ICRAF's response to the Report of the First External Programme and Management Review of the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry

International Centre for Research in Agroforestry ICRAF

01 March 1993

Dr Alex McCalla
Chair, Technical Advisory Committee/CGIAR
University of California
Davis, CA 95616, USA

Mr Alexander von der Osten
Executive Secretary
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
World Bank
1818 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20433, USA

Dear Dr McCalla & Mr von der Osten

I am pleased to submit to you ICRAF's response to the Report of the First External Programme and Management Review of the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry. The response has been prepared jointly by ICRAF's Board of Trustees and the Centre's Senior Management.

The Panel's report has provided ICRAF and the CGIAR community with a valuable and balanced overview of the Centre's history, rationale, operational activities and future directions. The report gives a well-reasoned analytical account of the research and dissemination programmes and the ways in which these are deployed and managed.

The Panel quite rightly focused on ICRAF's research agenda and took a hard look at whether ICRAF had the capacity to undertake world-class science that would provide answers to the central issues surrounding the search for sustainable land-use systems. Naturally, we are pleased that given its 'focus on quality' the Panel has judged ICRAF's future to be 'secure and promising' and 'at the centre of the most important land-use issues in the tropics'.

The report correctly identifies that ICRAF's field of study has a special contribution to make to the issues of sustainability. And while acknowledging the need for some fine tuning, it is clear to us that the Panel considered that ICRAF is well placed to develop practical solutions that address the problems facing many poor rural households as they struggle for food security and unwittingly exacerbate environmental degradation.

We support the central theme of the Panel's report relating to the need to continually foster and monitor quality in all aspects of strategic and applied research. In particular, we appreciate the Panel's recommendations and advice on the perceived need to strengthen capacity in the social sciences and in scientific-support services. We also accept the wisdom of the Panel's call for a constant vigil on the maintenance of science quality as the Centre continues with its essential growth.

The Panel's advice on ICRAF's on-farm research work and the development of agroforestry technology is timely and helps to reinforce the Centre's long standing policy - all technology must be based on a careful analysis of clients' capacity and incentive to adopt.

While the Panel made no specific recommendations about the activities of ICRAF's Training and Information Division and generally endorsed their high quality and the way they successfully underpin the research programme, the Panel's suggestions and comments will provide valuable input into the refinement of the Division's future work plans. For example, these include: more documentation and information related to ICRAF's own research; more specialised training courses; and greater emphasis on support to build regional focal points for training and networks for information dissemination.

We are obviously proud that the Panel has not only endorsed ICRAF's strong collaborative programme - with national institutions and other IARCs - but has suggested that the Centre's underlying philosophy and approach has much to offer and is 'already making contributions to the resolution of the transitional issues currently facing the CGIAR system'. In many ways, ICRAF has pioneered approaches to collaboration through its AFRENA programme and welcomes the suggestion made in the report that ICRAF continue to be innovative and should explore ways to enhance the evolution of its relations with national institutions.

We agree with the Panel's view that relations between ICRAF and CIFOR is an important issue and wholeheartedly support the Panel's proposal about complementarity. However, we would like to make dear that we do not share the Panel's apparent unease about the delineation of the two Centres' respective roles. On the contrary, we have already implemented activities that will facilitate open consultation. These are described in our response to the specific recommendation.

We note that the Panel supported fully the programme structure in the 1994-1998 Medium-Term Plan and we could find no criticism of the final choice of 23 projects. However, while we understand that the Panel was in general agreement with the process the Centre uses to prioritize activities within those 23 projects, it was clearly not happy with the research programme planning process. We understand these concerns and agree that we must improve the Centre's ability to select the most appropriate priorities through a process that is more analytical and transparent.

We are pleased to see that the Panel considers the management style and procedures adopted by ICRAF in recent years have led to a well-motivated staff whose morale is high and who have a strongly developed capacity for interdisciplinary interaction. We found these to be encouraging observations and our awareness of these qualities make us apprehensive about imposing too many further changes that may not necessarily improve the situation. Nevertheless, the recommendations on management structure and financial policies are much appreciated and have been helpful.

We have examined the numerous suggestions in the report and have responded to many of them immediately - particularly those with implications for resource allocation - by incorporating their intent, wherever practicable, into the second draft of our Medium-Term Plan. The remaining suggestions will be discussed at our Board meeting in April 1993.

