CGIAR ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, 2002 (AGM02) - DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS ON EXTERNAL REVIEW OF SP-IPM (EXCERPTED FROM “SUMMARY RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND DECISIONS”, AGM02)

External Review (EPR) of SP-IPM^[1]

iSC Chair Emil Javier presented the main points of the Systemwide-IPM Program (SP-IPM) review. The Panel endorsed the effectiveness of a coordinated, systemwide approach to IPM, because constraints and challenges faced on a regional and global scale cannot be met by individual researchers or by individual Centers. The Panel urged the continuance of the program and made several recommendations to strengthen the impact of SP-IPM. The recommendations included calls for SP-IPM to:

• take a more outward-looking approach in seeking international assistance and co-operation;

• more thoroughly analyze its taskforces to expand their potential global relevance;

• explore the complementarity among other Systemwide programs and Centers not included in SP-IPM as well as outside research institutes including NARS and ARIs; and

• add socio-economic and policy research as a major component of its program.

The review urged the CGIAR to upgrade the status of SP-IPM, so that the program might function as a “virtual Centre.”

CGIAR Secretariat · Mailing address: The World Bank, MSN G6-601, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA
Office Location: 1776 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202)473-8951 · Fax: (202)473-8110 · Email: [email protected] or [email protected]· Web site: www.cgiar.org

Interim SCIENCE COUNCIL

Emil Q. Javier, Chair

7^th October 2002

Dear Mr Johnson,

It is my pleasure to transmit to you the report of the First Review of the Systemwide Programme on Integrated Pest Management (SP-IPM). A two-member panel chaired by Dr. Andrew Gutierrez, USA conducted the Review over the course of the year 2001. The Panel Report was considered by the interim Science Council (iSC) at its 82^nd Meeting held at CIP, in Lima, Peru, in April 2002. The panel chair and panel member Hermann Waibel, Germany addressed the iSC via a tele-conference call.

The Panel Report is accompanied by two attachments. The first contains the iSC commentary, which summarizes iSC's views on the Panel Report and on the joint response from the convening centre, IITA and the SP-IPM Steering Committee. The second attachment is the joint response of IITA and the SP-IPM Steering Committee to the Panel Report.

In the context of this Review, the Council wishes to affirm the critical importance of IPM in sustainable production systems. A systemwide IPM programme is essential to the enhancement of IPM efforts across the centres. Over the past 10 years the IPM approach has become increasingly 'mainstreamed' within the centres, a very positive development in the Council's view and one which the SP-IPM has certainly contributed to. The iSC believes the SP-IPM should be supported to further enhance research on and adoption and use of IPM practices.

This is now the fourth systemwide programme reviewed by the iSC/TAC (SGRP, Ecoregional Approach and SLP were reviewed previously). Experience is now beginning to accumulate and suggests some lessons for ensuring success of these programmes, particularly those related to management structure. Indeed, like others within the Group, the iSC is considering how best to integrate and manage across the System centre core programmes, systemwide programmes and Challenge Programmes.

Yours sincerely,

Emil Javier

Institute of Plant Breeding, UP Los Baños, College 4031 Laguna, Philippines
Tel.: (63-49) 536-5285 · Fax: (63-49) 536-5286 · E-Mail: [email protected]

Interim Science Council Commentary on the First External Review of the Systemwide Programme on Integrated Pest Management (SP-IPM)

The interim Science Council (iSC) is pleased to accept the report of the first external review of the SP-IPM which was discussed at TAC 82/iSC in Lima in the presence of Dr. Peter Neuenschwander, SP-IPM Programme Leader and representative of the convening centre. The SP-IPM review panel chair, Dr. Andrew Gutierrez and panel member Dr. Hermann Waibel addressed the group through a teleconference call. The iSC wishes to thank Drs. Gutierrez and Waibel for undertaking this important review.

The iSC received a joint response to the review from IITA, the convening centre and the SP-IPM Steering Committee. A detailed report of a subsequent inter-centre IPM Working Group meeting in Quito, Ecuador has also been received. The iSC offers the following comments based on all three documents.

The iSC would like to re-iterate the following major points made by the panel and in the subsequent discussion which are timely and deserve highlighting in the context of this review.

• First, IPM is critical to sustainable production systems for human health, economic efficiency and NRM considerations. In its report, the panel has highlighted the increasing importance of IPM with respect to a number of developments worldwide, which are central to the CGIAR mission and strategy.

• Second, a systemwide IPM programme is very important to the enhancement of IPM efforts occurring in most centres. Over the past 10 years the IPM approach has become increasingly 'mainstreamed' within the centres, a very positive development in the Council's view and one which the SP-IPM has certainly contributed to.

