Opening Remarks
1. ICARDA had extensive and constructive dialogue with the 1993 ER Panel. The Board of Trustees, Management and staff of the Center were particularly appreciative of the Panel's thoroughness, the rigor of their probing and the care they took in the pursuit of accuracy and objectivity. They shared their thoughts with us at an early stage in the review process and continued to do so as the Review progressed, thus offering us ample opportunity to comment on issues from the Center's perspective. We are pleased that the Panel felt equally positive on ICARDA's open and forthright cooperation with them.
2. The Panel has given ICARDA a good report The Center is grateful for both their commendations and observations as well as the many useful suggestions they made, which will certainly help us in our continued efforts to improve our performance. Indeed, the ER Report is already serving as an important reference document in this endeavor. We are tempted to rest on this statement but realize that such a course will not do justice to the Report, to the stakeholders or to ICARDA. We wish, therefore, to make a few remarks on aspects touched upon by the Panel which we consider deserving of special mention. Our intention is simply to place such issues in the context of ICARDA's research philosophy, approaches and practice.
Farm Resource Management
3. The ER Panel is generally approving of ICARDA's research in natural resource management (NRM), farming systems and socioeconomics. It draws attention to some of the successful contributions of the Program including the development of useful methods to conduct NRM research in the WANA region, studies on the effect of wheat rotations on water availability to subsequent crops, the relevance of deep ploughing, the site specificity of fertilizer response and the fostering of an awareness of the importance of socioeconomic as well as technical dimensions in the management of natural resources.
4. The Panel feels that the present structure of cooperation with NARSs in NRM is too ad hoc for the establishment of strong links with them- In this area, ICARDA's cooperation with its NARS partners currently covers some 30 activities across 15 WANA countries, and several more activities are in the pipeline. Because of the location-specific nature of NRM work, the Center has no standard set of activities that can be replicated across a number of countries. Further, because much of the work is adaptive, it is particularly suited to early devolution to NARS. The model suggested by the Panel which requires the posting of ICARDA staff to outreach locations is currently not feasible because of resource constraints.
5. The Panel recommends that ICARDA, as an ecoregional Center for dry temperate areas, be given the approval to work in restricted research domains in irrigated agriculture for which it has expertise, and that the work should be financed from project funds. This recommendation is fully in line with ICARDA's own position, as expressed in a Board decision paraphrased in the Center's MTP 1994-98 in the statement The Center will be primarily concerned with the sustainability aspect of water use in terms of both conserving this scarce resource and of avoiding or correcting likely adverse effects of irrigation, such as salinity. It will continue and further develop its research on supplementary irrigation and water harvesting techniques, but does not plan to undertake major work on the development of irrigation technologies In this area it will rely on the work of other institutions, particularly IIMI. It will also carry out the bulk of its irrigation research in full cooperation with its national partners and, as far as possible, with special funding'. TAC, in considering our draft MTP 1994-98, found no fault with this statement. With this consensus, we are encouraged to believe that our declared policy is adequate as a basis for what the Center should, or be required to, commit itself to in the field of irrigation research.
6. With regard to socioeconomic work, the Panel makes a few recommendations which are not too divergent from our own thinking. One of them relates to the incorporation of ex ante and ex-post economic analysis in research planning and priority setting. ICARDA has conducted some ex ante work, such as the linear whole farm model on the feasibility of ley farming in WANA, and is willing to adopt such tools in its decision making and research priority setting and the conduct of its work in general.
7. The recommendation on impact studies of the Center's major technologies is consistent with ICARDA's MTP proposals. In recent years considerable efforts have been devoted to the description of farming systems and the diagnosis of farmers' problems. As the availability of new technologies increases, less emphasis will be placed on such studies to free resources for ex-post studies of adoption and impact. Such studies will take into account the long-term effects of new technology on the natural resource base. ICARDA will continue to undertake and sponsor research with a farming systems perspective and commodity-centered sector studies as necessary adjuncts to adoption and impact research.
8. As to the organization of socioeconomic research, ICARDA realizes that all organizational models have their advantages and disadvantages. In conformity with its multidisciplinary approach to problem solving, the Center has placed its social scientists in programs and teams to which their expertise is relevant. We believe that this is an acceptable and efficient arrangement but would not seriously challenge that other models are possible. The solution offered by the Panel - that ICARDA revive its earlier efforts to recruit a lead economist - must remain dormant until the return of easier times.
Cereals
9. The Panel finds ICARDA's cereal program in good heart, productive, and realizing a perceptible impact on varietal development and agricultural production in the WANA region. It also commends the move towards releasing material with more specific adaptation and the multidisciplinary approach to problem solving. It does, however, raise questions relating to three main areas: CIMMYT/ICARDA cooperation, the place of biotechnology in cereal breeding, and issues relating to highland work.
