3.1 Recommendation 1 - Initiate early action to change its legal status to that of an international organization with privileges and immunities similar to that of other CGIAR Centers.
3.2 Recommendation 2 - Formulate and approve a comprehensive set of human resource management policies and create a personnel office to assist in their implementation.
3.3 Recommendation 3 - Adopt an integrated system for project and program planning, monitoring and review across all programs.
3.4 Recommendation 4 - Strengthen its financial management and improve its internal reserves (fund balances) and expenditure controls.
3.5 Recommendation 5 - Reassess its stated goals and objectives to give more emphasis to research and to make them more consistent with those of CGIAR.
3.6 Recommendation 6 - Place greater emphasis in the short-run on improvement in breeding and husbandry practice than genetic manipulation in its proposed Inland Aquatic Resource Systems Program.
3.7-8 Recommendation 7 - Develop a revised research plan for its proposed Coral Reef Systems clearly justifying any large expansion, taking advantage of opportunities for collaboration with advanced scientific institutions and present it to TAC for approval either as a part of ICLARM's presentation of its Medium-Term Plan, or if ICLARM requires more time on the occasion of the interim external review. - Recommendation 8 - Revise the strategy for its proposed Coastal Resource Systems Program to reflect the nature of the problems faced in the coastal zone and present it to TAC as part of the Center's response to this review.
3.9 Recommendation 9 - Recruit a training specialist and with her/his guidance carry out an assessment of having needs in client developing countries in order to formulate strategies and plans on training.
3.10 Recommendation 10 - Spell out its strategies and plans in the information area clearly, and not expand its staffing and expenditures in this area before completing such an effort.
3.11 Recommendation 11 - Ensure that its capital requirements, including permanent headquarters facilities in terms of offices and laboratories, are the critical minimum needed to carry out its programs.
3.12 Recommendation 12 - Clarify the rationale for and the role of the proposed Deputy Director General.
The Review Panel's Terms of Reference called for a monitoring of ICLARM's progress in implementing the program and management recommendations made in the 1992 EPMR. The report of that review included 12 primary recommendations against which progress has been monitored by the Board at every meeting since. Management's responses to the recommendations at the time of this review are summarized in Annex A-2, while the Panel's evaluation of the actions taken in response to these recommendations is summarized as follows:
The Panel is impressed with the effort made by the Center to respond to this recommendation. ICLARM has proceeded with a recognition that the change in legal status to that of an international organization and the availment of privileges and immunities in the Philippines is a two-stage process. The first stage of this process was completed with the signing of an international agreement establishing ICLARM as an international organization in April 1993. The second stage, however, remains to be accomplished.
The Center lost some momentum in its efforts to conclude a host-country or Headquarters Agreement largely because of the 1993 "crisis." It nevertheless resumed the effort upon assumption to office of Dr. Larry Stifel and then of Dr. Meryl Williams as the new Director General. However, final action of the Philippine Government is still pending. Some additional high-level contacts and meetings are being contemplated to resolve outstanding issues and finally forge the Agreement.
The Panel fully recognizes the urgency of getting the Agreement negotiated and signed. The Agreement will provide the long-term security and stability ICLARM needs as it seeks support for headquarters facilities and increased budgetary support to enable it to pursue its goals more effectively.
The need for some resolution is especially apparent given the status of current negotiations for a site in Egypt (see Section 5 following).
Despite serious internal problems in 1993 that delayed response to this recommendation, Management has since drafted and secured Board approval of personnel policy manuals for both internationally recruited staff and nationally recruited staff in the Philippines. Both manuals, however, tend to record policies in broad terms and require considerable augmentation in order to stipulate the procedures that will apply. A Human Resources Manager joined the staff in September 1993 but resigned in October 1994. As an interim measure, personnel administration was added to the assignment of the Unit Head of Administrative Services, and no decision has yet been made as to a final resolution of this issue, a particularly significant one in the Panel's view. Salary administration practices have been reviewed and restructured, but more work remains to be done in this regard, including the installation of an appropriate position classification system. (A new classification system has, in fact, already been submitted to the Board for review and approval.) A number of steps have also been taken to encourage an improvement in internal communication.
