Annex IV - Survey on ICRAF Programmes: Evaluating Past Performance and Future Requirements

1. Procedure

In May 1992, the Executive Secretary of TAC distributed a questionnaire on behalf of ICRAF External Programme and Management Review (EPMR), to 62 individuals in Africa, Asia and Latin America, who had professional links with agroforestry research. Participants were selected from a mailing list provided by ICRAF. The purpose of the survey was to obtain respondents' opinions on the importance to them of various programmes and activities of ICRAF over the past three years (1989-91), and the anticipated importance of ICRAF's work during the next nine years (1992-2000).

The participants were asked to assess each area of ICRAF's work in terms of a ranking using the following scale: 1 = extremely valuable; 2 = moderately valuable; 3 = slightly valuable; 4 = not valuable at all; 5 = not known. Each programme area was assessed in terms of research, training and information (publication and workshop) activities. For the programmes and activities during the next nine years, the areas of interest were subdivided according to research programmes (i.e. five programmes) and the thrusts within those programmes. Respondents were also asked to evaluate the effectiveness of collaboration within ICRAF, and relevance of ICRAF's new strategic plan.

Apart from the numerical evaluation, respondents were asked to comment on ICRAF's collaborative mechanisms, major strengths and weaknesses, major contributions, operations and programmes, and its new strategic plan.

In addition to their name and addresses, respondents were required to indicate their current position, type of institutions, relationships to ICRAF, and period of association with ICRAF. Of the 20 responses received (representing only 32% return) 17 were from Africa. However, prior to the analysis the responses were coded to make the respondents anonymous. During processing of the data, the numerical scale was reversed so that the ranking indicates 4 as being extremely valuable; 3, moderately valuable; 2, slightly valuable; and 1, not valuable at all.

Responses by programme area for each type of activity (research, training, publications and workshop) for the past three years are summarized in Table 1, and for the next nine years in Table 2. The summary of responses on research programmes by major thrusts for the next nine years are shown in Table 3. Responses in relation to the likely effectiveness of collaboration, and the strategic plan for the next nine years are given in Table 4.

2. Results

Due to the relatively low number of responses analysis by sub-groups was not feasible. However, collaborators clearly consider the Centre's activities (research, training and publications) on agroforestry for soil conservation as being of the greatest importance.

2.1. Numerical Analysis

Table 1 shows that the mean score for all ICRAF activities for the period 1989-1991 was 2.87. The Centre's efforts in research and publication received equal rating of 3.0 while training and workshop activities were scored 2.8 and 2.6 respectively. Of the five programmes presented for evaluation, the potential of agroforestry for soil conservation was considered the most valuable with a score of 3.2, while socioeconomic aspects of agroforestry and multipurpose tree (MPT) species was regarded next in importance with a score of 3.02. But those related to MPT and shrubs database (2.89), agroforestry alternative to shifting cultivation (2.8) were not highly regarded. Programme on genetic improvement of selected MPT species (2.41) was considered the least valuable.

In contrast to the reaction to ICRAF's past activities, NARS have demonstrated a clear confidence in ICRAF's future activities (1992-2000). The combined programmes attracted a mean score of 3.48 (versus 2.87 for 1989-91). Information activity (3.6) was considered of greater importance than either research (3.5) or training (3.4), though the differences between the three activities are unlikely to be statistically significant (Table 2).

Respondents were evidently impressed by the restructuring of ICRAF's activities under the new strategic plan. Research activities related to MPT improvement and management, component interactions, and systems improvement were accorded the highest mean rating of 3.7 each over and above environmental characterization and analysis (3.3) and policy, adoption and impact analysis (3.1).

Of all the ICRAF coordinated networks (Table 4) respondents rated the semi-arid lowlands of West Africa AFRENA as being the most valuable (3.9) followed by Eastern and Central Africa AFRENA (3.8), and Southern Africa AFRENA (3.7). At scores of 3.3, 3.0 and 3.3 respectively, NETWORKS for humid lowlands of West Africa AFRENA, Asia, and Latin America, were not considered likely to achieve the same impact and effectiveness as the previous three between 1992 and 2000 (Table 4).