10. Cooperation between CIMMYT and ICARDA has been proceeding satisfactorily since the two Centers concluded their current Agreement in 1988. Clearly, such a relationship is not static and must evolve over time through periodic review. Discussions between CIMMYT and ICARDA scientists, who are now working from joint offices in Aleppo, Cairo and Ankara, are a matter of daily occurrence and there have been frequent exchanges of visits by staff of both Centers stationed in Mexico and Syria. As a result, small but significant changes have been introduced which are leading to a greater maturity of the relationship. The two Centers, however, are fully aware that the impact of recent changes in staffing and work plans resulting from developments affecting the CG-system call for an assessment in depth of their relationship both in its form and substance. In this context, we consider the Panel's suggestion on refining the 'target definitions' of bread wheat breeders operating in the WANA region, and also of the breeding objectives of the CIMMYT/ICARDA durum program, as constituting an important aspect of this reassessment.
11. The Panel considers the current scale of ICARDA's activity in cereal biotechnology below the critical mass level and suggests strengthening the program by the recruitment of post-doctorals. ICARDA is running its core biotechnology program on special funds from UNDP and France and has provided to it the maximum support possible within the available resources. We are seeking additional funding to strengthen this work. ICARDA has also found it possible to contract out some of its research in biotechnology to qualified NARSs in the region. Examples are the development of di-haploid lines for durum and bread wheat in Tunisia and Egypt, embryo rescue work in lentil wide crosses in Egypt, and embryo rescue work in Morocco to incorporate Hessian fly resistance from wild relatives of wheat.
12. An important issue raised by the Panel is the establishment by the host country of recognized and officially approved procedures for handling transgenic materials. We agree with the need for this measure but must point out that the referred to Rhizobium work was done not at ICARDA, but at the Washington State University and Idaho and was subject to US regulations. ICARDA is collaborating closely with the host country in formulating a policy.
13. On the question of anther culture/haploid induction, ICARDA is currently re-evaluating the place of di-haploids for straight breeding purposes in terms of biological and economic efficiency in wheat. In the meantime, di-haploids will be developed only for specific genetic analysis and not for general use. As to marker technology, this is being developed jointly with several advanced institutions.
14. In the light of the importance of the highlands of WANA, their potential for substantial increases in production, and the fragility of their environments, ICARDA's MTP 1994-98 provides for a build-up of activities in this subzone - mainly in Turkey and Iran. Among the actions envisaged are to station a senior pathologist in Ankara to support the CIMMYT and ICARDA cereal projects, and post the highland cereal breeder to Iran.
15. With these changes in mind, the Panel advises an early decision on which site would be responsible for the distribution of nurseries for the highlands. We do not consider this need as controversial and see the advice as conforming to our own intentions. A consideration that will influence our decision is the speed at which the planned work for both Turkey and Iran can be developed. Both the Panel and ICARDA agree that we should press for an early start up, to avoid loss of momentum.
16. There is no disagreement on the assessment of plant pathology as a vital component of germplasm enhancement work. A core post is provided for this discipline in ICARDA's MTP even at the most stringent funding scenario, and additional posts are being sought through special projects and the recruitment of regional scientists at the National Professional Officer level for work in the outreach.
17. The reduction in agronomic work that used to be conducted within the germplasm enhancement programs is as painful to the Center as it is to the Panel. It should be noted, however, that the boundary between specific crop agronomy, required by the germplasm enhancement work, and systems agronomy pursued by FRMP, is very diffuse and cross-program activity has been the rule. There is a parallelism in germplasm enhancement and agronomy work which is based on crops - such as barley agronomy (serving the crop and barley/livestock zone) and wheat agronomy (covering wheat as well as the wheat-based cropping system). This congruence renders links between the two disciplines not only desirable, but also inevitable.
18. ICARDA also agrees with the Panel that, as the Center's work in the highlands expands, the need for effective linkages among its various components and actors becomes even more pressing. Among the options open are joint multidisciplinary planning (including livestock and range management) through a highland research steering committee, exchange of visits, travelling workshops, joint nurseries, joint highland training courses and, possibly, a highland research newsletter. Some of these measures and actions are already in place.
Legumes
19. The Panel supports the view that legume research cannot be justified on the basis of the economic role of food legumes in the food system alone, but that it must include the role of legumes in cropping systems. They affirm that the sustainability of these systems makes little sense without the integrated use of leguminous components with high capacity for the biological nitrogen fixation. The Panel concludes that the remaining level of activity proposed in ICARDA's MTP 1994-98 is appropriate and irreducible if an effective contribution is to continue to be made. This is a point of view with which we fully concur.
