8.1. Introduction
8.2. Research Programmes
8.3. Training, Education and Information Programmes
8.4. Management
8.5. Staff
8.6. Facilities
8.7. Linkages and Relationships
8.8. Output
8.9. Conclusion
ICRAF is in a period of exceptional change as it develops into a full CGIAR Centre. This is a qualitative change, in terms of type of science, type of programme and Centre culture. It is quantitative change in the rapid expansion of staff numbers, geographical area and facilities. This rapid change has dangers for the Centre, if it cannot be controlled effectively, but it also has opportunities. However, the Panel is convinced of the necessity for the change, and that the outcome is promising. All the subsequent parts of this Chapter should be read with these points in mind.
The Panel has deliberately aimed at a relatively small number of recommendations; those which are given were selected because they were specific and were thought most important to the future of ICRAF. By far the largest part of the report deals with issues related to research. This was expected, because it is in the Research Division that the largest changes have been made, and are still in progress. By comparison the Training and Information Division is continuing in a stable and successful fashion without great changes. The Finance and Administration Division appears to be overcoming the legacy of past problems. In future research will be the main task of ICRAF, and the Panel considered it appropriate that our report should be similarly weighted. The report is also strongly targeted at the future of ICRAF rather than at its past. The latter is not ignored, but the future will be very different.
The quality of any Institute is a function of the excellence of its staff, its management, its programmes, its facilities and its linkages and relationships. All need to reach a high standard of quality and efficiency, if ICRAF is to meet all its goals. These are essentially three: to produce research results that benefit farmers and land-users; to carry out strategic science of high quality; to enhance the science capacity of the countries in which it operates.
The present state of ICRAF is impressive in relation to its earlier objectives. It has a wide and positive reputation in agroforestry, strong donor support for its mission, and a dedicated staff. However, the goal posts have changed, and its relative lack of strategic science programmes, extensive and dependable experimental results, and fully proven technologies are now a handicap. The challenge of remedying these deficiencies is being addressed, and the report assesses how far these necessary changes have progressed.
The programme structure of ICRAF has been in a state of change and some earlier plans were never fully implemented. The Panel fully supports the new programme structure in the 1994-98 Medium Term Plan, but some aspects of the project system and its management should be strengthened. Its advice on this is in Chapter 5. The overriding need now is to finalize this structure in the simplest and most user-friendly way, and to ensure it is understood by all staff, by means of full and explicit documentation, and by training of new staff. Complexity, confusion and ad hoc measures must be kept to a minimum, with simple and easily understood lines of authority and communication.
It is commendable that good-class strategic science is already established in parts of the Programmes. This should be built upon and expanded, so that there are high quality strategic activities in all Research Programmes. However, it is essential that "strategic science" should not become a cover for curiosity-driven research; it should serve ICRAF's ultimate goals just as much as the more applied work, though on a different timescale and in a different way. ICRAF must never allow a two-class culture to develop because ICRAF science should be a seamless web, with close interactions across all of it. High science quality must therefore be established in all ICRAF programmes. This demands quality control by the Programme Coordinators and Project Lead Scientists, applied at all stages of the research process. Quality obviously depends on highly dedicated and competent professional staff. It also needs proper scientific support in statistics, analytical services and an efficient administrative structure. Quality must also affect priorities. The final requirement is that staff be expected to publish, with a reasonable frequency, in the fully peer reviewed international literature. This discipline is the final test of rigorous standards, and the Panel urges ICRAF to make further progress in this area.
The Panel still has some concerns about the balance of the Programmes and the disciplines of the staff. It is concerned at the relative lack of socioeconomic staff members (see chapter 3). In particular, it is concerned about the weakness of policy research, when policy can have drastic effects on the profitability of farmers using agroforestry technologies. On-farm research also needs strengthening, so that it can collaborate properly with the on-station research of Programme 4. The Panel notes that there can be problems in obtaining good collaboration between socioeconomic and biophysical staff. Relationships in ICRAF are good at present, and the Panel believes this commendable state can be maintained by keeping a reasonable balance between the two types of researchers, and ensuring very close contact between Programmes 1 and 4. This is quite essential in ensuring that any new or improved technologies are attractive and acceptable to farmers, both men and women.
Programmes are dynamic entities, and must be constantly updated to remain exciting and relevant. The Panel is not satisfied with the prioritizing system for Projects and research activities that is currently used at ICRAF. It needs to be fully transparent and well documented, with well-defined and meaningful criteria, (see chapter 3). It also appears that at present ideas for new activities come forward in a rather ad hoc way. Individual creativity must not be stifled, but senior scientists and management must make sure that there is also a vision driving the research programmes towards large and important goals. "Alternatives to Slash and Burn" is a programme with such a vision.