Finally, the Board and Senior Management, and all the staff of ICRAF, wish to express its thanks to the EPMR Panel and Resource Persons involved for the thoroughly professional manner in which they undertook their task and for their constructive and incisive report. From its analysis of the Centre's research, dissemination and management activities and its interaction with staff, the Panel has prepared a valuable assessment of the relevance and quality of ICRAF's programme. We hope and believe that this will assure the CGIAR system that ICRAF is a sound investment and has a valuable role to play in the challenge of raising the sustainable productivity of agriculture through the improved management of the natural resources on which food production depends. This expression of confidence gives us much satisfaction and all ICRAF staff are looking forward with enthusiasm to the next few years and the opportunity to turn promises into realities.

Yours sincerely

George Holmes
Chair, Board of Trustees

Pedro Sanchez
Director General

United Nations Avenue. Gigiri; P.O. Box 30677. Nairobi, Kenya
Telephone: (254-2) 521450; Telefax: (254-2) 521001; Telex: 22048 ICRAF; Cable: ICRAF; E-Mail: CGNET CGI: 236

ICRAF's Response to the Report of the First External Programme and Management Review of the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry

Nairobi, March 1993

RECOMMENDATION

ICRAF's RESPONSE

No. 1

The Panel recommends that ICRAF develop a more transparent and systematic research programme planning process, including priority setting, monitoring and evaluation. This process must be sensitive to cross-programme issues, regional differences, and the need to build confidence among researchers, partners and donors.

We share the Panel's view of the Importance of priority setting and the associated monitoring and evaluation activities and we are conscious of the need to upgrade ICRAF's research management procedures. We agree that the process of defining priorities, especially at the programme and project level, must be based on more systematic analysis and that the criteria used in making choices between alternatives should be more explicit and transparent.
We are developing a plan for implementing this recommendation for review by the Board at its next meeting scheduled for April 1993.

No. 2

The Panel recommends that ICRAF give priority to socio-economics and policy research by appointing more in-house expertise in the social sciences. If ICRAF intends to enter strategic policy or socio-economics research while at the same time providing the necessary input to the overall ICRAF research process, it will need to appoint at least two researchers in socio-economics additional to the number specified in the 1992 Draft Medium-Term Plan.

The Panel focused on the need for ICRAF to develop a critical mass of socio-economic expertise which would be able to address the key issues associated with the successful implementation of Improved agroforestry practices and systems. We acknowledge that this expertise is Important and interpret 'socio-economic' to include a full range of social science expertise such as rural sociology, agricultural and resource economics, cultural anthropology and policy development.
We believe that social scientists employed as core senior staff should be targeted on ICRAF's strategic research goals. In some cases, these goals may be adequately served through joint programmes with social scientists in IARCs and NARS. This is the case in Brazil where CIAT and IFPRI will provide the socio-economic expertise in a collaborative team with ICRAF. In other cases in-house expertise is clearly required. The Board and Management are committed to supporting the recruitment of appropriate socio-economic expertise in ICRAF and are prepared to take firm and positive action when the needs are Identified and justified.
We acknowledge that, at this time, ICRAF does not have the optimal level of socio-economic and related staff resources and we are preparing an analysis of this recommendation for review at the next Board meeting In April 1993. The analysis will Identify the precise disciplines that may be needed. In the Interim, two additional positions for social scientists have been added to the first draft of our Medium-Term Plan.

No. 3

The Panel recommends that ICRAF strengthen the two steps in its research process which seek compatibility between agroforestry technologies and production systems:
· The understanding of target production systems, including time-related resource use patterns and gender issues.
· The specification of time-related resource use requirements of each management option for candidate agroforestry technologies.

We consider that embedded in ICRAF's cycle of technology development is the recognition that whether farm households choose to adopt particular Improved agroforestry technologies depends upon household needs and a set of biophysical and socio-economic potentials and constraints. These needs, potentials and constraints - such as: climatic risk, soil fertility, governmental policies, degree of integration of farmers in the market, seasonal labour supply and rapidly changing demographic patterns induced by health problems such as AIDS - vary across the major land-use systems in priority ecoregions. ICRAF has always recognised that it is necessary to understand these factors, their Interactions and their variations In order to design appropriate agroforestry technologies. Nevertheless, the Board and Management will examine the essence of the recommendation in the forthcoming analysis of ICRAF's needs in its review of strategic policy and socio-economic research (see Recommendation No. 2).

No. 4

The Panel recommends that the Board and Senior Management should review ICRAF's expansion plans to ensure that these will not interfere with the further enhancement of science quality.