Perhaps most importantly in the Panel's view, the Center has adopted an impressive performance management system, entailing the formulation of a performance agreement for each staff member at the beginning of the year, an interim review and a final review at the end of the year, with provision for salary increments based on performance ratings. The Panel applauds this development, not only because it ensures more equitable treatment of staff but because it promotes integration of the individual's contribution with the overall objectives of the Center and its annual plan of work. A local consulting company has been engaged to conduct center-wide training in the system's implementation and to build understanding and support, since initial reactions on the part of staff are mixed. It is likely, however, that one or two annual cycles must be experienced before there will be full appreciation of the role it can play in enhancing Center efficiency and effectiveness.
The Center has responded to this recommendation by several decisions taken in 1994 which will be implemented in 1995. This includes the aforementioned development of performance agreements for individual staff and a training program in project planning and design, both actions meant to increase staff management abilities. It also includes preparation with full consultation of a detailed operational plan for 1995.
A first draft of a Project Planning and Management Manual will be completed in April 1995. This is primarily a guide for Project Leaders and Program Directors, designed to identify the critical stages of the project life cycle.
Administrative support to project teams has been enhanced by assigning Project Assistants to be incorporated into project teams to assist Project Leaders in their administrative responsibilities. The Assistants also serve as a liaison officers with responsibilities for various kinds of services.
In addition, ICLARM Management intends to respond to the request from the Board to formulate recommendations for procedures to assess project impacts.
The Panel supports all of these measures initiated by the Center and urges an evaluation annually of their success, with particular emphasis on their benefits to staff in outreach posts.
The Center has identified a number of significant steps taken in regard to financial management per se, although it has also listed a considerable number of issues that still need attention. The greater involvement of Project Leaders and Unit Heads in the 1995 budget process is a positive change but does not go far enough in the Panel's view, since they are not yet asked to take full responsibility for budgeting, or for cost control, of all aspects of projects/units for which they are operationally responsible. It is clear that some of the staff in question will need to upgrade their skills in this regard.
The ICLARM Board has recognized the tenuous position of the Center with respect to internal reserves and its wide deviation from CGIAR operating fund guidelines. In 1994, the Board authorized the budgeting of a three-year annual surplus of US$200, 000. While several exigencies eliminated the surplus in 1994, the 1995 budget proposes to deposit US$400,000 in reserves. At present, ICLARM holds an operating fund balance of close to zero, while the capital fund will register only approximately US$500,000 (roughly one month of operating costs) at the close of 1994, less than half in liquid form. The lack of a reasonable operating fund is exacerbated by the fact that the costs of many of the Center's restricted and complementary core activities are only reimbursed after, and occasionally well after, completion.
The Panel is concerned about the limitations in cash flow management at ICLARM, resulting in sometimes long delays in the payment of bills and increasingly tense relations with several suppliers. The Panel recommends that the Director General give urgent attention to the issue of cash flow management. See Annex A-3 which describes the background of this issue and the current situation that in early January 1995 necessitated a second emergency loan through the CGIAR Secretariat.
With respect to this EPMR recommendation as well as recommendation 2 (human resources management) discussed above, the Panel regrets that it can only raise questions and not fully evaluate ICLARM's management services in the brief time available to it. In fact, however, a number of issues have been brought to the Panel's attention by program staff that suggest the need for prompt Management attention. Examples include allegations of deficiencies in the management of cash flow, perceived inequities on personnel and compensation matters, lack of due process of procedures, delays in financial reporting and the appropriateness of some decisions, such as writing ICLARM's own computer programs rather than seeking off-the-shelf software.
These perceptions require attention from Management whether or not they are valid, but the Panel feels compelled to note here two factors that lead it to withhold judgement: 1) the residue of the 1993 crisis which caused a split between Program Directors and the Director of Management Services, and 2) the fact that the latter has had to introduce systems and procedures into a culture that has valued independence and freedom from what some see as bureaucratic intrusions into their research work.
Without making a judgement, therefore, the Panel recommends that the Director General investigate the validity of the concerns expressed about ICLARM's management services and take appropriate action, and that the team participating in the next full-scale external review investigate more fully progress in implementing and gaining acceptance of an orderly administrative system
The Center's goals and objectives are now formulated in relation to the priorities and strategies of the CGIAR, following completion of the process of strategic planning in May 1992.
In ICLARM's Medium-Term Plan 1994-98 (From Strategy to Action, February 1993) the three most critical resource systems - coastal, coral reef and inland - are identified, and the priorities in program development are laid down. Geographical areas in priority order are indicated, and the five guiding principles for research priority setting are outlined: sustainability, equity, gender, user participation and a systems approach.