20. It is in this context that the Panel revisits the issue of lentil in the farming systems of WANA. ICARDA has believed that by promptly commissioning and publishing in 1990 an IFPRI/ICARDA study on legumes in cropping systems, it had properly responded to the recommendation of its 1988 ER Panel on this crop. The study was submitted to TAC, donors and other stakeholders and ICARDA reported on the action in Progress Reports submitted to TAC regularly. The issue was also addressed in our MTP 1994-98 which was discussed by TAC in March 1993. In its Priority Study, TAC noted that 'lentil is an important crop in fanning systems of resource-poor farmers of the WANA region and that outside the CGIAR very little research is carried out on lentil. In the short to medium term, therefore, current efforts on lentil will continue while reaffirming TAC's view that, in the long term, the role of ICARDA in lentil research should be primarily in maintaining genetic resource collections'. In view of this position and the absence of comment on the 1990 study, ICARDA did not consider scheduling further studies, but would conduct whatever additional studies that are deemed necessary.
21. The Panel recounts the background that led to the transfer of faba bean to Morocco, noting that it was based on the recommendations of two External Reviews and endorsed by TAC. The transfer operation went smoothly, although at a slower pace than originally planned, and was finally completed in September 1992 with financial and technical backstopping of BMZ/GTZ of Germany. The Panel, looking into the matter a few months later, was of the opinion that the transfer operation was not a real success. Their review occurred in the middle of the first season under the new arrangement which is bound to suffer from some teething troubles but also was one of an unexceptionally severe drought from which not only faba bean but also other crops have suffered. At this early stage we feel that it is premature to argue the case.
22. Some comments of the Panel on plant pathology work in legumes have been addressed in the paragraphs dealing with cereals. In addition, the Panel recommends closer coordination of pathology resources between Programs, more concentration on understanding the factors contributing to the build-up of root pathogens and the development of IPM for root-infecting pathogens - work that involves collaboration between microbial ecology, social sciences, cropping systems research, and the study of disease in stressed environment. We consider the suggestion appropriate. The long-term rotational trials at Tel Hadya and Breda are being used for this purpose by a multidisciplinary team including an agronomist, a pathologist, a nematologist and a microbiologist Trials are also being conducted on sites infested with specific root pathogens, such as cyst-nematodes in chickpea, to determine the safe time interval between susceptible crops. In drought studies, a physiologist, a microbiologist and a pathologist are investigating interactions between moisture stress and root pathogens and with Rhizobium and VA-mycorrhizae.
23. The Panel advises ICARDA to make a firm decision on whether to invest in IPM-oriented research or in component research with the aim of developing durable resistance to arthropoid pests and to diseases. For the most part, rainfed crops in WANA are low-input crops that have a long history in the region where natural enemies of pests have not been seriously affected by the abuse of chemical insecticides and still exert considerable control of pests. One of the major tasks at ICARDA is not to damage this 'balance of nature' or encourage practices that would lead farmers to do so.
24. Some of the insect pests of importance in WANA, such as the Hessian fly and wheat stem sawflies, lend themselves to control through the use of resistant varieties, while others such as the suni bug and aphids can be controlled through a variety of management practices. Thus, a dual strategy is being followed which is responsive to the two situations. We do, however, recognize a need to avoid duplication between cereal and legume IPM work and for the partitioning of responsibilities for specific research thrusts.
25. In contrast to entomological work, pathology research within the germplasm enhancement Programs has concentrated on developing durable and multiple genetic resistance to pathogens - an approach seen as the most effective, practical, and environmentally safe control method.
26. Stimulated by its discussions with the Panel on this issue, ICARDA has established an IPM Committee consisting of crop protection staff with the broad mandate of identifying strategic targets and developing plans for the study of aspects of crop protection, including IPM approaches.
Livestock
27. Livestock and rangeland research receives a substantial share of the ER report. ICARDA finds this proper and supportive of the case it has advanced for this sector in its MTP 1994-98, which anticipates many of the Panel's proposals. Nevertheless, the Panel considers that the resources allocated to this discipline are less than optimal. We agree but wish to point out that these resources are, in fact, greater than is indicated by the size of resources specifically allocated to livestock. A substantial proportion of the total Legume Program budget is research on pasture and forage crops, and the major effort in barley research is directed towards animal feed. The cost incurred for these studies can be legitimately considered as pan of the expenditure on livestock research.