ICRAF has been expanding its role and responsibility in response to international demands and needs. At the same time, we are mindful of the need for ICRAF to maintain high quality outputs from the research programme, and we are committed to strong measures that will ensure that the Centre's research is of international standing. We believe that research milestones at ICRAF such as the work on resource competition and the MPTS data base set a standard of excellence that Is a useful goal for all ICRAF research programmes.
We acknowledge that too rapid expansion could over-extend ICRAF resources which in turn could lead to a decline in the quality of ICRAF outputs and credibility. While we do not believe that this condition exists at present, we wish to establish safeguards that will prevent it from happening. Management is preparing a proposal that addresses the concerns expressed in this recommendation, and will be proposing the establishment of a set of 'quality' milestones in tandem with the more quantitative targets detailed in the Draft Medium-Term Plan. The Board will review Management's proposal at its next meeting in April 1993.

No. 5

The Panel recommends that the Board consider establishing the position of Deputy Director General for Research and eliminating the current post of Director of Research.

Board and Management fully endorse the Panel's view that a clear line of authority for all research activities must exist in any research institution. This is clearly spelt out in the job description of ICRAF's Research Director.
At Its meeting on 30 January 1993, the Board considered the Panel's recommendation, but after a careful review of all implications, the Board concluded that a change in structure and title at this stage would not be in the Centre's best interest. The Board found no compelling reason for making the change at this time, particularly as our current lean senior management structure is working smoothly. However, the Board fully accepted the spirit of the recommendation: enhancing research as ICRAF's paramount activity.

No. 6

The Panel recommends that an additional biometrician be appointed now to maintain essential research support and strengthen science quality.

We support the Panel's emphasis on the Important role that support services play In the quality of the Centre's research and have Included resources for an additional biometrician in the 1994 budget of the Medium-Term Plan. To bridge the gap in 1993, we are planning to employ several consultants with the required biometric skills. These consultants will be deployed to assist the Centre's research particularly the new activities in Latin America and South-East Asia.

No. 7

The Panel recommends that the Board request Management to submit a financial strategy far the next five years that covers alternative scenarios, identifies potential sources of funds (CGIAR and non-CGIAR) and describes the specific steps to further improve its financial condition.

The Board shares the Panel's view concerning prudent financial policies and has agreed with Senior Management that drafts of a financial strategy will be prepared and presented to the Board during 1993. The Board also fully agrees with the eight suggestions made In Chapter 6. These will be implemented by Management in 1993, and reports on progress will be made to the Board during the year.

No. 8

The Panel recommends that the Board approve an investment policy for ICRAF.

The Board shares the Panel's view that an Investment policy aimed at enhancing the Centre's cash management should take place within an agreed framework and has agreed with Senior Management that a draft investment policy will be prepared and presented to the Board during 1993.

No. 9

The Panel recommends that ICRAF develop as soon as possible a joint strategy with the NARS for devolution of ICRAF's country level agroforestry research to the appropriate NARS, while maintaining a strong support role through regionally based teams and headquarters staff.

The Board has considered this recommendation carefully and has requested Management to work with NARS to develop an appropriate Joint strategy that will enable the national institutions to participate in a managed and phased evolution and maturation of the AFRENAs leading to greater national responsibility for the conduct and management of country-level agroforestry research. As the first step in the development of this strategy, Management is preparing a discussion paper which will be presented at the Board meeting in April 1993, which will include a visit to one of the relevant sites. The Board and Management wish to emphasise that the core of the strategy will be the maintenance of the essential elements of partnership between ICRAF and the NARS.

No 10.

The Panel recommends that ICRAF's Board propose to CIFOR's Board a Joint approach to seek complementarity. This would identify areas of work in the forestry-agroforestry continuum which are the sole interest of one or the other centre, and also areas in which a joint interest is acknowledged. The latter should be dealt with by an ecoregional mechanism or by considering the programme and regional balance between the institutions (as described in 7.2.2).

Board and Management wholeheartedly accept the need for complementarity between the work of ICRAF and CIFOR. ICRAF's Board is already working closely with CIFOR's Board, through overlapping membership of Board Chairs - a mechanism proposed by ICRAF - and by deliberately locating our Regional Coordinator for Southeast Asia at CIFOR's headquarters in Bogor. In addition, our first collaborative project Is close to Implementation. The project will classify the range of imperata grassland ecosystems in Indonesia, and provide critical Inputs Into a long-term research and development strategy that will seek to rehabilitate these degraded lands through the introduction of woody perennials. Furthermore, It is our intention to initiate dialogue immediately CIFOR's Senior Management team is recruited.