As far as country projects are concerned (Table 4), strengthening research activities (3.3) was considered to be of the greatest importance compared to institutional capacity enhancement (3.0) and human resources development (3.1). Strategic and long-term planning aspects of country projects was thought to least likely to be of importance in the near future.

In considering the new strategic plan, there was high agreement (3.8) with ICRAF's strategy for organization, structure, operation and programme. Ecoregionally-based AFRENAs and interaction over strategic plan were rated 3.7 and 3.1 respectively.

2.2. Summary of Qualitative Responses

Additional information was provided by qualitative responses in respect of the trends highlighted above. An analysis of the comments is given below to show the range and nature of reactions received and to indicate some unique individual statements.

2.2.1. Q B4. Collaborative Mechanism

Question B4 Comments and suggestions on Collaborative Mechanisms and Country Projects.

Please indicate your opinion about the effectiveness of the collaborative mechanisms, and/or country projects. Please indicate how these activities may be strengthened.

RESPONSES

Some of the respondents felt that the projects and collaborative mechanisms were still very new and not very well known at the national level. However, the collaborative activities so far were said to be good by one respondent. Another said that great strides have really been made in developing the human resources that will implement agroforestry research and development, and also in enhancing this capacity to train nationals who would implement projects at the farmer level. It was suggested that the next few years should see research and development of appropriate technologies.

The networks were judged to have helped to strengthen research involvement in agroforestry in humid and semi-arid lowlands, although one respondent reported that the humid lowlands of the West Africa Network have not been fully developed and the transitional zone in the humid lowlands and the semi-arid lowlands required more attention. The country projects were felt to have contributed to training agroforestry research workers and many farmers are now adapting the agroforestry research methodologies.

The collaborative mechanisms were felt to be rather ineffective, little known and in need of appropriate evaluation and strengthening. It was suggested that there should be more interaction between ICRAF and the NARS, in terms of the general awareness about projects and results, knowledge of the local production systems and research needs, and ICRAF's role in the long-term development of NARS. Better relations between ICRAF and the NARS would also improve joint programme planning and implementation, and training in agroforestry research. It was also felt that ICRAF should make sure that those who serve on national committees have the capacity of making decisions and that all scientists from different fields are represented. One respondent argued that an effective Asian office should be established quickly to initiate collaborative programmes in the region.

Other suggestions for ICRAF's roles in these areas included: improving the provision of information to policy makers; establishing more direct links with forestry rather than agriculture departments; strengthening strategic and long-term planning by encouraging medium- to long-term projects (5-10 years minimum); developing more specific work on country projects; and offering incentives to keep national staff on ICRAF's projects for continuity.

2.2.2 C: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

C1 RESEARCH, TRAINING AND INFORMATION AGENDA

Question C1.1 Research Agenda

Please give your opinion about ICRAF's research agenda in relation to ICRAF's contributions to the needs of your institution and country. If you have any suggestions for improvement, please indicate below.

RESPONSES

Three of the respondents reported that they were happy with the research agenda, that it had contributed immensely to research in agroforestry by developing methodology and that farmers are already benefiting from the results obtained. One reported that young scientists were benefiting from training by ICRAF. There were reservations that impact from research will take time.

Suggestions included: broadening research focus to a wider range of climatic zones; identifying constraints hindering sustainable productivity of the natural resource base and targeting them in order to improve the land-use management; improving consultation over research priorities and emphasis on those priorities (some of the project aims have appeared to have diverged due to personnel subjectivity); increasing scientific/technical support for projects.

The need for more academic training in the forestry sector and for joint research activities through collaborative efforts with the national systems to ensure adoption after technology development, was emphasized.

19 "The results from research trials established by ICRAF have made it possible for farmers to use the right tree species for agroforestry purposes in the country."

20 "There is no direct research (ICRAF-organized) based in my country. When the West Africa humid lowlands network is properly established, it would be more appropriate to comment on this. However, the research in Cameroon has indirect benefit through the information agenda."

Question C1.2 Training Agenda

Give your opinion about ICRAF's training agenda in relation to ICRAF's contributions to the needs of your institution and country. If you have any suggestions for improvement, please indicate below.

RESPONSES

Several favourable comments were made about the training programme, although it was felt that more is needed to build a critical mass of NARS scientists and development personnel to deal with agroforestry.