28. Several steps toward developing a long-term strategy for rangeland research at ICARDA have been taken in the recent past, but the strategy has not reached the point of defining quantified goals. Actions have included extensive vegetation and socioeconomic surveys among pastoralists and sedentary herders in Syria, Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan. Small-scale technical innovations, where grazing control is possible, have been tested and several of these have indicated good promise of enhanced productivity and technology transfer. They include the application of phosphate to severely overgrazed grass and legume shrubs and the creation and management of fodder banks of perennial shrubs (Atriplex spp.). To stimulate and ensure further focussing of ICARDA's strategy in the future, ICARDA in 1992 selected for the leadership of its PFLP a scientist with considerable experience in rangeland rehabilitation and management. ICARDA is closely following up the ongoing CGIAR wide efforts to develop a unified strategy and integrated programs for livestock research and will formulate its own approaches in this context.
The Outreach
29. The Panel's reflections on the evolving CGIAR approaches, especially those related to NARSs and their links with IARCs, address the type of issues that we would have wished to raise ourselves. The Panel, however, does the task with articulateness and lucidity that are beyond our reach. The interdependence of IARC and NARSs work, the uneven development of the latter, the uncertainty of resources available to them resulting in discontinuities in their research programs, the need to evolve a sense of NARSs partnership with, and ownership of, IARCs, the delicate nature of the relationship between the two sides - these aspects and others touched upon are, in our view, valid and important.
30. ICARDA has long had an association with NARSs that is generally acknowledged to be one of the strong and effective modes of cooperation among NARSs, donors and IARCs. ICARDA's approach is based on the premise that the Center has no research agenda for the outreach purely of its own, but that there are national agendas which ICARDA supports within the limits set by its mandate and resources. It implements this cooperative work in the context of true partnership, and like the Panel, recognizes the wide variability of NARSs, and the often sharp and unexpected fluctuations in their fortunes. Because of this, the Center maintains a flexible attitude that enables it to respond in a timely manner and with an appropriate degree of specificity to needs as they arise.
31. ICARDA must, naturally, observe the delicate balance between the dictates of its mandate, and the perceptions and expectations of the other stakeholders - NARSs and donors. These need not be contradictory and ICARDA has not found it impossible to perform a useful service that has broadly satisfied the various partners. Although there may still remain among NARSs some misconceptions about the true role of an international center, there is a growing appreciation that IARCs are neither donor agencies nor substitutes for national organizations, particularly in areas where a long-term national commitment is required.
32. As to donors, ICARDA has not felt undue pressures from them to alter its course or mode of operation. Donors to special projects, like donors to restricted core activities, do, however, show preference for one type of work or another and, thus, cause the Center to adjust its core resource allocation. ICARDA can plead for a different attitude to funding but, in the final analysis, the matter is beyond its decision domain, and will continue to be subject to the agendas of sovereign donors.
33. A question has been raised as to the appropriate level of involvement of IARCs in research and training activities of NARSs. The Panel singles out for comment ICARDA's involvement in extension-oriented transfer of technology, working directly with farmers. It must be emphasized that the bulk of this work is being done within the framework of adoption and impact studies to understand farmers' and consumers' viewpoints. Our MTP 1994-98 is explicit in this where it states The Center's experimentation cycle includes, at the interface between research and extension, farmer-conducted trials that bring out elements of farming practices influenced by the division of labour within the farming family'. Undoubtedly, this research has an extension dimension, but ICARDA is conscious of the constraints imposed by its mandate and resources to covet a major extension role in the region.
34. The concept presented by the Panel that the outreach service could be better delivered through a chain of agroecological regions each with a center of excellence conducting what they term 'trunk' research activities with satellite branches to further test, fine- tune, and deliver technologies to a widening array of end-users in comparable agroecological zones, has been considered by ICARDA. Inherent in the concept is the redeployment of Headquarters staff to the regions, thus lowering their number and inputs to below the critical mass level. Further, we believe that when this concept is transformed into an implementable framework, which takes account of present and likely future resources, one arrives at something not unlike ICARDA's present approach and chain of outreach programs which is, as the Panel states, 'relevant to major agroecological zones within the region'.
35. The Panel recognizes the important role of training as a vital part of ICARDA's mission in contributing to capacity-building in NARSs. Through its visits to different countries in the region it found good recognition of the training offered by the Center. The Panel is concerned that the budget crisis is hitting training programs rather hard, and ICARDA shares this concern. As in other important areas, the Center will seek to optimize the use of resources and minimize any adverse impact of resource shortages. The course we intend to follow is to narrow the range of training courses offered and concentrate on fewer activities. In the meantime, ICARDA will continue its efforts to seek complementary funding for training. Past experience suggests that this activity is attractive to many donors.
36. During the Plan preparation, ICARDA purposely delayed decisions on finalizing certain appointments which can be affected by possible restructuring of the work. These posts, including Head of Training which was occupied in an acting capacity by a senior staff member, will be filled on a permanent basis before the end of 1993.
