4.1. Introduction
4.2. The Heritage of the Old WARDA
4.3. The Role and Mandate of WARDA
4.4. The Allocation of CGIAR Funding for Rice in West Africa
4.5. The Issue of Critical Mass
4.6. The Concept of an 'Open Centre'
4.7. Are there Alternatives to WARDA?
4.8. The Relationship with IITA
4.9. Recommendations of the Panel
WARDA can look back on a remarkably successful transformation, over the last four years, into a CGIAR international research Centre. The Review Panel has found it to be depoliticized, very well managed, with a programme that is soundly designed and holds out the prospect of a significant impact within a reasonable time horizon. It has put together a new, high-quality team of scientists. It has developed exceptionally good mechanisms for working with national systems. It has just moved into a new research station built on the most modern lines.
Yet WARDA has failed to attract the level of funding foreseen when the transformation process was started. It is true that all CGIAR Centres face financial problems. Nevertheless, those of WARDA are particularly severe. In this final chapter the Panel comments on what it believes to be the underlying causes of WARDA's financial problems, examines their implications, and advances some recommendations for the future.
It is possible that memories of the old WARDA are still acting as a brake on the readiness of a few donors to support the Association in its new form. The Panel hopes that its positive evaluation of WARDA will set any lingering doubts at rest. The future of WARDA should be decided on the merits of the Association as it now exists.
The proposals of TAC in 1990 for the long-term future of the CGIAR System mainly emphasized two complementary approaches: globally organized activities on a commodity or subject matter basis, and ecoregional activities with a broad multidisciplinary and multi-commodity coverage. TAC and the CGIAR are now in the process of clarifying the full scope of the ecoregional concept.
The role of WARDA has evolved substantially, and in the view of the Panel it will fit well into the emerging ecoregional approach. As pointed out in Section 2.6.2, the Association has incorporated sustainability as a central concern in its strategy. No formal change of mandate would appear to be required for WARDA to assume an ecoregional role in West Africa, in association with other centres.
WARDA's excellent mechanisms for cooperation with NARS should greatly help it to play an ecoregional role in due course. It is by no means sure, but it appears possible, that if ecoregional mechanisms are put in place they will involve formal representation of the NARS in the decision-making processes. WARDA is unique among the existing centres in having such representation already in place through its Council of Ministers. The Panel believes that past doubts concerning the long-term role of WARDA in the CGIAR System, which may to some extent have limited donor support, should be set aside.
Another mandate issue is the geographical coverage of WARDA in Africa. The Panel fully supports the view expressed by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of WARDA in a communication to the Panel Chair that the scientific output of WARDA should be made available to Africa as a whole. The Council Chairman also points out that under the WARDA Constitution membership is open to "all African States". In its draft Medium-Term Plan, WARDA foresees that the Task Force mechanism will respond to requests from scientists in East, Central and Southern Africa, and the Panel endorses this approach.
The broader issue of whether WARDA should be given a mandate for rice in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa is within the scope of the Inter-Centre Rice Review. For consideration by the Inter-Centre Review, the Panel wishes to express its feeling that the arrangements outlined in the preceding paragraph are satisfactory at the present stage. The question of a WARDA rice mandate for sub-Saharan Africa could be looked at in a few years' time in the light of future developments, including the degree of success of WARDA's programmes and the evolution of the CGIAR System as a whole. In the meanwhile the Panel understands that the two largest African rice-producing countries outside the WARDA region, Madagascar and Tanzania, both have long-standing direct relationships with IRRI.
Another element which has worked to inhibit WARDA funding is the perception that the allocation of CGIAR resources for rice in West Africa (i.e., the WARDA core budget) might be higher than the figure suggested by the formulae of TAC for calculating and defining system priorities. In its conclusions on future CGIAR priorities, TAC did, however, recommend that the CGIAR support "a minimum effort that has a reasonable chance of success". This is an issue that may be analyzed further by the Inter-Centre Review of Rice.
The Panel believes that the case for an international research programme on rice in West Africa is overwhelming - indeed, we have not seen it seriously questioned. West Africa is one of the world's major food-problem areas, and the demand for rice is more dynamic than that for any other food crop, including demand among the urban poor. The main question to be faced is not whether the CGIAR may or may not be over-funding rice research in West Africa, but whether the existing allocation is sufficient to fund a viable programme - in other words, does WARDA have the necessary critical mass for a CGIAR international research Centre?