The need for postgraduate training was emphasized. Suggestions for the future emphasis of training included; registering scientists with local universities; improving training on experimentation, technology design and on-farm research methodology; stepping up the production of manuals and training for staff outside the main programme links; organizing more in-country short-term training sessions for the national systems; initiating study tours; upgrading technicians working with ICRAF to degree, and perhaps PhD level; educating scientists and farmers on the need to incorporate trees with food crops; training the trainers or managers of programme/projects at regional level; and improving consultation and coordination of training activities with other agencies, to avoid duplication.

Concern was expressed about the high cost of the training, which makes it prohibitive to some centres.

19 "ICRAF has provided short courses to many scientists in the country and the knowledge the participants gained from their courses has enabled them to do their work effectively."

20 "ICRAF's training agenda has benefitted the needs of my institution greatly and has extended throughout the country through a multiplier effect. The establishment and implementation of the African Network for Agroforestry Education would further enhance the training capacity of our institution and train more human resources. Needs more in-country training for improvement."

Question C1.3 Information Agenda

Give your opinion about ICRAF's information agenda in relation to ICRAF's contributions to the needs of your institution and country. If you have any suggestions for improvement, please indicate below.

RESPONSES

The responses about the information agenda were generally favourable, and appreciation was expressed for the service provided. Some respondents felt that there was room for improvement, particularly in improving information on ICRAF's role in agricultural and forestry research, increasing the amount of agroforestry teaching material, and increasing distribution of technical and working papers to national libraries. One respondent noted that a national centre could facilitate some of these aims.

19 "A lot of information regarding agroforestry has been distributed free to local scientists by ICRAF."

20 "The information agenda has been our main source of information and has been very useful to our Institution and the country. It is a major source of training materials. There is the need to develop information based on the materials in my country, encourage data collection in the country. Some of the data at ICRAF cannot be assessed easily because of lack of computer facilities in our institution."

C2 RESEARCH, TRAINING AND INFORMATION ORGANIZATION

Question C2.1 Research Organization.

Give your opinion about ICRAF's research organization in terms of coverage, participation of national programmes, information exchange, etc. If you have any suggestions for improvement, please indicate below.

RESPONSES

Opinion about the research organization varied. While some respondents replied that it was useful and relevant, had made immense contributions to agroforestry, was compatible with national priorities of needs and thorough in its dealings with NARS, and that the coverage was adequate, others disagreed, especially with respect to coverage and consideration to national systems. The overlap in coverage with IITA and ILCA (in alley cropping, for example) was highlighted, and it was suggested that coverage should be extended to include ecological zones other than the humid highlands.

It was considered necessary to establish collaborative research and development programmes with national R&D systems, to motivate the national working group, and to exchange research findings with other relevant countries. One respondent stated that more on-farm research thrust was required for specially difficult areas. Another noted that, while the information exchange was broad in scope and short-term targets, the long-term outputs were not adequately defined.

19 "Every research programme initiated by ICRAF normally involves local scientists and this is good for local scientists."

20 "The D & D exercise in concert with ICRAF staff/scientists has been done by my Institution for the humid lowlands. Not much has been done beyond this. It is expected that the West Africa Humid lowlands would be established as a network. There is some information exchange."

Question C2.2 Training Organization.

Give your opinion about ICRAF's training organization in terms of coverage, participation of national programmes, information exchange, etc. If you have any suggestions for improvement, please indicate below.

RESPONSES

There was an overwhelming plea to extend the training programme, especially in the areas of in-country courses, training for technicians, technical support staff, production of manuals, and visit of trainees to different on-farm research sites.

Since international training consumes a great deal of money, time and staff, the number of training and trainees is limited. One respondent forwarded the idea that a regional/national training team could strengthen the training programme.

On a more general note, it was suggested that agroforestry should be part of school and university curricula in more fields i.e. agriculture, science, forestry, veterinary, etc.

19 "Normally training is done by ICRAF persons only, but local scientists should also be involved."

20 "The training programme in my country is well organized. It covers most of the target human resources, all national programmes are invited to participate and most have been involved. Information exchange is very good."

Question C2.3 Information Organization.

