CGIAR ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, 2003 (AGM03)

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)

External Programme and Management Review of IPGRI^[1]

Panel Chair Michael Gale presented the findings of the EPMR Panel and acknowledged members of the Panel. He noted that it was a positive review, reflecting considerable achievements and expansion with a background of significant change in technologies, including genomics, bioinformatics, geographic information systems (GIS), etc. The Panel looked at staffing issues, the Centre’s mandate, and also reviewed its strategic planning processes. The Panel believes the Centre is on the right track but will take time to mature.

He noted that a stakeholder survey was also conducted. General support was shown from its constituencies, however most felt that they did not have adequate access to the research priority setting agenda and participation in research and training.

Other recommendations in the review included:

• Develop a more formal and transparent planning and decision making process.

• Designate a key senior individual to focus on fundraising.

• Ensure the Board’s governance role by establishing a more formal relationship between the Board and management.

• Financial oversight needs to be emphasized.

The Panel also concluded that the Centre plays an "honest broker" role, a new name should be explored, the Centre’s mandate should possibly be extended beyond plants provided it can find the right lead partner, but not necessarily beyond genetic resources. The need to maintain balance as the Centre has expanded should continually be addressed as well.

IPGRI Board Chair Benchaphun Shinawatra Ekasingh thanked the panel for a constructive review and the iSC for its supportive commentary. She also conveyed thanks to IPGRI staff for contributing to a good review. She stated that IPGRI accepts all of the report’s recommendations and is committed to implementing them.

IPGRI DG Emile Frison paid tribute to former DG Geoff Hawtin, IPGRI staff, and the Panel for an analytical and comprehensive review and the numerous valuable recommendations. He listed some of the Centre’s actions to date in response to the review recommendations. He also noted that several of the recommendations that concern long term strategic issues will be part of the upcoming strategic planning exercise and/or have already been addressed. The Centre sees the report as an endorsement of the Centre’s mission and an endorsement of its way of working as an innovator, a catalyst, and facilitator of partnerships and honest broker.

ExCo Recommendations to the CGIAR

Marina Puccioni presented ExCo’s recommendation, as follows:

• ExCo recommends that the CGIAR endorse the recommendations of the IPGRI External Review.

The main discussion points were as follows:

• Members commended the report for its clear and limited number of recommendations.

• Some disagreement with Recommendation 5 was expressed with regard to the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the concern that the Centre will play an advocacy role rather than maintain its role as an honest broker of plant genetic resources (PGR).

• Concern was also expressed about implementation of international treaty and material transfer agreements and to whom and how organizations report, i.e. to their individual boards or to the general assemblies of such bodies.

• Agreement with the recommendation for the mandate to be extended beyond plants was also voiced.

IPGRI’s DG responded that he agrees that the Centre should maintain its status of honest broker and that IPGRI does not intend to become an advocate promoting the spread of GMOs. On comments on expanding the mandate, the Centre has decided to hold broad consultations for the development of the new strategy and in that process, it will decide in which areas to expand beyond plants. He noted that decisions on international agreements are taken by the Centre in the context of whether they are helpful to the System.

Decision

The Group endorsed ExCo’s recommendation, and agreed that ExCo should request the Centre to follow up with action on individual recommendations of the EPMR.

25 August 2003

Dear Ian,

We are pleased to submit to you the Report of the Fifth External Programme and Management Review of IPGRI, conducted by a Panel chaired by Dr. Mike Gale of the John Innes Institute, UK. The Review Report and IPGRI's Board and Management Response to the Report were discussed by iSC at its 84^th Meeting at FAO in Rome, Italy, in June 2003. The Panel Chair made his presentation at the plenary session. The Centre was represented by Dr. Benchaphun Shinawatra Ekasingh, Board Chair; Dr. Geoffrey Hawtin, Director General; Dr. Emile Frison, DG Designate; and other members of senior management.

The Report of the Panel is accompanied by two attachments. The first contains the Response of IPGRI to the Panel Report. The second is the iSC Commentary, which summarizes iSC's reaction to the Panel's Report and to the Response of IPGRI's Board and Management.

We believe that the Panel carried out a very thorough and analytical review of IPGRI's programmes and management. The Report is highly complimentary of IPGRI’s many achievements and the Centre was found to be steadily growing in terms of finances, staff and programmes. It also noted that the steady growth in programmes has to be matched by appropriate adjustments in the Institute’s governance and management systems and procedures. We consider the Report’s 12 recommendations and additional suggestions useful for IPGRI. The iSC and System Office (SO) are pleased to see IPGRI’s very positive response to the EPMR Report and that the Centre is in agreement with all of the Panel's recommendations and has already taken action to address them.