The collaborative nature of ICRAF's research is commended by the Panel, which recognizes the patience and dedication that has gone into this work. New dimensions have now been added to ICRAF's collaborative research by the ecoregional initiatives and "Alternatives to Slash and Burn". ICRAF has willingly accepted leadership in the latter and in the East African Ecoregional initiative. The Panel notes the very heavy input of staff and management time that will be needed, and believes that ICRAF will have to give high priority to these programmes for success to be achieved. The whole issue of the authority for controlling the work in strongly collaborative programmes is a very difficult problem, and ICRAF needs to address this question urgently. The Panel is surprised at the sheer number of collaborating organizations listed in the MTP. It notes that collaboration is not an end in itself, and hopes that the still small signal of science will not be lost in the urgent noise of liaison. If a collaboration has become empty of content, it should be terminated.
The training, education and information functions at ICRAF are relatively long established, and are not subject to the rapid change that at present affects the Research Programmes. Its activities are in considerable demand, and are an important part of ICRAF's total output. There will be an evolution towards higher level training, and in particular towards training of scientists based on ICRAF's own research results. The provision of technical information is also a function of major importance that helps to underpin the research programme.
It is probably true that no management style fits well with the old ICRAF culture. The latter was comfortable, family style and relaxed. Whatever its virtues - and it produced very committed ICRAF staff - it is no longer appropriate for an organization of the size and complexity of ICRAF. Management and its associated systems have to operate smoothly, effectively and transparently, to produce the necessary degree of control throughout the organization. Part of this culture change is the acceptance of time-limited goals, or milestones. ICRAF is now setting these in its MTP, and the Panel commends this. ICRAF has informed the Panel that it is willing to be assessed by the extent to which it meets these milestones.
Management of Programmes and of Centres should aim at a smooth effectiveness, with minimum work for maximum effect. It can only do so when the structure is right, and ICRAF has not yet reached that state, though the Panel admires the way in which management has coped with the constant problems that come with change. We believe that the management of Training and Information Division operates well. That of Finance and Administration Division is coming right, and we note considerable advances even over the period of the Review. The Research Division management is still incomplete, and changes in train should improve matters. Just as with the Programme structure, a period of stability in the science management is now essential to allow staff to settle down and cope with the many real problems they face. One of these is how management is to be organized in the large new initiatives that will probably stretch the available management talent to its limit. The Panel believes an essential tool for good research management is a proper computerized management information system, and urges ICRAF to develop this at once.
The most essential resource in research is high quality staff, especially in strategic research. A very few outstanding researchers can raise the credibility and reputation of a Centre greatly, introduce high standards throughout their research groups and inspire junior scientists. In other words, they can help ICRAF create comparative advantage in their particular fields. ICRAF has done well in forming one research group of high quality already, but it needs more. One of the benefits of expansion is that there are more vacancies than normal, and so more opportunities of attracting outstanding people. The Panel strongly counsels ICRAF to fill vacancies with great care, ignoring time or other pressures, and to do everything it can to attract outstanding people. The atmosphere of expansion and confidence now felt at ICRAF should be an aid to this.
The Panel supports the plans for new buildings at ICRAF HQ, and for the development of laboratory-based science there. The Panel has satisfied itself that considerable care and thought has gone into the planning, and understands that associated expenditure has been allowed for. Despite the current problems over the site of the proposed extension, the Panel believes that it is essential for it to go ahead, to allow ICRAF to carry out its programme. However, the total new space will not be needed for some years, so the present plans to build in phases should be appropriate. ICRAF needs to bear in mind that laboratory based science requires heavy expenditure on recurrent costs and capital items, and allow for this in its forward budgeting.
The proposal to set up a MPT Germplasm Resource Centre is dealt with here, though it could equally be seen as a Programme matter. The Panel has discussed the proposal carefully, and concluded that it was sound and justifiable. The Panel accordingly supports it, whilst urging ICRAF to bear in mind that several other organizations have been involved in this type of work for a considerable period, so that the planned collaborative approach is essential. The annual running costs of this Centre will be high, and it will need long-term commitment from the Centre and from donors.
The first level of linkages is between the various parts of the research and training programmes in ICRAF. There is now a good formal programme structure, as we note in Chapter 3, and management must give high priority to ensuring that this really does produce strong internal interactions. This should be the direct responsibility of the Directors of Research and of Training and Information.