The image of 'critical mass' comes from nuclear physics, where it can be precisely defined. No such scientific formula can be applied in the case of an agricultural research centre, and questions of judgment become, in the last resort, all-important.
In the opinion of the Panel, WARDA as a whole is very close to the level of critical mass, and in some respects may be already below it. This is an extremely serious and urgent situation, because if it is not speedily resolved the Panel believes that WARDA management will not be able to hold together the excellent scientific team which it has assembled. Nor will it be able to attract new staff of equal quality.
Several warning signs have been noted in earlier chapters of this report. Staffing has declined steadily, from 25 SSY in 1987 to 19 in 1991 and only 16 SSY in 1993. In mid-1993 WARDA is scheduled to withdraw staff support to the Mangrove Swamp Rice Programme due to lack of funding. The Sahel Programme is to be reduced from two core scientists to one in 1995 under the base and base +10% scenarios in the Medium-Term Plan. Training activities are being cut to the bone under core funding. WARDA has reduced salaries for a number of General Service positions, and is losing a few valuable staff members as a result.
In the face of the many uncertainties about the funding and future of WARDA, staff morale has so far held up extraordinarily well. Nevertheless, WARDA in January 1993 appears vulnerable. The Panel believes that a strong expression of support from TAC, the CGIAR and the donors is extremely urgent.
If the 1993 funding level brings WARDA so close to critical mass, the question inevitably arises of what would be the minimum human and financial resources for a sound programme. In earlier chapters the Panel has specifically drawn attention to the need to maintain at least two core scientists in the Sahel Programme, to restore the Training Officer post, and to strengthen administration. This would still leave a very small and vulnerable centre. As an order of magnitude, the Panel suggests that WARDA should have at least 20 senior staff to be fully viable. This should include at least ten core scientists in the Continuum Programme and three in the Sahel.
By way of comparison, the 1986 Mid-Term Review of WARDA put forward a very rough estimate that a West Africa rice research institute should have about 30 senior staff when fully operational. WARDA's Medium-Term Plan 1990-94 foresaw a build-up to 36 senior person-years. Such figures may appear over-optimistic in the stringent financial circumstances of the early nineties, but they still suggest that the down-sizing of WARDA has gone too far.
To some extent the limited human resources available to WARDA can be amplified by systematic efforts to develop WARDA as an open centre.
The idea of an open centre is by no means new in the CGIAR - indeed the ICRISAT Sahelian Centre is a striking example. The WARDA Medium-Term Plan proposes the development of an open centre, defining this as "a permanent institutional framework within which to attract, focus and facilitate the efforts of teams of collaborators working together in an integrated regional rice research programme". The Panel strongly endorses this approach.
The open centre concept should go beyond the idea of visiting scientists out-posted to WARDA, and should allow many possible variations on the relationship between host centre and collaborating institution. In some cases the institutions may expect to keep their identity, and a number of delicate compromises will be necessary. The collaborating institution has to adapt its programme to fit in with WARDA's requirements. WARDA in turn has to accept a lower degree of control than is possible with its own staff. The collaborating scientists have to reconcile the needs of both WARDA and their own institution. And WARDA has to be careful to carry the national systems with it in this process.
The practical result of the open centre approach should be a substantial increase in the number of (in the WARDA terminology) centre-based collaborating scientists. There could at the same time be an increase in the number of adjunct scientists, including researchers out-posted from NARS, and post-doctoral fellows.
Implementation of the open centre concept should permit WARDA to amplify the scope of its programme, but will also place demands on core staff. Without the necessary minimum of core scientists to manage a broadened programme, and to ensure continuity, the concept is meaningless. It can attenuate, but it cannot resolve, the problem of critical mass.
In view of the financial constraints of WARDA, the Panel has looked at possible alternative arrangements for supporting international rice research in West Africa through the CGIAR.