• Third, in view of funding instability and uncertainty, a phenomenon experienced by many if not most of the SWPs, the iSC believes that core CGIAR support is critically needed for the SP-IPM to provide the “glue” to hold together the diverse activities of these highly effective systemwide programmes. This is discussed in more detail below.

The Council would also like to put on record its appreciation to the donors who have steadfastly supported this programme since its initiation in 1995, in particular the governments of Norway and Switzerland and to acknowledge the start-up funding from the CGIAR. There were many other donors that supported individual SP-IPM projects and activities.

The review report itself highlights some of the achievements of the SP-IPM to-date, underscores areas that need improvement and suggests a strategy for upgrading the programme for the future.

The panel has identified a number of positive results emerging from this systemwide programme, the most important of which is the improved communication among IARCs and their partners resulting in strengthened inter-centre cooperation in IPM research. The panel attributes much of this success to the dedication and commitment of the founding SP-IPM coordinator who helped foster good communication and collegiality among scientists from IARCs, ARIs and NARIs/NGOs. This, in turn, facilitated the process of developing a 'centre without walls', which is now apparent. The iSC believes these early initiatives reflect a commitment and a sincere desire for achieving SP-IPM objectives.

The panel also noted that some individual taskforces (the operational components of the SP-IPM) are operating well and was particularly impressed with the whitefly taskforce, citing this as an example of a model programme to achieve inter-centre leverage in tackling serious global pest problems. The Council concurs with this assessment although it would have liked to see a richer analysis and assessment of the activities, outputs and early impacts of this initiative^[2]. Although some outputs from this initiative are identified in the report, e.g., journal publications and book chapters, there are not many due to the limited duration of the project (initiated in 1997) and to the lack of procedures in place which identify the publications as those coming from the SP-IPM initiative. As such, the panel found it difficult to attribute specific research outputs to this or any other taskforce. The iSC recommends that in the future this be clearly designated.

While the report is generally very enthusiastic about IPM in general, there are several areas where improvements in the operation and management of SP-IPM are required. These relate to:

1. the specific objectives of the SP-IPM which only partially reflect the priorities laid out in the guiding principles and strategies adopted by the IARCs and the lack of a formal mechanism within SP-IPM for setting priorities;

2. insufficient attention to methodological questions;

3. the narrow disciplinary focus and, specifically, the lack of input from economists and other social scientists; and,

4. insufficient dialogue within and beyond the CGIAR - particularly in establishing and strengthening policy dialogue related to IPM.

While the panel attributes some of these shortcomings to the fact that the programme is just beginning and to the specificity of funding (a view confirmed in the joint response), the panel has identified some major issues here as well. To some extent the panel's recommendations address these issues.

The iSC agrees with the spirit of Recommendation # 1 particularly on the need and relevance of SP-IPM in the future. Given the dimensions of the global pest problem and its likely increasing importance over time, an inter-institutional mechanism must exist to capture the latent complementarities across the various research, extension and development organizations focusing on IPM. The Council is pleased to note that the SP-IPM intends to build on its existing partnerships and to increase its visibility and interactions outside the CGIAR. This has recently begun with the inclusion of new members to the Working Group in their recent meeting. The iSC agrees that greater emphasis should be made for the development of methodologies and cross-cutting science at an inter-centre level and that scientific output and other services from SP-IPM should be made available to as wide a range of clients as possible.

The Council endorses Recommendations #2, #3 and #4 of the panel. The need to more thoroughly analyse SP-IPM taskforces with respect to the scope and extended problem definition is related to the need for greater focus, systematic priority setting and an appropriate strategy for implementation. The iSC is pleased to note that the SP-IPM has already taken steps to re-organize its taskforces into thematic groups away from fund seeking for special projects to more pro-active assistance in decision-making processes involving wider stakeholder groups, with sunset clauses to ensure continued relevance and viability. The number of individual taskforces within SP-IPM has also been reduced at the inter-centre meeting.

The panel emphasised the need for more interaction between SP-IPM and other SWPs and particularly with IFPRI on policy analysis and ISNAR on managing policy change through partner institutions and, the need for greater expertise and use of GIS and modelling work. On the latter point, there is a need to enhance the technological basis of research and implementation in IPM at IARCs. This ties in to an observation of the panel about the quality of research outputs in the SP-IPM, The panel noted insufficient “research quality enhancement effect” through SP-IPM. While the Council is aware of research spillover benefits within the SP-IPM, e.g., the influence of the whitefly taskforce on approaches used in the other taskforces, it nevertheless urges the SP-IPM to focus more strongly on publishing the results of its work in high quality refereed journals jointly with key participating institutes wherever possible.