37. The likely role of ICARDA in the NIRS (the Newly Independent Republics) has been outlined in our MTP 1994-98 which states "The Mediterranean-type environments covered by ICARDA's mandate extend beyond the countries of West Asia-North Africa, particularly to neighbouring Newly Independent States (NIS) in the south of the former USSR. ICARDA has long had contacts with some of these countries which were formalized in a 1990 Protocol of Cooperation between ICARDA and VASKHNIL (the All Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences). Cooperation has consisted of joint collection missions, exchange of germplasm, the hosting of visiting scientists and a limited amount of joint crop improvement research. ICARDA expects a growing demand for its services in these states, and is well placed to respond positively at the technical level. The current and anticipated levels of resources, however, do not permit substantial involvement in them, but ICARDA will seek special funding for work that meets their needs from countries and organizations interested in assisting them".
38. ICARDA has tentatively identified three potential subzones where it can contribute:
1. The higher areas of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, which are geographically contiguous with ICARDA's operations in East Anatolia and N.W. Iran and where germplasm, livestock and farming systems are all similar.2. The highland areas of Tadjikistan and S.E. Kazakhstan which have similarities in small ruminant management and, potentially, forage and barley germplasm.
3. The lowlands of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan which could use ICARDA food and forage legumes as alternatives in new rotations. In this subzone ICRISAT could also make important contributions.
Research Support Services
39. ICARDA's research support services receive favourable comment from the Panel which commends the Center on the excellent progress it has made on establishing the base germplasm collection and the creation of an organizational basis for this work; on the way it dealt with the seed-health issue and the system it established for handling incoming and outgoing seed; and on upgrading the biostatistics and computing services, including the capability to process financial and administrative information.
40. A few suggestions are made on ICARDA's germplasm conservation activities which conform to our own intentions. Thus ICARDA will continue to give high priority to the seed multiplication required to complete the process of depositing material for base collections and to press for an official recognition and protection of in situ preservation areas - work that can be done in cooperation with WANANET (the Collaboration Network on Plant Genetic Resources in WANA established jointly with IBPGR), and with the In situ and Biodiversity Working Group. Finally, ICARDA will attempt to quantify the use made of germplasm conserved in its genebank in germplasm enhancement work both inside and outside WANA.
41. With regard to seed health, the Panel suggests that an effort be made to increase the testing of outgoing batches from 60% to 100%. Currently, ICARDA is taking part in the Inter-Center Working Group on Seed Health which has the issue on its agenda. We will adhere to whatever guidelines the Group recommends.
Governance
42. The Panel has noted the strengths of ICARDA's Board, its effective mode of operation, the cordial, open and mutual trust that exists between the Board and Management and the awareness of the Board of the need for consolidating and fine-tuning the many improvements and innovations it has introduced over the past several years. The exhortation of the Panel that the Board continue in this direction coincides with the Board's own plans.
43. The Panel considers the current BOT well balanced as far as geographic, donor/non-donor and gender representation are concerned. It encourages the Board to carefully consider Center commitments in the strategic and medium-term plans and plan membership balance accordingly. ICARDA agrees. Before every selection the Nominations Committee updates the profile of the expertise as needed at that juncture to improve disciplinary, regional and gender representation on the Board. The Board is also aware of the importance of staggering membership to achieve a more even flow of members and avoid bunching. In its meeting of May 1993 it produced a long-term schedule that meets this requirement. Circumstances such as the unexpected retirement of members can, however, upset the best of plans.
44. The fact that the EC acts on behalf of the Board between meetings is, as the Panel notes, an obligation required by ICARDA's Charter. The Charter also requires that 'All actions of the EC shall be reported to the Board at its next subsequent meeting' for endorsement The EC has meticulously observed both directives. There is, in this, a safeguard against the EC taking preemptive judgements on issues that could and should be deferred to the full Board.
45. The role of ICARDA's Audit Committee is not confined to financial matters, but covers all functions except the monitoring of research which has been assigned to the Program Committee. The Board has recently reviewed the terms of reference of the Audit Committee and reworded parts of the text to remove any possible ambiguity as to the wide scope of this Committee's mandate.
46. Useful comments are made by the Panel on a number of procedural issues including nominations for the posts of Chair and Deputy Chair of the Board, service on various committees, orientation of new members, evaluation of performance of senior officers of the Center and others of a housekeeping nature. We consider these comments worth keeping in mind in the reviews of its operations that the Board periodically conducts. In its May 1993 Meeting, the BOT has addressed these issues, set in motion a review process and reached a decision on a few of them including the nomination and election of the Chair, Vice-Chair and members of various committees of the Board, and on a more formal annual evaluation of the DG.