Give your opinion about ICRAF's information organization in terms of coverage, participation of national programmes, information exchange, etc. If you have any suggestions for improvement, please indicate below.

RESPONSES

While one respondent stated that the information service had very good coverage and access facility, others felt that it was inadequate and needs to be strengthened further, especially with regard to publicity of ICRAF's activities, the need to disseminate the information more aggressively, and coverage of the latest on-farm and on-station research findings.

One respondent felt that ICRAF has done well but could learn more from IRRI and CIMMYT. Another suggested that the technology for information management should fit low- to medium-capacity hardware, be compatible with local languages, and be accessible for agroforestry field workers in developing countries.

19 "There is a lot of exchange of information between ICRAF and local scientists."

20 "This area is good in terms of flow of information into my country. Apart from the D & D exercise only a small zone, there is little coverage and participation of national programmes in information/data collection and dissemination as part of ICRAF's Info agenda. This should be improved by establishing data collection in all areas and intensifying data collected from this zone."

2.2.3 QUESTION 3: ICRAF'S NEW STRATEGIC PLAN (1991-2001)

Question 3.1 New Organization, Structure, Operations and Programme

To which extent do you agree/disagree with the new organization structure, operation, and programme of ICRAF according to its new strategic plan. Please explain your assessment below with suggestions for improvement.

RESPONSES

The respondents gave a very high level of agreement with the new organization structure, operation, and programme of ICRAF. Respondents felt that the plan was an improvement, reflecting most of their national needs and expectations, and that it addresses all the issues that may otherwise hinder development. However, there was strong feeling that there is an urgent need to fully implement the proposed research activities.

Other comments on the strategic plan were that the focal point for activities in research and dissemination at the headquarters should be highlighted, and that emphasis should lie in 'environment characterization' and 'policy adoption and impact' on the research component and in the 'information/documentation' within the dissemination component. One suggestion for improvement was that ICRAF should respond to natural resource management problems, environmental sustainability, increased resource productivity and economic development.

There was concern that there should be greater coverage for research in a greater range of countries and that other activities should be established and developed in the regional office.

One respondent felt that, because of its work in agroforestry, ICRAF should be used as an advisor in any agricultural research.

19 "I think now ICRAF will expand its activities in many fields and there is a clear indication of what ICRAF wants to achieve in the future."

20 "By way of improvement it may be worth it to look at the possibility of hiring NARS on specific in-country projects, say of the AFRENAS, instead of sending a full-time ICRAF staff member to these sites. This tends to create a BRAIN DRAIN situation as all the good NARS scientists would/might eventually work for ICRAF and may not be available to their countries."

Question 3.2 Ecoregional Approach and Agroforestry Networks

To which extent do you agree with the ecoregionally based agroforestry research networks (the AFRENA's).

RESPONSES

The overall numerical response was to express a high level of agreement (3.7). Favourable comments about the ecoregional-basis was that it enables meaningful research to be conducted in each agroecological area and permits transferability of technologies within ecozones.

However, it was argued that the continents have diverse ecologies and these require location-specific solutions. Ecoregionally-based networks leave out some important ecozones/land-use systems, and networks should therefore either be ecozone or major land-use based.

One respondent reported that the major problem with the networks is their inability to readily exchange their innovations. Each network should address all technical issues in its region, by zone, in an area. Another felt that the ecoregional coverage is only given for the humid tropics, subhumid and semi-arid tropics, leaving other important regions which need specific attention, especially the arid tropics.

Finally, one respondent reported the lack of adoption of agroforestry by African farmers, and that research results hardly reach the end-user or the farmers. Data and information are available only in the national library where very few local researchers and extension officers could access. Therefore, in the area where researchers have been placed, the dissemination programmes for local organization should also be strengthened.

19 "Research from these areas has made very little impact on local farmers as the results obtained never reach the farmer. There is very little extension service. The results are best known by the scientists themselves. Some of these stations are in remote areas and ICRAF scientists are rotting there."

20 "There are distinct eco-regions and the responsibilities are clear. However, the transitional zones may be neglected and who is responsible must be made clear e.g. the zone between the SALWA and the HULWA is neglected."

Question 3.3 Interaction with NARS

How do you rate ICRAF's interactions with your organization during its last strategic planning exercise?