The Council agrees that the lack of input from economists in the research design and analysis stages and on broader policy related issues remains one of the weaknesses of the SP-IPM to-date. The panel has identified three specific areas where economists could play a key role in upgrading the capacity of the SP-IPM: in economic crop loss assessments, linked to re-assessing priorities for the programme; in policy analysis (effects of distortions in crop protection policy); and in impact assessment (and methodology development). The Council concurs with the panel's assessment in this area and also emphasizes an equally important need to bring in a stronger social analytical basis to IPM, particularly to address areas such as collective action - so critical to success in IPM.

The iSC agrees with the first part of Recommendation # 5, on the need to elevate and enhance IPM in the CGIAR, that it should be a more visible part of its agenda. With respect to the creation of a 'virtual IPM centre' for organizing and managing the SP-IPM for the future, the Council does not support the virtual centre as proposed by the panel. The current SP-IPM members have much of their interaction already in virtual mode and iSC encourages the programme to make more use of all available technology.

The iSC agrees that the SP-IPM programme leader and co-ordinator positions are crucial for the future development of SP-IPM within the CGIAR and its co-operation with non-CGIAR Centres and ARIs. However, given the systemwide nature of this programme and issues related to governance, the iSC recommends maintaining the programme leader and coordinator within the CGIAR system. Indeed, the panel was quite positive about the previous co-ordinator's ability to make genuine strides toward developing a 'centre without walls' and in fostering good communication and collegiality amongst scientists from the IARCs, ARIs and NARIs/NGOs. A consideration perhaps overlooked by the panel is the need to work within legal and operational mandates of Centres and their partners if policy changes and field-level implementation and impact are to be achieved.

While the iSC concurs with the panel's view on the need for making the SP-IPM work more effectively across centre mandate boundaries, helping focus systemwide IPM research priorities and facilitating the solution of regional and global pest problems, the panel does not provide compelling evidence that re-structuring alone can do that. If, for example, funding has been and remains the key constraint to more effective system-level research in the SP-IPM, moving the Secretariat outside of the convening centre structure will not make it any more effective. The iSC does not share the panel's view that the SP-IPM had limited visibility and effectiveness as a result of placing the SP-IPM Coordinator's position “deep within hierarchy of the convening centre”. While IITA certainly gained from its involvement in SP-IPM, the same should be said of many other collaborators in the programme. Indeed, mutual gain is one of the main purposes of systemwide programmes. Furthermore, the largest effort in this systemwide programme, the whitefly global project, is led by CIAT and the newly emerged leaf miner project is led by CIP.

With respect to the future management structure of the SP-IPM, the iSC endorses the following structure proposed by the SP-IPM Working Group recently^[3]:

• the chair of the SP-IPM Steering Committee would be a DG or DDG of one of the participating CGIAR centres, on a 2-3 year rotating basis;

• the SP-IPM Coordinator position would stay within the participating institutions as long as it remains a systemwide programme;

• virtual methods and coordination for communication with partners to be used to the optimal extent;

• in order to ensure stability to the SP-IPM, minimum financial support to cover facilitation costs should be provided by the CGIAR on an on-going basis subject to performance review of the systemwide programme;

• the centres accept SP-IPM as a research partner with full partnership status in publications.

The SP-IPM shares several management structural problems with all systemwide programmes. The iSC suggests that budget line items for any CGIAR (core) support be shown as a separate line item in the coordinating centre budget and that any contribution to the SP-IPM be indicated in the budgets of each participating centre. The systemwide programme coordinator should present an aggregate annual budget and an aggregate rolling workplan as part of the normal MTP process. This would provide not only programme accountability, but greater visibility. And it would greatly enhance effectiveness of programme review and impact assessment.

Notwithstanding some of the constraints and limitations of the programme to-date, it is evident that the SP-IPM has accomplished a number of achievements thus far, chief of which appears to be the excellent rapport and working interactions amongst members of the SP-IPM. The iSC believes the essential groundwork has been laid for achieving complementarities and synergies amongst partners within this programme. As such, the iSC considers that SP-IPM continues to be an important systemwide programme and needs to be supported to further enhance adoption and use of IPM practices.

Finally, the iSC commends the partners for their rapid and very thorough response at the recent inter-institutional IPM Working Group meeting to a number of the key issues raised.