The iSC endorses the overall conclusion of the Panel, that IPGRI has a very relevant and unique role in genetic resources research as an honest broker. It is important for IPGRI to remain efficient and focused when it faces opportunities for expansion. The iSC and the SO believe that this Report provides strong assurance to the donors and stakeholders that their continuing future support to IPGRI is worthwhile.

Finally, we wish to acknowledge the dedication and leadership of IPGRI’s Director General, Dr. Geoffrey Hawtin. The good health of the Centre owes much to his outstanding commitment, which goes beyond IPGRI and across the CGIAR System.

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]

iSC Commentary on the Fifth External Programme and Management Review of IPGRI

The Report of the Fifth External Programme and Management Review (EPMR) of IPGRI was discussed at iSC/TAC 84 at FAO, Rome, Italy in the presence of the Panel Chair, Dr Mike Gale, the Chair of IPGRI’s Board of Trustees, Dr Benchaphun Shinawatra Ekasingh, IPGRI DG, Dr Geoffrey Hawtin, IPGRI DG designate, Dr Emile Frison, and other members of IPGRI senior management. The interim Science Council (iSC) expresses its appreciation to Dr Mike Gale and his Panel for an extremely thorough, analytical and very readable report which offers validation of IPGRI’s many areas of excellence, and numerous recommendations for further progress.

The iSC is pleased to note the very positive response from the IPGRI Board and management and it appreciates the commitment shown by the Centre in pursuing to implement the recommendations of the Panel. The Panel has carefully assessed IPGRI’s work in the light of the recommendations of the Fourth EPMR. In general IPGRI has diligently implemented the recommendations, a few of which have been outdated and a few deserving continued attention.

The Report of the 5^th EPMR contains twelve key recommendations. It is rich in useful suggestions in the various chapters and gives due recognition to the many achievements of the Centre. The iSC broadly endorses the Panel’s recommendations and provides the following commentary, which was prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat to complement the Report.

Introduction

IPGRI grew significantly during the period under review. In terms of funding it increased its annual budget from US$19.6 million in 1997 to an estimated US$28.9 million in 2003. In terms of staffing there was a 73 % increase from the beginning of 1997. IPGRI has also spread its activities, and recently moved from limited quarters in Rome centre to new offices in Maccarese. The Centre is foreseeing continued growth based on demand for services and funding opportunities.

Emphasis has moved towards use of germplasm, as reflected in growing attention to in situ germplasm conservation and management and genetic resources policy work. International negotiations and agreements have required input in policy. Developments in bioinformatics and modern biology have offered a niche for IPGRI to excel in database development with multiple applications.

IPGRI programme organisation has several dimensions: it consists of three major programmes, 20 multidisciplinary projects, including regional ones, and eight strategic areas cutting across the projects. The Panel evaluated IPGRI’s activities by looking at genetic resources research, policy research, regional programmes and support activities separately. The iSC finds this approach suitable. Addressing the genetic resources research activities as they correspond with the activity areas of the Global Plan of Action is helpful for illustrating how IPGRI’s work links with the internationally agreed goals. Research on forest genetic resources, an activity area that falls outside the GPA, has received due attention from the Panel.

This IPGRI EPMR provides a very useful example of self-assessment feeding into an external review. IPGRI has used the CCER mechanism systematically across its entire project portfolio, including reviewing two activity areas twice between the 4^th and the 5^th EPMR The Panel made use of 13 CCER reports and an audit on human resource management practices. The iSC believes that the positive observations of the CCERs and suggestions for improving them by revising their Terms of Reference are beneficial for IPGRI and other CGIAR Centres in further developing their self-assessment mechanisms.

Mission, Strategy and Priorities

The iSC agrees with the Panel’s observation that IPGRI’s original mandate to advance the conservation and use of genetic diversity is still valid. In fact this mandate allows expansion of the activities to exploit opportunities posed by demand and scientific advancement. In its current situation of continuing growth, IPGRI’s challenge is to keep itself focussed on areas where it is likely to excel and achieve impact.

IPGRI’s institutional strategy was last revised in 1999 and since then the Centre has engaged in and completed strategic planning for many activity areas and regions. IPGRI will begin a new institutional strategic planning exercise as the first activity to be led by the Centre’s incoming DG. The timing for the 5^th EPMR was optimal to support the change in leadership, and the iSC is pleased to note that IPGRI will make full use of the report’s wealth of analysis and suggestions in this exercise.