Responses to the Panel's suggestions

In addition to the ten recommendations. the Panel has made a large number of suggestions, many of which have Implications for the allocation of resources. Some of the suggestions are narrow in focus, while others address broader Issues. The Board has reviewed all of the suggestions. The eight concerning institutional resources have been given immediate attention and action emanating from them is identified under the comments concerning recommendation 7.
The Board wishes to discuss further with ICRAF Management the appropriate way to respond to the other suggestions. To facilitate this process. Management Is consolidating and, where appropriate, analysing the suggestions for formal review at the next Board meeting scheduled for April 1993.

*RECOMMENDATION*	ICRAF's RESPONSE
*No. 1*
The Panel *recommends* that ICRAF develop a more transparent and systematic research programme planning process, including priority setting, monitoring and evaluation. This process must be sensitive to cross-programme issues, regional differences, and the need to build confidence among researchers, partners and donors.	We share the Panel's view of the Importance of priority setting and the associated monitoring and evaluation activities and we are conscious of the need to upgrade ICRAF's research management procedures. We agree that the process of defining priorities, especially at the programme and project level, must be based on more systematic analysis and that the criteria used in making choices between alternatives should be more explicit and transparent. We are developing a plan for implementing this recommendation for review by the Board at its next meeting scheduled for April 1993.
*No. 2*
The Panel *recommends* that ICRAF give priority to socio-economics and policy research by appointing more in-house expertise in the social sciences. If ICRAF intends to enter strategic policy or socio-economics research while at the same time providing the necessary input to the overall ICRAF research process, it will need to appoint at least two researchers in socio-economics additional to the number specified in the 1992 Draft Medium-Term Plan.	The Panel focused on the need for ICRAF to develop a critical mass of socio-economic expertise which would be able to address the key issues associated with the successful implementation of Improved agroforestry practices and systems. We acknowledge that this expertise is Important and interpret 'socio-economic' to include a full range of social science expertise such as rural sociology, agricultural and resource economics, cultural anthropology and policy development. We believe that social scientists employed as core senior staff should be targeted on ICRAF's strategic research goals. In some cases, these goals may be adequately served through joint programmes with social scientists in IARCs and NARS. This is the case in Brazil where CIAT and IFPRI will provide the socio-economic expertise in a collaborative team with ICRAF. In other cases in-house expertise is clearly required. The Board and Management are committed to supporting the recruitment of appropriate socio-economic expertise in ICRAF and are prepared to take firm and positive action when the needs are Identified and justified. We acknowledge that, at this time, ICRAF does not have the optimal level of socio-economic and related staff resources and we are preparing an analysis of this recommendation for review at the next Board meeting In April 1993. The analysis will Identify the precise disciplines that may be needed. In the Interim, two additional positions for social scientists have been added to the first draft of our Medium-Term Plan.
*No. 3*
The Panel *recommends* that ICRAF strengthen the two steps in its research process which seek compatibility between agroforestry technologies and production systems: · The understanding of target production systems, including time-related resource use patterns and gender issues. · The specification of time-related resource use requirements of each management option for candidate agroforestry technologies.	We consider that embedded in ICRAF's cycle of technology development is the recognition that whether farm households choose to adopt particular Improved agroforestry technologies depends upon household needs and a set of biophysical and socio-economic potentials and constraints. These needs, potentials and constraints - such as: climatic risk, soil fertility, governmental policies, degree of integration of farmers in the market, seasonal labour supply and rapidly changing demographic patterns induced by health problems such as AIDS - vary across the major land-use systems in priority ecoregions. ICRAF has always recognised that it is necessary to understand these factors, their Interactions and their variations In order to design appropriate agroforestry technologies. Nevertheless, the Board and Management will examine the essence of the recommendation in the forthcoming analysis of ICRAF's needs in its review of strategic policy and socio-economic research (see Recommendation No. 2).
*No. 4*
The Panel *recommends* that the Board and Senior Management should review ICRAF's expansion plans to ensure that these will not interfere with the further enhancement of science quality.	ICRAF has been expanding its role and responsibility in response to international demands and needs. At the same time, we are mindful of the need for ICRAF to maintain high quality outputs from the research programme, and we are committed to strong measures that will ensure that the Centre's research is of international standing. We believe that research milestones at ICRAF such as the work on resource competition and the MPTS data base set a standard of excellence that Is a useful goal for all ICRAF research programmes. We acknowledge that too rapid expansion could over-extend ICRAF resources which in turn could lead to a decline in the quality of ICRAF outputs and credibility. While we do not believe that this condition exists at present, we wish to establish safeguards that will prevent it from happening. Management is preparing a proposal that addresses the concerns expressed in this recommendation, and will be proposing the establishment of a set of 'quality' milestones in tandem with the more quantitative targets detailed in the Draft Medium-Term Plan. The Board will review Management's proposal at its next meeting in April 1993.
