The Panel summarizes its findings and judgements in the form of answers to five questions, followed by the eleven recommendations contained in this Report.
1 Is There a Need for an International Effort in Irrigated Agriculture Research? (Chapters 1 and 2)
The Panel's analysis shows that the case for an international research programme on irrigated agriculture is overwhelming on food security grounds. This emphasizes the importance of irrigation management research, especially in relation to possible water scarcity. IIMI is the main operator in this field. IIMI works in a dispersed and heterogeneous community of irrigation organizations which contribute to research that promotes improvement in irrigated agriculture. This renders its work complex and it is heavily stretched to collaborate with a number of them. However, IIMI is well placed to help in mobilizing this effort, but it must become a centre of excellence in its own field to be able to play an effective catalytic role.
IIMI began as a donor-supported organization but entered the CGIAR System in January 1991. Since then it has been upgrading its systems and in particular it has prepared its Strategic and Medium-Term Plans. These have been accepted by TAC and the CGIAR, and the Panel has judged them suitable to guide IIMI for the next few years. There have been many changes required of IIMI over a short period, and there is still some way to go before it has reached full CGIAR standards.
2 Is IIMI Doing the Right Work and Will it Succeed in Transforming Itself into a Full-Fledged CGIAR Institution? (Chapters 3 and 4)
IIMI's research programme has been oriented towards field work and impact. The Panel believes that this should continue and IIMI should aim for maximum impact in the near term, but that a strategic element has to be added on science, as IIMI is a CGIAR Centre. The country and Headquarters research need to be better integrated, as do research and institution strengthening activities. The latter are well regarded by national cooperators, but the training programme needs to be reinstated.
IIMI's strategic research agenda is developing slowly. The challenge for IIMI is to define the right balance between field relevance and scientific achievement. IIMI has made a fair start on this, and we urge it to persevere. However, opportunities for research in gender and environmental issues need to be developed. At present the number of publications is inadequate, particularly papers in refereed journals. IIMI is advised to clarify its whole publication policy. The Panel is convinced that IIMI has the commitment and will to complete the transformation into a full-fledged CGIAR institution.
3 Is IIMI Governed and Managed Effectively and Efficiently? (Chapters 5 and 6)
The short answer is, "in part". IIMI has grown at a rapid rate. The Board has strong membership but it may need to strengthen its operating procedures. The Panel advises that the Board introduce an assessment system to evaluate the contributions of Board members and officers.
IIMI's administration works well and its approach to human resource management appears fair. The management of programmes is less good, and there is some confusion in responsibilities. The Panel advises that a measure of decentralization is required with more authority delegated down the line. A main element would be that the Director of Research should chair and run the Programmes and Projects Subcommittee. The management style may have caused some loss of morale, and the Panel has advised how it believes this could be corrected. In particular, now that the MTP is accepted as viable, it believes that IIMI should aim at stabilizing its structure and concentrate on improving its management procedures.
IIMI's planning, monitoring and review process is good in theory but needs to be better implemented, with pre-established objectives at different levels.
4 Is IIMI Developing Institutional Linkages? (Chapter 7)
IIMI needs to develop institutional relationships because it cannot successfully accomplish its goals without them. These relationships must be forged with national irrigation agencies and research institutions, as well as with international institutions both within and outside the CGIAR.
The Panel believes that IIMI is respected, and as a result is influential, in the main host countries. However, benefits of collaboration usually come over time, and IIMI must be very selective in its country programmes. IIMI needs to develop clear criteria for deciding where country programmes should be established, and IIMI should not start a country programme without clear objectives for research or impact. The Panel has advised on how critical mass could be maintained.
IIMI's relations with other CGIAR Centres is developing, but rather slowly. IIMI needs to get experience in inter-centre collaboration because of its nomination as the convening Centre for a Systemwide programme on water management research. The Panel regards this as a very important opportunity for IIMI and urges the Institute to seize it.
5 Is IIMI Viable and Can it Deliver? (Chapter 8)
Every Review should ask the question whether the Centre should continue at all. We have no doubt that work is urgently necessary in IIMI's subjects and that there is no clear alternative to it in the world at the present time. The Panel believes IIMI to be viable on its own, and sees no advantage in an amalgamation.
We have found that IIMI has had useful impact already and needs more. It also needs to improve strategic science and science quality. The Panel believes that IIMI can do both these things.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Panel recommends that:
1. Gender Issues (Section 3.3.6.1):All programmes and projects be reviewed for research opportunities related to gender, and objectives be established based on these.2. Environmental Issues (Section 3.4.2.1):
IIMI explore opportunities to expand its research on the environment, particularly in relation to the Systemwide initiative on water management.3. Integration Between Research and Institutional Strengthening (Section 3.4.2.2):
Each country research activity and most institutional strengthening activities be associated with a research programme, with the Director of Research and the Deputy Director General coordinating this integration.4. Country Programmes (Section 4.3):
(a) IIMI plan its country programmes to make maximum impact in the near term; and (b) critical mass to implement country programmes be located in very few countries, while work in most other countries be carried out without resident staff if it is part of a project based in Headquarters or country centres with critical mass.5. Integration Between Headquarters and Country Programmes (Section 4.3):
IIMI define which Headquarters and country activities are properly part of its core programme, and support parts of the country core programmes with core funds.6. The Board (5.1.2):
The Nominating Committee should develop a mechanism to assess regularly the composition of the Board, and the contributions of individual Board members and officers.7. Programme Support (Section 5.2.1):
A Programme Support Unit be created that includes project development, training, information, and computer services.8. Oversight of Programmes (5.2.3):
The programme review, forward planning, and monitoring processes be based on pre-established objectives for each project, and be fully and consistently implemented.9. Programme Management (Section 5.3.4):
The Programme and Project Subcommittee be chaired by the Director of Research and charged with oversight over research and ensuring an adequate level of publication.10. Stabilization and Management (Section 6.1.1):
IIMI stabilize its organizational structure, decentralize responsibility as advised in the Report, and concentrate upon improving management for maximum effectiveness and establishing an organizational climate to stimulate excellence.11. Refereeing and Publishing (Section 6.3.2.1):
An Editorial Committee, with a Publications Review Subcommittee, be appointed to manage IIMI's publications and ensure quality.