RESPONSES

Most respondents were moderately satisfied with interaction over the strategic plan (3.1). It was reported that ICRAF has improved its links with the national systems, which promised greater collaboration, but that there is still more scope for interaction and a need for more frequent visits by ICRAF scientists to inspect activities and meet national steering committees.

Complaints about procedure included that centres were not given enough notice to participate in discussions and reviews of their drafts.

Concerns about the plan were that it concentrated on the implementation of AFRENA project activities, that institutional integration-interaction should be increased, and that more emphasis should be put on the woody components than at present. It was also felt that institutional collaboration could remain restricted in its effectiveness due to undervaluation in the plan of institutional constraints, abilities, and mechanisms to promote and develop research.

19 "Very little contacts or involvement was made."

20 "Interactions with the NARS were good. However, a special session with the NARs before the planning exercise would have been useful. Obviously, ICRAF had a session with its staff before preparing the document for discussion. Such an exercise could be facilitated by ICRAF."

2.2.4 QUESTION 4: ICRAF'S STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS

Question 4.1 Major Strengths

What do you consider to be ICRAF's major strengths?

RESPONSES

ICRAF's main strength was perceived to lie with its body of well-trained, experienced staff, including high capacity and well-respected researchers, which give the institute a very good reputation. Also praised were ICRAF's leaders, who were considered strong and capable, active administration officers and regional coordinators. Scientists of international reputation employed by the ICRAF who have brought out books and other literature on agroforestry were also considered a major asset.

The centre's simple approach to national research needs, attachment of country projects to the national agricultural research systems, and the in-station research, which facilitates interaction with the national scientists, were considered its strongest points by some. Others commended the centre's regional coordination of research programmes and its selection of MPTs.

The information service, with the wealth of information/data on agroforestry, and the networks, built up in such a short time, were both considered to be important strengths. The centre's good transparency, determined outlook and vision of direction, the ecoregional approach to research, and its understanding and coverage of agroforestry was praised, as was its excellent relationship with funding agencies.

19 "ICRAF's strength lies in the fact that it may be the only organization trying to solve the problems of the poor people in developing countries."

20 "Leadership is excellent, has always been excellent. NARs are involved in many of their decisions in research, training and information. The leadership in the training programme is excellent and has led to great strides in agroforestry education in my country."

Question 4.2 Major Weaknesses

What do you consider to be ICRAF's major weaknesses?

RESPONSES

There was felt to be a lack of interaction with national institutions and an inability to fully integrate national scientists on a counterpart basis. This was emphasized by one respondent who reported that local scientists feel looked down upon, and by another who expressed the feeling that 80% of project money was 'taken away' by international staff and that donors' policy was to discourage national scientists. One respondent felt that there was a need to increase ICRAF's understanding/effectiveness to consolidate institutional issues through collaborative research activities.

A number of respondents cited research among ICRAF's weakness. There was a feeling that the working resources and budget were overcentralized and should be distributed to the zones; that scientists at ICRAF confined themselves mostly to writing and compiling books and other literature pertaining to agroforestry and that, consequently, little attention has been given to research; that there was a need to recruit 'nature' researchers; that no institutional infrastructure exists outside its headquarters, which renders ICRAF's long-term survival doubtful, and that the institute should have sub-centres in various regions and each sub-centre should have scientists of different disciplines and a good infrastructure like that of ICRISAT. However, one respondent said that it should be possible to collaborate more with NARS scientists, possibly through networks, rather than locating ICRAF staff in country.

It was also felt that headquarters staff and research scientists should reflect more ecoregional representation, and give more emphasis to dry land farming, which was critical in the sub-Saharan region, especially in eastern Africa. Inadequate replication of activities in the AFRENAs was also reported.

Weakness was also reported in the information dissemination mechanism, in training and in the link with extension services, which all lead to poor technical adoption rates. Some of ICRAF's database or application softwares were reported to have been distributed without enough support or further development. Staff in the field are placed in areas where there is no laboratory library, which is obviously not good for a scientist.

Other specific points were that implementation of the HULWA has been slow, that there was a high rate of man-power turnover, and that, although ICRAF was aware of scientists who created problems in another country, the institute took no action.