*No. 5*
The Panel *recommends* that the Board consider establishing the position of Deputy Director General for Research and eliminating the current post of Director of Research.	Board and Management fully endorse the Panel's view that a clear line of authority for all research activities must exist in any research institution. This is clearly spelt out in the job description of ICRAF's Research Director. At Its meeting on 30 January 1993, the Board considered the Panel's recommendation, but after a careful review of all implications, the Board concluded that a change in structure and title at this stage would not be in the Centre's best interest. The Board found no compelling reason for making the change at this time, particularly as our current lean senior management structure is working smoothly. However, the Board fully accepted the spirit of the recommendation: enhancing research as ICRAF's paramount activity.
*No. 6*
The Panel *recommends* that an additional biometrician be appointed now to maintain essential research support and strengthen science quality.	We support the Panel's emphasis on the Important role that support services play In the quality of the Centre's research and have Included resources for an additional biometrician in the 1994 budget of the Medium-Term Plan. To bridge the gap in 1993, we are planning to employ several consultants with the required biometric skills. These consultants will be deployed to assist the Centre's research particularly the new activities in Latin America and South-East Asia.
*No. 7*
The Panel *recommends* that the Board request Management to submit a financial strategy far the next five years that covers alternative scenarios, identifies potential sources of funds (CGIAR and non-CGIAR) and describes the specific steps to further improve its financial condition.	The Board shares the Panel's view concerning prudent financial policies and has agreed with Senior Management that drafts of a financial strategy will be prepared and presented to the Board during 1993. The Board also fully agrees with the eight suggestions made In Chapter 6. These will be implemented by Management in 1993, and reports on progress will be made to the Board during the year.
*No. 8*
The Panel *recommends* that the Board approve an investment policy for ICRAF.	The Board shares the Panel's view that an Investment policy aimed at enhancing the Centre's cash management should take place within an agreed framework and has agreed with Senior Management that a draft investment policy will be prepared and presented to the Board during 1993.
*No. 9*
The Panel *recommends* that ICRAF develop as soon as possible a joint strategy with the NARS for devolution of ICRAF's country level agroforestry research to the appropriate NARS, while maintaining a strong support role through regionally based teams and headquarters staff.	The Board has considered this recommendation carefully and has requested Management to work with NARS to develop an appropriate Joint strategy that will enable the national institutions to participate in a managed and phased evolution and maturation of the AFRENAs leading to greater national responsibility for the conduct and management of country-level agroforestry research. As the first step in the development of this strategy, Management is preparing a discussion paper which will be presented at the Board meeting in April 1993, which will include a visit to one of the relevant sites. The Board and Management wish to emphasise that the core of the strategy will be the maintenance of the essential elements of partnership between ICRAF and the NARS.
*No 10.*
The Panel *recommends* that ICRAF's Board propose to CIFOR's Board a Joint approach to seek complementarity. This would identify areas of work in the forestry-agroforestry continuum which are the sole interest of one or the other centre, and also areas in which a joint interest is acknowledged. The latter should be dealt with by an ecoregional mechanism or by considering the programme and regional balance between the institutions (as described in 7.2.2).	Board and Management wholeheartedly accept the need for complementarity between the work of ICRAF and CIFOR. ICRAF's Board is already working closely with CIFOR's Board, through overlapping membership of Board Chairs - a mechanism proposed by ICRAF - and by deliberately locating our Regional Coordinator for Southeast Asia at CIFOR's headquarters in Bogor. In addition, our first collaborative project Is close to Implementation. The project will classify the range of imperata grassland ecosystems in Indonesia, and provide critical Inputs Into a long-term research and development strategy that will seek to rehabilitate these degraded lands through the introduction of woody perennials. Furthermore, It is our intention to initiate dialogue immediately CIFOR's Senior Management team is recruited.
	Responses to the Panel's suggestions
	In addition to the ten recommendations. the Panel has made a large number of suggestions, many of which have Implications for the allocation of resources. Some of the suggestions are narrow in focus, while others address broader Issues. The Board has reviewed all of the suggestions. The eight concerning institutional resources have been given immediate attention and action emanating from them is identified under the comments concerning recommendation 7. The Board wishes to discuss further with ICRAF Management the appropriate way to respond to the other suggestions. To facilitate this process. Management Is consolidating and, where appropriate, analysing the suggestions for formal review at the next Board meeting scheduled for April 1993.