The principles for maximizing research efficiency are discussed in relation to projects. ICLARM's priorities on natural resources management are also in compliance with CGIAR priority areas identified, as is the ecoregional approach to research, particularly in the inland program. The Panel welcomes the actions taken by ICLARM to comply with the priorities and strategies of the CGIAR.
ICLARM has not yet been involved with genetic manipulation, although the scientists within NARS have been attracted by such methods, including DNA technologies leading to transgenic fish. ICLARM is at present following the development of such technologies and may consider experimenting with them in the period of the next Medium-Term Plan.
The Panel applauds the progress ICLARM has made with the selective breeding approach. The quantitative genetic program has been extremely successful in increasing the growth rate of Tilapia by 60% since 1991. The program will now be extended to such other species as the Chinese and Indian carp as well as the common carp.
The Panel welcomes the ambition of the scientists to include a qualitative genetic approach in their breeding program in the future. Questions about disease and parasite resistance are also of importance as are evolutionary principles for domestication.
Those two recommendations are closely linked and are for this reason commented on jointly. Since the recommendations were made, ICLARM's Medium-Term Plan has been presented and endorsed by TAC (1993). The coastal transects project has integrated the coastal fisheries management project and research on the dynamics of multispecies resources. The coastal fisheries project has a socioeconomic dimension to study the integration of people, environment and the utilization of resources and the impact of the project on higher sustained catches and/or improved incomes for people.
The Panel applaud the new activities developed in this area, including the impressive development of such databases as Fishbase, FiDAS and the good start of Reefbase. The computerized systems will also be indispensable tools for environmental protection in a wider perspective. The near-shore areas (shelf-areas) produce 90% of marine harvest on a global basis. The impact of pollution must therefore be carefully monitored in terms of biodiversity, changes in species composition and primary production.
Some people have asked whether the design of such software as Fishbase and Reefbase represents research. The Panel considers such software to be valuable tools to be used by other scientist in their research programs
The plan to build a data base for coral reef systems appear extremely important, both with respect to fish production and to the global environment. The Panel is favorably impressed with the number of valuable publications produced, including manuscripts by ICLARM scientists elucidating the coral reef as an important source of food for millions of poor people as well for the fish market. At present 6-10% of the marine harvest originates from coral reef areas.
From a global perspective, the coral reef areas are important with respect to the global circulation of carbon. The reefs function as a valuable CO2 sink, possibly influencing the climate through global warming.
The Panel raised questions about the priority ICLARM currently assigns to efforts in studying the giant clam, the sea cucumber and the pearl oyster in coral reef areas. The Panel did not have time to analyze the issue in depth but was concerned as to the potential of these species in contributing to overall food security on a global basis, although recognizing its potential to food security in local coastal villages.
The Center has responded to this recommendation by developing a new training policy which will be presented to the Board at its April 1995 meeting. A strategic planning exercise with respect to training will be carried out in 1995. Center Management also hopes to employ a training specialist if the additional US$1 million is provided ICLARM following this Mid-Term Review.
In its response to this recommendation, the Center referred to the CGIAR system-wide strategy for information which has recently been approved (1994). This will also influence ICLARM's future information work: networked information systems and databases, information partnerships, common standards for products and joint acquisitions and production.
The issue of the quality of ICLARM's publications and the review system are dealt with in the response to the 1992 EPMR as is its continuing involvement with the Asian Fisheries Society journal.
The Panel notes that the internally commissioned external review of ICLARM Information Program was completed shortly before this review took place. That review recommended that the program develop a vision and strategy as to ICLARM's future in this area (see also section 2.2). The Panel supports such a recommendation.
The Panel entirely concurs with Management's view that ICLARM's capital requirements have never been satisfied. This applies both to minor capital needs such as computers as well as to office and laboratory facilities. The headquarters in midtown Manila is insufficient and inappropriate for a significant international center, especially in terms of experimental facilities. The contrast with other CGIAR center facilities striking.
The offer of facilities in Egypt as well as the prospects for a headquarters site and infrastructure in the Philippines are discussed in section 5. In addition, however, the Panel hopes that some budgetary flexibility in the future will make it possible to acquire and/or upgrade badly needed capital equipment.
The Director General has determined, wisely in the Panel's view, to defer indefinitely the position of Deputy Director General in favor of several other positions that have the potential for greater significance in the Center's growth and development. The Panel shares her judgement that ICLARM is currently too small to warrant an extra level of top management.