One respondent stated that national governments/policy makers knew little of ICRAF, and suggested that the centre should produce souvenir items, e.g. Caps and T-shirts, for visitors to the centre or for issue during ICRAF activities elsewhere.

2.2.5 QUESTION 5 - ICRAF'S CONTRIBUTIONS

Question 5.1

What are the major contributions ICRAF has made to your country through research, training and information dissemination?

RESPONSES

ICRAF was reported to have assisted in conducting a number of D&D exercises, identifying farming systems, priority areas for research and suggesting research agendas, some of which resulted in the implementation of agroforestry research.

Further, ICRAF had developed and disseminated good, simple and adoptable methods for identifying and conducting research (experimentation, biometrics; guidelines). The Centre was also felt to have: contributed to the establishment of research programmes in agroforestry; encouraged research involving MPTs; increased general awareness of environmental problems; increased tree planting in rural areas and the widespread of tree nurseries; and, by creating and maintaining interest in agroforestry, helped to initiate agroforestry course at the university. However, one respondent felt that research projects would be better left to national research scientists.

ICRAF's training programmes were felt to have been very useful, especially with regard to training in agroforestry research, computer technology, the D&D approach, and aid with training at MSc level, fellowships and internships. The provision of in-service training, several short courses and workshops for national researchers and extensionists, was also seen as a major contribution to national programmes, which in one case was felt to have helped to create a national working group in agroforestry.

The information services were also reported to have provided general information related to ICRAF and agroforestry, especially newsletters, (agroforestry today), training materials, books, reviews, data banks access (MPTs, bibliography, Info-Doc,) to big libraries, universities, extension workers, policy makers and local scientists. The provision of free publication to scientists was particularly welcomed.

To get the AFRENA (East and Central Africa) working and now linked with the national system. Regional workshops (network AFRENA).

Question 5.2

What would you recommend that ICRAF do to make larger contributions in research, training and information dissemination?

RESPONSES

One respondent replied that policies for improving ICRAF's programme depended largely on the outcome of Phase I above. Another felt that the budget should be increased in each of the areas.

It was felt that the contribution of the research agenda could be improved if the Centre more closely addressed national/institutional needs and constraints; increased collaboration with national scientists; strengthened and supported institutionalization of agroforestry; support institutional programmes besides the networks; increased the involvement of local personnel in identifying research needs; adopted more systems-oriented research; identified how to make the farmers use ICRAF findings and made sure the research outputs are utilized.

It was reported by a number of respondents that the training activities, especially research (degree, postgraduate and technical level) and information training, could be usefully scaled up, with appropriate backstopping based on country project activities. Additionally, the use of international scientists to strengthen formal educational programmes in national university, non-degree and in-service training programmes, and the use of a training specialist to create regional collaboration were recommended, as were the production of agroforestry curricula/training materials and the creation of a journal for SALWA.

Other, broader suggestions included: inviting scientists outside ICRAF projects to agroforestry annual reviews; reaching out to policy makers, especially through direct interaction with government/policy makers during workshops/study tours; and to establish new networks as soon as possible.

2.2.6 QUESTION 6 Additional Comments

In the space below, you are invited to add comments, observations, or recommendations concerning ICRAF's programmes, which may be useful to ICRAF, the External Review Panel and the Technical Advisory Committee of CGIAR.

RESPONSES

A respondent suggested that to facilitate the institutionalization of agroforestry ICRAF could support staff of NARS or educational/training institutions for short periods apart from those engaged in network research activities.

ICRAF and indeed CGIAR were commended for activities that are producing tangible results internationally. However, in view of the poor adoption rates of ICRAF's technology - it was suggested that ICRAF scientists should work with national extension systems right from the time of project planning up to implementation stage.

Some respondents stated that ICRAF should recognize nationals attached/seconded to the projects for better outputs and remove international staff that are causing trouble even if their contract is not yet completed.

Recruitment of trainees/participants to participate in training/seminar/workshop should be done through collaboration with National Agroforestry Working Group. Information and technology exchanges among regions are essential.

Agroforestry research has been in progress for quite some time and there is good scope for interaction between NARS scientists and ICRAF for dissemination of information to the developing countries. ICRAF being an international organization needs research thrust in other developing countries besides Africa. Apart from work in the 3 major agroecological zones - humid, subhumid and semi-arid tropics, ICRAF should give attention to arid desert regions and other problematic soils where potentials of agroforestry to contribute to productivity and sustainability in farming system is quite high.

