in terms of the enhancement of depleted species in the wild. The Panel notes that the pertinent point from the Program Committee report with respect to aquaculture and resource enhancement was "that new aquaculture species such as sea cucumbers should incorporate economic analysis as early as possible and that there should be evaluations of the impacts of introducing new species into the ecosystem in terms of both productivity and biodiversity."
Overall, the reviews stressed the need for much more in-depth economic analysis, which in the case of new aquaculture species should be integrated in the research procedures at an early stage. The need for an improvement in the research management system of the program was also stressed, particularly with respect to impact assessment. The Panel supports these views.
Two reviews of the GIFT project were undertaken, one in 1993 (Phase I) and one in 1994 (Phase II). Phase I of the review was conducted by a team of four people: Graham A.E. Gall (University of California, Davis, U.S.A.), Vo Tong Xuan (Cantho University, Hangiang, Vietnam), Ziad Shehadeh (SIFR c/o IDRC, Ottawa, Canada) and Bernard Chevassus (INRA, Paris, France).
The review covered such subjects as strategic research activities, new traits, the collection of new germplasm, training and the International Network for Genetics in Aquaculture (INGA). A detailed assessment of the project was carried out. The reviewers praised the progress achieved, the technical quality of the research, the high skill level of the staff and the high level of cooperation among the agencies involved. The Panel considers that this is important research, which could contribute extensively to increased fish production and improvement in the livelihood of poor people. The cooperation with NARS as well as the technical support for INGA was well acknowledged by the reviewers, and the Panel agrees with that as well as with the statement that additional manpower for strategic research is needed.
The GIFT project (Phase II) was assessed by an expert UNDP advisory team (Graham Gall, Vo Tong Xuan and Brian Davy) in 1994. The Board and Management have not yet had an opportunity to respond to the resulting report. The team assessed all the important issues mentioned above and also commented on scientific publications resulting from the project. A significant backlog of scientific publications was found, and it was recommended that this situation be remedied as rapidly as possible. It was also found that, although the project had made significant progress during 1994, the operation of the project and the technical quality of the research had not been as high as in previous years, in particular cooperation with the Norwegian research agency. ICLARM and the Norwegian agency took action on this matter in November 1994 and January 1995 and are now satisfied past issues have been laid to rest. However, the reviewers again stressed the value of this project in demonstrating how NARS can be true partners and found this project to be an excellent model of cooperation among national and international organizations. The skill and dedication of the staff involved were also emphasized.
The review of IARSP was conducted in 1993 by J. Brian Hardaker (University of New England, Australia), Harvey Demaine (AIT, Bangkok, Thailand) and Agnes C. Rola (University of the Philippines and IRRI, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines).
The team delivered a critical report, questioning the objectives and the approach of the program and recommending a change in research strategy, although the quality of research performed was acknowledged through its publication record.
The Panel shares the concerns of ICLARM's Management regarding the validity of some of the claims of the review team, which conducted their work in a highly charged atmosphere. It endorses the actions taken by Management in response to this review and considers that the program is now balanced, credible and very promising. The inadequacy of social science input because of the lack of funding remains, however, an issue requiring careful attention.
A review of the Information Division was carried out by two consultants, Robert Huggan of IRRI and Brian Lee of ACIAR in 1994. Again, this review was quite recent, and the Board and Management have not yet had sufficient time to respond. They evaluated the activity of the Division in relation to its prime objectives. There was general support for the way in which work is carried out, although several interesting observations were made about the Division's limited vision. Viewing the Division as an essentially reactive type of service unit, the team recommended that information activities be elevated to the level of a Program, that a strategy be developed and that the Division be pro-active rather than continue to serve in a service capacity. Concerns were expressed about the dual role the Director of the Division had to play both as technical editor and Division Manager.
The Panel agrees to the many positive statements made about the potential importance of this Division, the quality of the publications and the effective services offered by the library. The Panel would encourage ICLARM to consider carefully the review's findings with respect to the need for the development of a strategy for the Division.
Reviews of the entire assigned responsibilities of the Management Services Division were conducted in both 1992 and 1994 by Wilfredo A. Reyes, Regional Controller, IDRC, Singapore. In his first visit, Mr. Reyes met with staff and considered policies and procedures with respect to planning, program administration, financial management, human resources management, administrative services, systems administration and internal audit. His report listed problem areas he had identified and included numerous, very detailed suggestions for improvement. His suggestions were accepted by Management and incorporated into the 1993 and 1994 workplans of the Division.
Mr. Reyes was invited to return to ICLARM in June 1994 to review the progress made in implementing his initial recommendations. In this second review, Mr. Reyes interviewed both program and administrative staff. Again, he considered the entire assignment of the Management Services Division and indicated in his report that staff had either implemented or were ready to implement most of the suggestions in his earlier report. While specifying additional steps needed to improve the services of individual units, Mr. Reyes noted particular improvement in internal communication that had been identified as an inhibiting factor to full cooperation during his first visit. His executive summary pointed to the weekly program meetings initiated by the Director General, improved interaction between staff of the programs and the Projects Administration Unit, the new Project Planning and Management Manual and the assignment of a Program Assistant in headquarters as a focal point for communication with outreach staff as important contributions in this respect. On the other hand, he identified the need for briefing sessions to bring program staff up to speed in their understanding of financial reports and referred to the perception on the part of internationally recruited staff that their conditions of employment had not received sufficient attention. Subsequent action by Management and the Board have made at least a start in dealing with this latter point.
Management's response to the Reyes report noted agreement with his general conclusion that "internal communication continues to be the critical factor that cuts across all functional areas covered" and indicated pleasure at his identification of efforts to establish and institutionalize formal communication channels. Again, Management accepted the specific suggestions in the report, several of which were addressed in late 1994, with others incorporated into 1995 workplans.
The Panel found Mr. Reyes' detailed suggestions to Management in both reviews extremely valuable, but Members sense that he may have been overly sanguine in his second report in suggesting that there had been considerable progress in implementing changes.
