1.1. Origin and Evolution
1.2. Recommendations of Previous (Donor-Sponsored) Reviews and ICRAF's Responses
1.3. Conduct of the Review and Report Structure
About 17 years ago, the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) commissioned a study to determine priorities in tropical forestry to the year 2000, to assess the inter-dependence between forestry and agriculture in tropical countries and make proposals for optimization of land use. The report gave top priority to production systems combining forestry, agriculture and/or animal husbandry for sustainable use of tropical lands. It recommended the creation of an internationally financed Council for research in agroforestry with a mandate to encourage and support research, and to acquire and disseminate information leading to better land use in the tropics. IDRC met with other potential donors (Canada, Switzerland and the Netherlands) in 1976 to discuss the report. An executing agency was set up, which established the Council (ICRAF), prepared a charter and elected a Board of Trustees (BoT).
In July 1978, ICRAF was invited by the Kenyan Government to move to Nairobi. Dr. Kenneth King, a former Assistant Director-General in charge of Forestry at FAO, was appointed Director. Difficulty in securing funds for field projects, in-house conflicts, and disagreements about mandates and operations between the Donors and the Management provoked a crisis at ICRAF in 1979. In 1980, the donors asked the Board to restructure ICRAF's work and to develop a realistic strategy for its future programme. Dr. Howard Steppler, Board Chair, took over as Interim Director and drafted a new strategy for ICRAF which received the Board's approval. In 1981 Dr. Bjorn Lundgren was appointed as Director General and given unambiguous guidelines. Following the new strategy, ICRAF concentrated on analyzing land-use systems and designing relevant agroforestry technologies to help overcome constraints. From 1981 to 1985, in-house capability and methods, a knowledge base, and information acquisition and distribution were developed and ICRAF adapted farming systems research techniques into the now well known "Diagnosis & Design" (D&D) methodology.
The 1984 external review recommended that ICRAF begin collaborative action with African countries to generate improved agroforestry technologies. The period between 1985 and 1990 was dominated by the planning, negotiation and then implementation of four African agroforestry research networks (AFRENAs). At headquarters the inventory of traditional agroforestry systems was expanded, research concentrated on studies on experimental methodology, and training was built up as a partner to information dissemination. In 1989 a TAC team visited ICRAF, as the beginning of the process for the Centre's entry into the CGIAR in 1991. ICRAF's third Director General, Dr. Pedro Sanchez, was appointed just prior to that entry, also in 1991.
Both the 1984 and 1989 external reviews were donor-sponsored. The 1984 review led to a reinterpretation of the ICRAF mandate, which made it possible to move away from the narrow definition that prevented ICRAF from involvement in technology-generating field research. The implementation of the 1984 report produced heightened donor support and rapid expansion. The 1989 review made 36 recommendations. Annex I shows a summary of these recommendations and how ICRAF responded to them. In the current Review Panel's opinion, 28 of these recommendations were fully implemented, six partially implemented and two. could not be implemented. Recommendation No. 31, which emphasized the expansion of social science research, was implemented between 1989-91. There is further comment on this in Chapter 3. Annex I also contains the current Review Panel's remarks on ICRAF's response.
The most significant points include: improvement to financial reporting (Recommendation 11); explicit research agenda (Recommendations 17-21); formal procedure for monitoring scientific work (Recommendation 25); restructuring of divisions (Recommendation 27); decentralization of training (Recommendation 34); a new strategy for ICRAF (Recommendation 35). Discussions of these points are developed in the relevant chapters of this report.
This first CGIAR External Programme and Management Review (EPMR) was commissioned by the Technical Advisory Committee of the CGIAR in June 1991. The membership of the Review Panel and the background of the members are in Annex II. The EPMR was directed to make a detailed appraisal of the Centre and all its activities and to transmit a report to the TAC Chairman. The Terms of Reference (Annex III) included the assessment of the recent evolution of ICRAF, its mandate, strategy, organization, management and programmes. This last task was made more difficult because ICRAF's programmes were in a state of continuing change. The Panel has used the Draft Strategic Plan dated April 1992 and the Draft Medium Term Plan (MTP) dated December 1992 as the baseline source documents for the Review. ICRAF undertook a comprehensive strategic planning exercise in 1992, which proposed five research and four dissemination programmes. The strategy paper provided the basis for the evaluation of the Centre's research activities during the initial phase of the review. At the commencement of the main phase the first draft of the MTP specified four research and three dissemination programmes. Thus changes introduced in the MTP were from the recently implemented programme structure in the Strategic Plan. Even during the Review the ideas of ICRAF management were clearly continuing to evolve, and in many instances were a direct response to the Panel's discussions with them.
The standard procedure for the conduct of an EPMR was followed. TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat consulted with the Board and Management of ICRAF in selecting the Chairman and Members of the Panel. In March 1992, the Chairman and Panel Secretary attended a meeting of the Board of Trustees (BoT) of ICRAF, met members and management, and discussed plans for the review. A questionnaire about ICRAF's programmes, activities and impact was sent to a sample of NARS, mainly in Africa and the results summarized in Annex IV. CGIAR members, co-sponsors and other relevant bodies were canvassed to contribute to the list of supplementary questions on the activities of ICRAF.
The Initial Phase of the Review was in Nairobi from 28 September to 4 October 1992. The Panel was briefed by the management, met BoT members, observed the proceedings of the Board, and interviewed many research and management staff. The whole Panel visited Machakos Research Station and Maseno in Western Kenya to see on-station experiments and on-farm research. Seven other countries (Cameroon, Nigeria, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Brazil and Ethiopia) were visited by sub-panels of two to three members and resource persons in October, December 1992 and January 1993 (Annex V). Earlier, (September 1992) the Panel Chair had paid a visit to Rome and consulted with FAO and IBPGR on issues of mutual concern to ICRAF and these institutions. The Main Phase of the review took place in January 1993.
The report contains eight chapters and is structured in accordance with the Terms of Reference and Guidelines provided by TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat. The first two chapters cover the mandate, goals, mission and the place of ICRAF in the CGIAR System, followed by an evaluation of the various programmes. The report then deals with the organization and management of the Centre, its institutional resources and its relations with NARS as well as international and regional centres and concludes with an overall assessment of the present position of ICRAF and projections for the future.