The links with NARS have been one of ICRAF's deserved successes in the past, and this must be maintained. However, the character of these links will change, as some of the AFRENAs are included in ecoregional initiatives, and ICRAF withdraws from the more basic levels of training and from adaptive research. The Panel believes that ICRAF's activity should now be concentrated in regional focal points. The changes will need some sensitivity on ICRAF's part, and we urge that it should discuss with its NARS partners, as soon as possible, exactly what these changes will mean to them, and when they will occur. One feature of the ecoregional mechanisms is the inclusion of several IARCs. This must change the relations of ICRAF and the NARS, and it is essential to ensure that NARS feel welcome as full partners in these initiatives.
The ecoregional initiatives and the new Germplasm Centre imply stronger interactions with other CGIAR Centres. ICRAF needs to raise its strategic research work to a level where it can meet other IARCs on a level footing, but without losing its strong farmer orientation. The latter is one of the valuable inputs it can bring to such collaborations. It is very important that agroforestry technologies should be carefully matched to the farming systems for which they are designed, and that they should be acceptable and attractive to farmers. In this context ICRAF research should not be driven solely by its own technology development. Agroforestry can supply powerful tools for farm use, but it cannot solve every farm problem. Agroforestry technologies should therefore be considered whenever necessary with other agronomic inputs, such as improved seed and fertilizer, to ensure that the final solution is the best possible and most attractive to farmers. There is a forestry/agroforestry/agriculture continuum, and both interfaces within this need addressing. It is clear from ICRAF's statements, including its definition of agroforestry in its Strategic Plan, that its orientation is basically agricultural, directed towards the increased production of food and the conservation of natural resources. This requires that ICRAF should maintain very close relations with other CGIAR Centres, such as IITA and CIAT.
The ICRAF-CIFOR relationship is an important issue, partly because of the history of how the Centres were set up, and much ink has been expended on the question of how they will interact across the second interface on the continuum. Over much of the forestry-agroforestry continuum it is fairly clear which of the two Centres has the primary role. There are difficulties in defining the respective areas of interest of CIFOR and ICRAF around the middle of the continuum, e.g. for multi-purpose trees and where there is a temporal admixture of crops and trees. We see no clear logical division here, and in Chapter 6 we propose a pragmatic solution of how the two Centres are to work in this "grey area".
If all the above aspects of the Centre have been put in good order, then achievements and success should follow. ICRAF needs to meet its milestones, but a mechanical pursuit of these should not be allowed to interfere with the attainment of quality and long-term impacts. The new ICRAF culture must be oriented fully towards this aim. The relatively recent reorientation of ICRAF from a Council with a different set of objectives and a different culture may make this a difficult task, but ICRAF has already made good progress, and there must be no compromise in seeking further improvements. Released germplasm or recommended technologies must be fully validated, whatever the short-term pressures; strategic research must be at or near the cutting edge of science; large programmes should have big and important aims that are clearly articulated.
The Panel feels some concern about the speed of expansion planned for ICRAF, as it is doing in years what some Centres have done in decades, and during a period in which quality has to be improved. This has tended to generate an atmosphere of confusion in some areas, in that staff are unable to keep up with rapidly shifting structures and activities. We can see no large or significant loss of control due to the expansion so far, and recent improvements in the financial system have reduced our concern greatly. However, it is still questionable whether the proposed high rate of expansion is necessary or desirable, as ICRAF should be planning for the long term - it should be a steady star rather than a brief comet. The real test of whether the opportunities of expansion have been well used is in the quality and quantity of research produced. The output in the next few years will be the measure of this.
Given this focus on quality, the future of ICRAF looks secure and promising to the Panel. The combination of population increase and transfers, resource degradation and destruction, and climate and other environmental changes make it probable that the demands upon food producers in the next century will be massive. It is uncertain whether these demands can be met, and any deficiencies in food supply will, as always, impact most strongly on those with least resources. It is imperative that the appropriate responses are already being researched now, because their development and validation will take time. ICRAF has a special contribution to make to this work, because its field of study is so relevant to sustainability of land-use systems. The use of trees to cover land where the combination of soil and climate makes the environment fragile is traditional, as with forests and tree crops. Agroforestry should give similar benefits, whilst widening the options greatly. ICRAF's work is also relevant to global environmental concerns, because it helps to maintain forest and tree cover. In total, ICRAF stands at the centre of the most important land-use issues in the tropics, a secure foundation for its future development.