A respondent stated that silvopastoral activities (technologies) should involve pastoral areas because environmental degradation (in its widest sense) is becoming rampant due to overgrazing, soil degradation, shortage of fuelwood etc.

19 "Some ICRAF scientists in the field are never visited by supervisors from headquarters and this makes some of them relax too much. Local scientists are too low-paid and that makes them lose the incentive to work. There is very little or no promotion for local scientists once they have joined national programmes under ICRAF. This is not good for individual scientists in the long-term."

20 "We are very happy with the work of ICRAF in our training programmes which are necessary to train the human resources which would handle the development of agroforestry. We would encourage ICRAF to continue in their efforts. The information programme has been excellent. The research agenda in general is good, but has to be established in this country. The Review Panel and TAC and the CGIAR should give every encouragement to ICRAF as agroforestry grows."

TABLE 1: ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF ICRAF'S ACTIVITIES, 1989-1991

	RESEARCH		TRAINING		PUBLICATIONS		WORKSHOPS		ALL ACTIVITIES
PROGRAMMES	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
1 Potential of Agroforestry for Soil Conservation	3.4	0.69	3.1	0.68	3.4	0.49	2.9	0.78	3.20	0.71
2 Multipurpose Tree (MPT) and Shrub Database	3.1	0.66	2.7	0.79	2.9	0.94	2.8	0.65	2.89	0.79
3 Genetic Improvement of Selected MPT Species	2.7	0.96	2.4	0.89	2.6	1.12	1.9	0.70	2.41	0.98
4 Agroforestry Alternative to Shifting Cultivation	2.9	1.08	2.7	0.96	2.9	1.09	2.6	1,11	2.80	1.07
5 Socioeconomic Aspects of Agroforestry and MPT Sp	3.1	0.83	2.9	0.85	3.1	0.70	2.9	0.93	3.02	0.83
Average	3.0	0.89	2.8	0.87	3.0	0.94	2.6	0.92	2.87	0.92

Scale: 4 = extremely valuable, 3 = moderately valuable, 2 = slightly valuable, 1 = not valuable at all

TABLE 2: ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF ICRAF'S ACTIVITIES, 1992- 2000

	RESEARCH		TRAINING		INFORMATION		ALL ACTIVITIES
PROGRAMMES	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
1 Environmental Characterization and Analysis	3.3	0.82	3.2	1.00	3.5	0.78	3.35	0.88
2 Multipurpose Tree Improvement & Management	3.7	0.58	3.6	061	3.7	0.68	3.65	0.63
3 Component Interactions	3.7	0.46	3.5	062	3.7	0.58	3.64	0.56
4 Systems Improvement	3.7	0.60	3.6	061	3.7	0.60	3.64	0.60
5 Policy, Adoption and Impact Analysis	3.1	0.83	3.0	1.00	3.1	0.83	3.10	0.89
Average	3 5	0.71	3.4	082	3.6	0.73	3.48	0.76

Scale: 4 = extremely valuable, 3 = moderately valuable, 2 = slightly valuable, 1 = not valuable at all

TABLE 3: ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF ICRAF'S RESEARCH PROGRAMMES, 1992 - 2000