In theory, an alternative arrangement could be established by IRRI, IITA or both together. However, the penalties would be severe:
· the almost certain dispersion of the team assembled by WARDA, a hiatus in West African rice research possibly lasting several years, and a lack of continuity when it is resumed;· the disappearance of the 'WARDA model' for cooperation with NARS;
· a sense of betrayal on the part of national systems, which have cooperated with the CGIAR System in the transformation of WARDA along the lines agreed in 1986;
· considering that the WARDA Main Research Centre has not even been officially inaugurated yet, the sight of WARDA going out of business at this stage could only create an impression of irrationality in the CGIAR.
According to the Panel's calculations, if it were agreed by all concerned to operate the present WARDA programme as part of another CGIAR Centre and not as an autonomous organization, the savings which could be achieved are modest, and it is very doubtful if the high level of efficiency attained by the present WARDA management could be maintained. Finally, judging from comments it received during its visits to countries in the region, the Panel thinks it most unlikely that the WARDA Member States would agree to any such arrangement (the ultimate decision would rest with the Council of Ministers).
In the light of all these considerations, the Panel concludes that no alternative arrangement for rice research in West Africa under CGIAR auspices is worth considering at the present time.
If and when an ecoregional approach takes shape within the CGIAR System, IITA can be expected - as the oldest, largest and most broadly based centre in the region - to play a major role in West Africa. In considering the future of WARDA, it is necessary to look at the possible future course of its relationship with IITA. In the Panel's discussions with the two Directors General, and with staff of the two Centres, it has been impressed by the degree of openness to cooperation on both sides. The question of future relationships can be discussed in an objective manner, unencumbered by prejudices or apprehensions.
The Panel shares the views on inter-centre collaboration expressed in Section 4.7. of the report of the recent Programme and Management Review of IRRI. Traditional mechanisms for collaborative research between Centres have been of limited efficacy, and there is a need for "tapping fully the ingenuity of the Centres" in order to develop new organizational models for ecoregional activities.
In the particular case of WARDA-IITA relations, the Panel believes that the most fruitful approach will be based on joint projects, rather than on the consideration of mandates, or on ambitious plans for large-scale joint programmes. A joint project would have the following characteristics: it would involve a single project manager, acting on behalf of both Centres; it would be based on joint fund-raising and/or joint core funding; it would mobilize technical inputs from, and give appropriate credits to, both Centres.
The obvious area in which to develop a new form of collaboration would be inland valley ecosystems. Earlier in this report the Panel has emphasized the degree of complementarity between the activities of the two Centres. It would not require a big effort to move into a combined undertaking. In view of the good reception given by NARS to the WARDA Task Force approach, the idea of a Joint IITA/WARDA Task Force for Inland Valley Research in West Africa would seem worth considering.
At a later stage other areas may emerge as suitable for joint projects. Possibilities would be soil fertility management, erosion and run-off management in the uplands, and cropping systems for upland areas.
In a broad perspective of developing the ecoregional approach in West Africa, WARDA and IITA might at some point in the future consider setting up a Joint Steering Committee which might involve the Chairmen of the Programme Committees of the two Boards, managers from both Centres, and NARS leaders. The Joint Steering Committee would oversee the work of any Joint Task Forces and joint projects, and would have a broad mandate to foster cooperation between the two Centres.
If such an arrangement is to work, both Centres must feel that it is to their advantage. The attitude of the donors towards backing joint projects will be crucial.
In Chapter 2 the Panel has put forward recommendations for additional donor funding to WARDA's programmes. These should be seen as minimal measures in the context of critical mass, as analyzed above. In order to strengthen WARDA as a regional inter-governmental organization, the Panel believes that it is also necessary for the WARDA Member States to meet their target of contributing 5% of WARDA's operational funds, however difficult this may be in a period of economic crisis.
The Panel puts forward the following recommendations:
Recommendation 4.1.
TAC, the CGIAR and the donor community in general should reaffirm their support for WARDA, and their determination to keep it going as a viable international centre. Sympathetic consideration should be given to the specific recommendations in this report which would lead to strengthened support for WARDA programmes.
Recommendation 4.2.
The Panel invites the WARDA Member States, through the Council of Ministers, to take urgent steps to bring their contributions to the WARDA budget up to the target level of 5% of operating funds.
Recommendation 4.3.
WARDA should systematically promote the concept of an open centre, with a view to associating a broad range of institutions with its work.
Recommendation 4.4.
WARDA should take the initiative for developing a joint research project with IITA for inland valley ecosystems in West Africa.