47. The Board is convinced that first-hand knowledge of the Center's work both in the host country and the outreach is essential for enhancing the performance of its members who have always been encouraged to visit outreach locations. Several members have taken advantage of this opportunity. The Board will continue to encourage its members to undertake such visits and Management will continue to provide logistical support. The Board has now assigned the task of scheduling member visits and the briefing of new members to the Board's Vice-Chair.
48. The Board feels that the current arrangement whereby new members serve their first year on the Program Committee is sensible and can be justified on both practical and conceptual considerations. Normally, Members start their term at the end of a Regular Board meeting, when all committees would have already been elected. Moreover, attending one or two meetings of the PC before joining a committee that they prefer exposes members to the range of ICARDA's activities that the Panel has rightly emphasized.
49. A recurrent theme in the ER Report is the interface between Board and Management. ICARDA agrees on the importance of a clear definition of responsibilities and on the need for any Board to exercise adequate oversight without undue interference in management domains. On the other hand, there is no unique formula that can regulate the relationship for all boards and all managements, and over-regulation is not without its negative aspects. ICARDA's Board maintains that its role is not static and that it has sufficient flexibility to adjust to the prevailing circumstances. The Panel has underlined that ICARDA's current Board and Management have succeeded in achieving the right balance between latitude and accountability. There is no reason to suspect that future Board/Management relationships will not be equally successful.
50. The Board is aware of the problems and opportunities that the impending changes in Management and Board membership entail. It agrees that this transition should be an occasion for the Board to review such aspects as its structure and operation, the division of work among its committees, its relation with management, and the proper level of oversight and monitoring it exercises. In fact, such a review has been set in motion through the process of Board self-evaluation, not only in terms of the quality of service rendered by Members, but also with regard to delineating duties and responsibilities of the Board as the highest authority of the Center. The PC, with the largest Board membership, has initiated a parallel process and other committees also regularly discuss their roles although, being smaller and with narrow roles, they have to cope with fewer issues. In this context, the Board finds the recommendations of the Panel on self-reexamination by the Board helpful in the pursuit of the objectives it set for itself.
Research Management
51. The Panel, like ICARDA, are rightly concerned with the proper level of checks and balances in research management We have noted that their recommendation echoes ICARDA's own statement on the issue in its Strategy document which states 'ICARDA is conscious of the claims of freedom in research pursuits and discipline and accountability in financial and administrative matters. Creativity cannot be attained on command and laissez-faire management is not always the most efficient style'. The Center has been consistent in the application of this approach. In fact, the Panel has found "a high degree of freedom to conduct research which is acknowledged and appreciated by research staff'. The Panel, nevertheless, senses a rigidity in administrative and financial controls. This is correct, although we would have preferred the word firmness to rigidity. In any case, the introduction of a project-based budgeting system involving devolution of authority should result in some relaxation of controls.
52. The Panel has raised the issue of research review and decision- making. At ICARDA, this is not a single isolated act, but a continuing and evolving process in which scientists interact among themselves, with Program Leaders, the DDG(R), the DG and the Board, mainly through its Program Committee. It involves feedback from cooperating NARSs in our day-to-day contact with them, in the series of Annual Coordination Meetings we hold jointly with them, and in subject-specific workshops/conferences organized by ICARDA. The Center's Training and Research Advisory Committee (TRAC) on which all Programs and research support services are represented and which meets a dozen or so times a year, plays an important role in coordinating research, reaching a consensus and formalizing decision. In all this, the Center's Strategy and MTP constitute the reference points.
53. With regard to the evaluation of the quality of research and research workers - an aspect touched upon by the Panel -ICARDA uses several parameters. These include the quality of written reports, publication in refereed journals, successful research outputs in terms of varieties released and methodologies developed, performance in periodically held seminars, contributions to training and, above all, peer perceptions. The annual evaluation of staff, starting within the Program and ending at an inter-Program Evaluation Committee chaired by the DDG(R), is one occasion when equitable evaluation among scientists performing different functions and serving in different Programs is attempted. ICARDA has considered the possibility of using scientists from outside the Center to participate in staff evaluation but ruled that out as a practical option. For it to be done properly, it calls for the services of a team of scientists to address the range of subjects covered by the Center's research, as well as an intimate knowledge of the Center and the CG-system to which it belongs. It is also demanding in time, effort and cost. Nevertheless, and as noted by the Panel, ICARDA uses visiting scientists opportunistically in peer assessment. We find the Panel's proposal on 'milestone' reviews more practical and intend to study this model for possible adoption.