As a highly decentralised institution, IPGRI has the challenge to align its regional priority setting with global priority setting and with the priorities of other plant genetic resources networks. The iSC agrees with the Panel’s suggestion to bring more clarity to priority setting and to what is expected from projects and individual scientists in terms of balance among different kinds of activities and outputs. It is important to add impact factors to priority setting. The Panel’s notion that project approval mechanisms ought to be very clear is also valid.

The iSC joins the Panel in urging IPGRI to make strategic choices by identifying a few research areas of high priority where the Centre has clear comparative advantage and opportunities to excel at the world level. In agreement with the Panel, the iSC encourages the Centre to set its targets for success and recognition high, striving for global leadership in one or two key areas, and vigorously pursue those targets together with its research partners. The iSC acknowledges the need for IPGRI to remain engaged and relevant in many areas that are important for genetic resources conservation and use. However, the prospects of increasing funding have and will increase the temptation to move to many different areas of activity, including regional, even national activities focused on development that could lead to undesirable dispersal of efforts.

There are many opportunities for IPGRI to expand its activities beyond its traditional mandate of plant genetic resources. IPGRI’s expertise in areas such as conservation technology, database management, characterization and policy applies to all kinds of genetic resources, and the interactions between plant and other genetics resources offer interesting new dimensions to conservation. The iSC agrees with the Panel’s assessment that IPGRI should be open to collaboration with leading institutions other than plant genetic resources. The Centre should, however, not shift its focus from plant genetic resources where it has a clear comparative advantage.

The iSC greatly values the Panel’s conclusion that IPGRI has an image of an honest broker among its stakeholders. IPGRI is not considered as a competitor to research and development institutions working with similar mandates, but rather as an institute catalysing, assisting and complementing them in their work. This image of honest broker is strengthened by the quite unique mode of operation IPGRI has adopted. It has no laboratories of its own and works on a partnership mode through collaborative research projects and networks. Much of the Centre’s output comes from catalysing research and initiating and supporting networks. The iSC considers IPGRI’s network model optimal, particularly for the commodities like Musa, coconut, cacao and date palm. IPGRI needs to be cautious for not accumulating responsibility for these kinds of operations beyond what is optimal for its mission. This operational model could, however, be considered more widely in the CGIAR as a template for work with commodities and themes which do not warrant a full-fledged breeding or research programme within the CGIAR itself.

Research Achievements and Impact

The iSC commends IPGRI for its good performance of which the Panel found ample evidence. The Panel relied much on the CCERs assessments of specific project activities and achievements. It also conducted a stakeholder review to collect impressions on IPGRI’s performance and relevance. In general the Panel in its own assessment verified the positive conclusions of the CCERs about IPGRI’s productivity and the high quality of its work.

IPGRI is commended for its publishing record in ex situ genetic conservation research, for advancing well in the area of complementary conservation and use, for initiating innovative work on in situ conservation and research on crop wild relatives and in forest genetic resources. The iSC notes with satisfaction that IPGRI has produced valuable work, substantive and methodological, for integrating socio-cultural variables, and identifying indigenous farmers’ knowledge in its research and recommendations on plant genetic resources; leafy vegetables in Africa being one example. IPGRI has also had significant input and been highly visible in the international policy fora, including the negotiations preceding the International Treaty for on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

IPGRI’s commodity focus has grown beyond the INIBAP Musa projects to include coconut, cacao, date palm, tropical fruits and a number of neglected and underutilised crop species. One of IPGRI’s major achievements includes facilitation of many effective networks for these commodities.

IPGRI’s support to the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme receives very high marks. Efforts for upgrading CGIAR genebanks, formulating common policies and developing the "gold standard" for germplasm and information management are highly appreciated across the System. The iSC agrees with the Panel that the SGRP provides a useful forum that should be open to genetic resources professionals outside the CGIAR. IPGRI’s achievements in developing the SINGER database for serving the entire genetic resources community of practise and its instrumental role in initiating the Global Conservation Trust have been laudable and brought the Centre global visibility in partnership with the FAO.

In information and capacity strengthening, the evidence provided by two CCERs, the stakeholder survey and studies done by IPGRI itself indicate good productivity and impact. The iSC would have liked to see a more detailed assessment of IPGRI’s performance in these very important areas of activity that cut across all other Centre projects.

IPGRI has adopted some innovative mechanisms that may impact positively in quality assurance. It employs Honorary Fellows who have had considerable impact on IPGRI’s record of scientific publications and it provides small pilot grants for encouraging innovative ideas, which is unique in the System.