		RESEARCH		TRAINING		INFORMATION		ALL ACTIVITIES
PROGRAMMES		mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
1 Environmental Characterization and Analysis
	1.1 Evaluating Land Resources	3.3	0.92	3.2	0.83	3.4	0.82	3.32	0.86
	1.2 Socioeconomic, ex ante Evaluation of Agroforestry System	3.5	0.59	3.4	0.65	3.6	0.67	3.45	0.64
	1.3 Environmental Consequences	2.9	0.79	2.7	0.92	3.2	0.71	2.93	0.84
2 Multipurpose Tree Improvement & Management
	2.1 Selection	3.6	0.70	3.5	0.61	3.6	0.60	3.58	0.64
	2.2 Evaluation	3.4	0.61	3.3	0.66	3.4	0.61	3.38	0.63
	2.3 Management	3.7	0.57	3.7	0.60	3.6	0.61	3.67	0.60
3 Component Interactions
	3.1 Above- and Below-Ground Competition	3.6	0.67	3.2	0.83	3.3	0.73	3.35	0.76
	3.2 Nutrient Cycling and Soil Fertility Enhancement	3.6	0.59	3.3	0.77	3.4	0.82	3.41	0.74
	3.3 Organic and Inorganic Input Management	3.5	0.59	3.4	0.60	3.6	0.59	3.51	0.60
	3.4 Soil Erosion Control on Sloping Lands	3.4	0.74	3.2	0.85	3.6	0.59	3.39	0.75
	3.5 Integrated Pest Management	3.4	0.58	3.2	0.68	3.5	0.67	3.35	0.65
	3.6 Livestock Feeding Systems using Fodder Trees	3.8	0.52	3.3	0.65	3.6	0.67	3.58	0.65
	3.7 Analysis of Mulch and Fodder Quality	3.2	0.61	3.0	0.75	3.4	0.67	3.21	0.70
	3.8 Modelling Component Interactions	3.1	0.81	3.1	0.78	3.0	0,82	3.06	0.80
4 Systems Improvement
	4.1 Agroforestry Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn	3.6	0.61	3.3	0.68	3.5	0.61	3.46	0.64
	4.2 Reclamation of Abandoned Lands Through Agroforestry	3.3	0.70	3.1	0.88	3.4	0.71	3.27	0.78
	4.3 Overcoming Land Depletion in Sub-Humid Savannas	3.3	0.92	3.1	0.90	3.2	0.98	3.18	0.94
	4.4 Overcoming Land Depletion in the Semi-arid Tropics	3.6	0.72	3.4	0.84	3.5	0.75	3.53	0.77
5 Policy, Adoption and Impact Analysis
	5.1 Policy Issues	3.2	0.91	3.0	0.89	3.3	0.79	3.18	0.88
	5.2 Adoption and Impact Issues	3.3	0.83	3.1	0.86	3.2	0.73	3.19	0.81
Average		3.4	0.74	3.2	0.79	3.4	0.73	3.35	0.76

Scale: 4 = extremely valuable, 3 = moderately valuable, 2 = slightly valuable, 1 = not valuable at all

TABLE 4: ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATION AND OF ICRAF'S STRATEGIC PLAN, 1992 - 2000

ATTRIBUTE			mean	sd
A: COLLABORATIVE MECHANISMS					Scale
1 NETWORKS
	1.1 Southern Africa AFRENA		3.7	0.47	4 = extremely valuable
	1.2 Eastern and Central Africa AFRENA		3.8	0.37	3 = moderately valuable
	1.3 Semi-arid Lowlands of West Africa AFRENA		3.9	0.35	2 = slightly valuable
	1.4 Humid lowlands of West Africa AFRENA		3.3	1.30	1 = not valuable at all
	1.5 Asia		3.0	1.22
	1.6 Latin America		3.3	0.83
2 COUNTRY PROJECTS
	2.1 Institutional Capacity Enhancement		3.0	0.82
	2.2 Human Resource Development		3.1	1 02
	2.3 Strengthening Research Activities		3.3	0.73
	2.4 Strategic and Long-Term planning		2.7	0.85
3 OTHER INSTITUTIONS
	3.1 IITA
		Research	2.9	1.14	4 = extremely beneficial
		Training	2.9	1.08	3 = moderately beneficial
		Information	2.9	0.57	2 = slightly beneficial
		Networks	2.5	1.20	1 = not beneficial at all
		Others	3.0	0.00
	3.2 ILCA
		Research	2.3	0.97
		Training	2.3	1.20
		Information	2.6	1.02
		Networks	2.1	1.25
		Others
	3.3 ICRISAT
		Research	2.7	1.03
		Training	2.4	1.41
		Information	2.4	0.70
		Networks	2.3	1.11
		Others	0.0	0.00
B: ICRAF'S NEW STRATEGIC PLAN
	Organization, structure, operation and programme		3.8	0.40	4 = completely agree
	Ecoregionally-based AFRENAs		3.7	0.58	3 = moderately agree
	Interaction over strategic plan		3.1	0.86	2 = slightly agree