54. The Panel is aware that there has already been much discussion of structural possibilities within the Center, and that the process is continuing. As part of the review that ICARDA undertook in conjunction with the preparation of its MTP, it considered some 12 models for restructuring its research Programs. The Panel has tentatively recommended a 'slimmed-down' closer-knit management structure which has some of the features of one or two of the models previously studied by ICARDA Its advantages are seen as a reduction in staff and devolution of decision-making. On the negative side, the proposed "flat structure" had, in the cases where it was tried, tended to polarize germplasm enhancement and farm resource management scientists. Further, the model is not clear on how the usual functions of the Deputy Director General, particularly those related to research coordination, can be effectively performed with the cancellation of the post. ICARDA will study the model carefully, together with other options. The process will naturally involve an examination of the responsibilities and demands on the Management team and other officers and of the boundaries of responsibilities that they exercise. '
Finance
55. ICARDA is encouraged by the Panel's positive comments on the budgetary and financial aspects of its operations. There are, however, two aspects - fund mobilization and project budgeting - which were discussed at length by the Panel and about which it made useful suggestions which will help us in designing our future strategies and actions.
56. ICARDA has made serious efforts to maintain current, and mobilize new, support for its work with some success. The main sources that remain to be tapped are the better-endowed countries of WANA. In the way of explanation, rather than finding an excuse, ICARDA renewed its fund-raising efforts in this region as early as 1989 but its budding initiatives were set back by the Gulf war which diverted attention to more crucial matters. Only recently has it become possible to revive our efforts. Although it is too early to report success, some signs are encouraging. With the MTP and ER behind the Center, the encumbent DG intends to commit a greater proportion of his remaining service with ICARDA to fund raising. The idea put forward by the Panel of a fund-raising committee and strategy, has recently been addressed by the Board which requested Management to develop a firm proposal on the issue.
57. ICARDA is taking the position that financial flows are cyclical in nature, that plenty and austerity alternate and that we have passed the midpoint in the austerity period. Our plans, therefore, envisage maintaining, to the extent possible, the integrity of our research programs so that we are well positioned to reactivate it when circumstances change. The Board has set the first six months of 1996 (half way through the MTP 1994-98) as the target date for a major review of the structure and function of the Center.
58. As to management by project, the Panel has made a good analysis of the issues involved and their description of the mode] is almost identical to ICARDA's. The Panel has noted that ICARDA Board and Management are not averse to the concept, and have structured the Center's MTP 1994-98 around it. ICARDA has had long experience in the use of project budgeting which has been followed in over 40 examples, including all our outreach work and certain headquarter activities such as biotechnology and seed production projects. Expansion into other areas should pose no insurmountable problems. The recently installed suite of ORACLE financial systems, together with a planned Project Management system and associated procedures, are adequate to cope with strategic and medium-term planning, as well as annual budget development, execution and reporting requirements in an integrated approach.
59. The Panel recommends that an existing staff member be designated for coordinating the total system design and implementation and developing for them a time-phased plan, as well as a reporting schedule on progress. Until recently, and during the hardware procurement phase, the task was assigned to the DDG(O). With the completion of this phase and the resulting shifts in priorities, this function will be assigned to a task force headed by the DDG(R). The DG will monitor progress and report on it regularly to the Board.
60. The Panel is aware of the dilemma imposed by the desirability to accord project officers maximum autonomy in handling project funds and the limits imposed by uncertain funding, which advise caution. ICARDA is probing its way towards a position that satisfies the various claims. In the final analysis, the Panel notes, full devolution need not imply the abandonment of financial and administrative accountability.
Administration
61. In the area of administration, the Panel finds that progress has been made on the further development and clarification of the latest version of Personnel Policies approved by the Board in 1989, on the completion of a job equivalence study, the increase in staff training including attendance by senior managers of management training courses, the establishment of an Ombudsman Committee, and others. The main gap identified by the Panel is the preparation of a human resource planning and development strategy including a 'human resource needs plan'. Like the Panel, we hope that recruitment at the higher RA levels, which is now under consideration, will attract a qualified human resources professional with the desired qualifications for this task. Many components of such a plan have already been developed or are currently under preparation.
62. The Panel describes in detail ICARDA's staff categories, their performance appraisals, and compensation packages, but no major firm recommendations are made. ICARDA wishes to affirm that the record of recruitment and staff turn-over rate would indicate that the Center and its compensation packages remain an attractive option for both scientists and support staff recruited internationally or in the region. The Center has a balanced turn-over rate which is large enough to ensure its vitality, but not too large to cause concern. Virtually all those who left ICARDA for reasons other than retirement have done so to join comparable organizations, where they occupy senior posts. This gives us confidence in the quality of our recruits and of the experience they gain in the service of the Center.
63. ICARDA has little to add to the favourable statements made by the Panel on ICARDA's record in gender issues. They highlight the reasonable proportion of women on the international staff, and praise the safe, tolerant and hospitable environment in which they work and travel. The Panel noted that ICARDA has a Gender Analysis and Research Committee and suggested the establishment of a Gender Staffing Committee to advise Management on spouse employment and related staffing. We believe that by widening the terms of reference of the existing Committee, this purpose can be served.
