TAC expresses its appreciation to Dr. Jock Anderson, Chair, and the members of the EPMR Panel for a comprehensive and insightful assessment of ICARDA. The report provides a good appraisal of the Centre's strategy, its research programmes and Centre management.
Cognisant of the critical nature of the 1988 External Programme and Management Reviews of ICARDA, particularly in relation to Centre management, TAC is pleased to note that the major management problems evident at that time in general have been resolved. The Committee is also pleased to note the Panel's conclusions that the raison d'être for ICARDA's existence is as valid today as it was twenty years ago when its establishment was first mooted, that its mandate, mission and goals are still relevant, and that the Centre's strategic plan is appropriately in tune with the major research needs of dryland agriculture in the WANA region.
The Panel's report contains few formal recommendations but embodies many important and relevant suggestions. TAC strongly urges ICARDA to also carefully consider these suggestions in addition to the recommendations which, in general terms, it endorses. The Committee is encouraged by the Centre's response which appears to indicate broad agreement with the Panel's findings and suggestions. However, at times, it is not clear from the Centre's response if ICARDA agrees or disagrees with the Panel's recommendations and suggestions. TAC suggests that the Board of ICARDA should take a clear stance on the many suggestions contained in the report.
TAC offers the following commentary, which was prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat on the management aspects, to supplement the Panel's report:
The Research Programme
TAC is pleased to note the Panel's conclusion that, in general terms, ICARDA's research programme and support services are held in high esteem by NARS in the WANA region. The Centre's strong commitment to work closely with its NARS partners, and where possible to devolve appropriate components of its research programme to them, is commendable. The Committee is also pleased that the Panel has judged ICARDA's research programmes to be of a high standard and, in general terms, appropriate to the needs of the WANA region.
However, TAC wishes to draw attention to the following issues on which the Panel has expressed some concerns:
Priority setting: TAC notes the Panel's observation that ICARDA has a well defined procedure for setting priorities within programmes, but that ICARDA lacks a transparent and objective mechanism to determine and apply resource allocation priorities across programmes.
Impact assessment: TAC shares the Panel's view that ICARDA should attach greater attention to impact assessment and make it an integral part of its research programme development. With respect to the impact of the cereal and legume germplasm enhancement programmes, ICARDA should expand the range of indicators it uses, rather than simply relying on the number of varieties released.
Livestock research: While the Committee generally supports the Panel's feeling about the limited support given to livestock research at ICARDA, it is also aware of the difficulties which the Centre has faced in attracting funds to expand the livestock research programme. TAC agrees with the Panel's suggestion that the Centre should formulate a clear strategy on livestock research, including an assessment of ICARDA's role in rangeland management and forage legume research. This should be done in collaboration with and in the context of the ongoing CGIAR-wide efforts to develop a unified strategy and integrated programmes for livestock research.
Farm Resource Management: TAC shares the Panel's view about the lack of focus in the Farm Resource Management Programme (FRMP), and suggests that ICARDA needs to concentrate the programme on well-defined priority targets.
Outreach: TAC is pleased to note the Panel's assessment that ICARDA's outreach programme is broad-based and generally well received by its NARS partners. However, it notes the Panel's concern that some components of the outreach programme are somewhat beyond ICARDA's mandate, and fully supports the Panel's enjoiner that the Centre should establish explicit criteria to guide its participation in special project-funded activities.
TAC is conscious of the interests of some countries in the region that ICARDA should expand its Highlands programme to embrace the newly established Central Asian republics. However, it endorses the Panel's feeling that it would be unwise of ICARDA, at this point in time, to broaden its mandate to encompass, in any substantive way, the research needs of the Central Asian republics, given projected financial constraints in the CGIAR.
Research on irrigation: TAC endorses the Panel's recommendation that ICARDA, with an ecoregional focus on the dry sub-tropical winter rainfall areas, should be given encouragement to work on water-saving techniques and conservation strategies in irrigated agriculture, and on supplementary irrigation where appropriate.
Centre Management
TAC is pleased to note that the serious management problems ICARDA faced at the time of the 1988 External Review have been generally resolved, and that the positive developments reported by the 1990 Interim Management Review of ICARDA have continued. The Panel points out that ICARDA has put in place management policies and systems of accountability which were previously lacking, but that these may have been applied too tightly. TAC notes ICARDA's response that it is in the process of introducing a project-based budgeting system involving decentralization of authority, and therefore some relaxation of controls.
Research planning and review: It is evident, from the Panel's report and the Centre's response, that research planning and review occur at several levels in ICARDA. Nonetheless, TAC concurs with the Panel that internally-managed reviews should be conducted with rigour and linked with priority-setting, planning and resource allocation processes.
Organizational structure: The Panel made some useful suggestions for streamlining ICARDA's research management structure which included the consolidation of the four research programmes into two: a Resource Management Programme; and a Crop Germplasm Programme. TAC is pleased that various options for structural change are under consideration at ICARDA, as described by the Director General during the discussion of the report at TAC 61, and that these do not differ greatly from the proposals made by the Panel.
Financial strategy: While TAC agrees with ICARDA's supposition, that "financial flows are cyclical in nature", it cannot conclude, as the Centre has, that ICARDA has "passed the midpoint in the austerity period" and suggests that further austerity may lie ahead. Although financial management at ICARDA has improved overall, ICARDA needs to reassess its fund-raising strategy because it cannot rely on its current financial reserves in the long term. ICARDA should limit the scale of its activities within available financial resources.
Human resource matters: These are closely linked with the research planning and budgetary matters noted above, and several were raised in the Panel's report, repeating some of the concerns mentioned previously in the 1988 EPMR and 1990 Interim EMR. The Board should pay special attention to ICARDA's incentive systems, to ensure that they promote excellence and help motivate staff. In addition, it should examine closely the high number of internationally-recruited personnel in administration and finance. This could be interpreted either as 'over-staffing' or as misclassification of staff into the 'international' category. ICARDA has made some progress in reducing the numbers in this group, but should accelerate its efforts to reduce the cost of administering the Centre.
The Review Process
The Panel offered views on ways of improving the CGIAR's review process, in Chapter 5 of the report. The TAC Standing Committee on External Reviews will consider the issues raised and the suggestions made.