Annex

iSC Commentary on Additional Items in the Terms of Reference of the Review

While the panel had addressed a number of major issues in the report and covered some of the TOR quite adequately, the iSC noted that other specific elements of the TOR for this review were not addressed in enough depth, as discussed below. These are summarised for SP-IPM programme leadership action and for attention in future reviews.

While the panel has emphasized the need for greater internal coherence of the CGIAR research portfolio as a pre-condition for SP-IPM to perform its role effectively, the question of how effective SP-IPM has been in achieving a more coherent agenda for IPM in the CGIAR is not clearly addressed in the report, nor what has been the added value in scientific terms, over and above what participants would have achieved independently. This, of course, relates to TOR 2.2 (a), which in the Council's view has not been addressed fully.

Further, the panel concludes that SP-IPM has been a useful concept for restructuring pest management research and implementation across the CGIAR. The Council would have liked to see more evidence of this in the report. While agreeing that the SP-IPM is a useful concept, it is not shown clearly enough that the SP-IPM has had a major impact - much less a restructuring effect - on IPM research in the CGIAR System at large. The report does not discuss the extent to which other IPM research being done by CGIAR and non-CGIAR centres has been influenced by or integrated into this programme.

While it is true that the limited time frame of its operation represents a constraint, it must be recognized that the SP-IPM has received funding since 1996 and any lessons that could be learned with respect to constraints in securing funding for a topic that is obviously of high priority would be extremely useful. While the panel mentions a failure to secure adequate funding for various reasons, those reasons are not identified in the report. The convening centre's response also highlights the atmosphere of very weak funding for SP-IPM but without indicating possible reasons why.

The treatment of governance aspects of the programme (TOR #4) and its overall effectiveness with respect to accountability, decision-making, reporting structure, etc., is extremely brief in the report. The iSC is pleased to see, however, that this was a topic addressed in considerable detail at the last inter-centre IPM Working Group meeting which has resulted in a more formal operational and governance structure. The iSC also endorses this new structure.

The analysis of the two taskforce projects, the whitefly and parasitic plant management, were handled quite differently. The whitefly project is treated very briefly, without a description of research activities undertaken, major objectives, critical results, etc. This is unfortunate since it is clearly the most successful of the taskforces and is perhaps in the best position to be documented and from which valuable lessons could be drawn. Even though there was little discussion, the panel considered this a model project. The discussion of the parasitic plant management project is descriptive, presumably because it is still in the early phases of implementation. While there were clearly some positive dimensions to this work, e.g., farmers were actively involved, there were also a number of weaknesses pointed out by the panel, e.g., data insufficient for rigorous analysis (p. 20), management issues (p. 27) that need attention. More generally, for either taskforce, there were no conclusions drawn out on the major benefits from using the SP-IPM concepts compared with other crop protection projects running in the Centres. This would provide the critical evidence for continuing with this concept in the future.

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
(Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research)
Postal Addresses: Via UK: IITA c/o L.W. Lambourn & Co., Carolyn House, 26 Dingwall Road, Croydon CR9 3EE, England
Via US: IITA, POB 025443, Miami, FL 33102, USA

28 March 2002

Dr. Emil Javier
Chair
Science Council
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Food & Agriculture Organization
00100 Rome, Italy

Dear Emil:

Please find enclosed IITA's response to the Systemwide Integrated Pest Management External Program and Management Review. Comments from the 13 participating international centres (11 from the CGIAR) have been incorporated in the present response. Because of the limited time available to us since receiving the final report we have not been able to consult fully with all members of the Board. Therefore this response represents only the views of IITA management and their SP-IPM partners. The next meeting of me IITA Board only takes place in June 2002.

We will carefully analyze the various recommendations and suggestions together with the IITA Board and will ensure to make the best use of them. In this sense IITA's response (attached) represents only initial comments and responses to the recommendations.

We would like to take the occasion to thank the authors of the report, Profs. Andrew P. Gutierrez and Hermann Waibel, for stimulating discussions and challenging recommendations. We hope this review will help SP-IPM to better coordinate its activities and serve its clients, the producers, extension agents, and scientist colleagues in the national programs. But foremost, this review should help us to stimulate and orient research and implementation in IPM from the different CGIAR centres and other international research institutions, and to better link with the FAO Global IPM Facility, the IPM Forum, the Pesticide Action Network, and the Global Crop Protection Federation, which are all joined in the Inter-Center Working Group on IPM, which is led by SP-IPM.

We thank our colleagues who, at different levels, participated in the review and responded to various drafts, for their contribution, and to the CGIAR for organizing the review.

Sincerely

Dr. Peter Hartmann
Director General

Copy: Dr. Enrico Porceddu, IITA Board Chair