64. The Panel noted, and commended, ICARDA's action in contracting out the cleaning and travel services and suggested an extension of this experiment in privatization to other areas. Our actions clearly demonstrate that, other things being equal, this would be our preferred approach. The economic climate in the host country is rapidly changing and might well open new venues which so far have not been viable options. ICARDA will not be slow to take advantage of emerging opportunities.
65. ICARDA wishes to conclude its remarks by again thanking the Panel for its painstaking work, for the perceptive advice they have given and for their many encouraging remarks on progress that the Center has made and continues to make. They give a clear message that ICARDA is a Center engaged in relevant, useful and much needed research, that it is open to new ideas and promising innovations, that it is fiscally and administratively well managed, and that it is a responsible guardian of stakeholder interests, particularly in the effective and efficient use of donor contributions. This testimonial carries with it the assurance to its many friends that ICARDA has proved worthy of their trust and, thus, deserving of their continued encouragement and support
Panel:
Dr. Jock R. Anderson (Chair)
Dr. Adel S. El-Beltagy
Dr. Kurt Finsterbusch
Mr. Graham Jenkins
Dr. Peter TrutmannMr. William Carlson (Consultant)
Dr. John McIntire (Consultant)
Ms. Elizabeth Field (CGIAR Secretariat)
Dr. Vivian Timon (TAC Secretariat)
CGIAR SECRETARIAT
World Bank
May 1993
May 9, 1993
Dr. Alex F. McCalla
Chairman
Technical Advisory Committee/CGIAR
University of California
Davis, CA 95616
Mr. Alexander von der Osten
Executive Secretary
CGIAR
1818 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20433
Dear Alex and Alexander,
I am pleased to submit to you the Report of the Third External Review of ICARDA. In conducting this review, the Panel gained an appreciation of the complexity of ICARDA's challenge and the many strides that have been taken to meet this.
Since 1988, ICARDA has consolidated its strategic research at headquarters and has strived to devolve, and continues to devolve, more applied and adaptive research to its outreach locations. Meantime, the important links to more "upstream" work have been forged energetically through the Center's many active relationships with advanced institutions around the world. The Center's infrastructure for outreach collaboration has been strengthened through the appointment of Regional Coordinators and further development of research networks, and the Panel considers that ICARDA could serve effectively as the focal institution for CGIAR ecoregional activities in the WANA region.
As the CGIAR System matures - as technologies are developed, priorities shift, NARSs' capacities allow, and/or funding constraints demand - centers should and surely will devolve more activities and responsibilities to national partners. The Panel considered the case of ICARDA's devolution of faba bean research (as decided by TAC in 1986 and endorsed by the Second EPR in 1988), and believes that there are important lessons to be learned from this process, which has not been wholly smooth but is also not yet complete. Decisions on devolution, such as this one, entail many stakeholders, and have possibly global implications for future research and food-production capabilities. Thus, even - perhaps particularly - in this time of constrained resources, when decisions are made to devolve designated CGIAR activities to national programs, all efforts should be made to help ensure that such devolution can be successful.
Unlike a growing number of other CGIAR centers, ICARDA has not had to shrink its research program significantly in response to financial constraints. ICARDA has managed its finances cautiously and has instituted a number of measures to meet the reduced funding, which include increasing operational efficiencies and drawing on financial reserves. Given the funding outlook, however, longer term strategies will be required either to increase funds and/or to downsize ICARDA's program. Needless to say, this will create new challenges for ICARDA's Board and Management, which will undoubtedly require some shifts in traditional roles and responsibilities. In addition, a greater emphasis on human resource planning and development will be crucial if ICARDA is to continue to provide an environment in which creativity and innovation - the basis of all research success - will thrive.
The Panel's task was the usual challenging one made even more so by several economizing measures, and we have commented further on this in chapter 5, which deals with the review process. We have there, in what is an unconventional chapter in an ER, also raised several broad questions for CGIAR policy analysts, which arise as a consequence of fuller CG engagement with NARSs and, we feel, have logical implications for extending the scope of reviews to encompass the NARSs themselves. These, however, are issues for another day, which probably should come soon.
Our work in the Review was greatly facilitated by the efforts and input of ICARDA staff, Management and Board members, as well as by ICARDA's partners in the NARSs who responded to our survey and/or met us during our country visits. It is our fervent hope that this Report will help strengthen ICARDA to ensure its continued and long-term success in the WANA region, and will give you, and the CGIAR at large, confidence that ICARDA is worthy of continued support.
Yours sincerely,
Jock R. Anderson
Chair, ICARDA ER Panel