The iSC considers the "measures of esteem" used by the Panel as indicators of professional staff quality suitable for this kind of an institute. In addition to publications, indicators such as students supervised and lectureships give an indication of contacts with academic institutions and recognition of staff by peers outside. The iSC encourages IPGRI to seek ways of encouraging scientific opportunity and contacts for staff that are heavily involved in administration so that they may remain current in their fields. Management also needs to clearly communicate to staff what kinds of outputs are expected from them.

Governance and Management

The iSC agrees with the Panel’s general conclusion about IPGRI governance and management reflected in the Recommendations 10 and 11, that the continuing growth requires that the Board and Centre management adopt more formal mechanisms for their operations and interaction, including exchange of information, lines of accountability and division of duties between different management levels and governing bodies.

Institutional Issues

The Main Phase of the IPGRI EPMR occurred at the same time as the work of the ISNAR restructuring team. Although not part of their Terms of Reference, the EPMR Panel gave some thought to an alternative proposing a merger between these two institutes. Certain areas of potential synergy between IPGRI and ISNAR were identified in the Report. The iSC is, however, strongly of the opinion that in terms of most programmatic elements, these two Centres are far apart, and therefore an institutional merger between ISNAR and IPGRI should not be an option. IPGRI has a clear mission and mandate within which it needs to prioritise and focus its actions to the most relevant areas of research. The Centre is facing enormous challenges with the changing science and global environment for germplasm conservation and use. Broadening its mandate to include very different areas of activity would not be desirable.

In a follow-up to a recommendation by the 4^th EPMR, the Panel makes a strong recommendation to complete the integration of INIBAP to IPGRI. The iSC agrees with this recommendation, believing that there are synergies to be achieved in the regions and through institutional arrangements that should not be missed. At the same time it is important to capitalize on the positive image of IPGRI’s Musa Programme and secure the visibility of the work on bananas and plantains. Regarding genetic modification of banana and other crops, the iSC agrees with the Panel that IPGRI should articulate and obtain Board approval of a clear strategy for obtaining public support for any introduction and field testing of GM crops in the environment. The iSC joins the Panel in strongly encouraging IPGRI and IITA to pursue common interests and synergies in collaborative Musa research and commends the Centres for the steps they have been taking toward this goal.

Conclusion

The iSC congratulates IPGRI for the excellent assessment it has received from the EPMR Panel. IPGRI has maintained positive development of its resource base during difficult times which is a reflection of donor trust in IPGRI’s continued relevance, fulfilling an important mission. The iSC believes that this Report provides strong assurance to the donors and stakeholders that their continuing support to IPGRI in the future is well placed.

Emil Javier
Chair, Interim Science Council
SDRC Research, Extension and Training Div.
FAO

28 March 2003

Dear Emil

Please find attached the response of the Board and Management of IPGRI to the institute’s 5^th External Programme and Management Review.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the iSC Secretariat for making the arrangements for this review. We found it to be positive, thorough and forward looking. We would also like to thank the Panel, and in particular the Chair, Mike Gale for an excellent job. The recommendations and suggestions in the report are very much welcomed by IPGRI and we have already taken steps towards implementing many of them.

With our best regards.

Benchaphun Shinawatra Ekasingh
Chair, Board of Trustees

Geoff Hawtin
Director General

Emile Frison
Director General Designate

Response of IPGRI’s Board of Trustees and Management to the report of the Centre’s Fifth External Programme and Management Review

1. IPGRI’s Board and Management expresses its sincere thanks to the Panel and wishes to place on record its appreciation for the very constructive and analytical approach the Panel took towards its task. The review was comprehensive, forward-looking and addressed the major issues facing the Centre as it moves into a new phase of its existence. The Panel demonstrated an excellent appreciation of the highly complex and rapidly changing environment in which IPGRI operates, and through its recommendations and many valuable suggestions, has contributed substantially to our on-going efforts to position IPGRI for the future.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

2. We are delighted that the Panel recognizes the importance of IPGRI’s mission and that we are "set to remain at the centre of one of the most important efforts mankind is making to ensure the long-term sustainability of the planet". We fully share this perspective.

3. We are very pleased to note the strong endorsement of the Panel for the way IPGRI conducts its business. IPGRI does not operate as a "conventional" Future Harvest Centre in that it has no fields or laboratories of its own, but seeks to catalyze, promote, support and backstop the work of others. Partnerships are a central feature of IPGRI’s programme and we have made substantial progress in institutionalizing our partnership arrangements. We are happy that the Panel conducted a thorough review of this and gave a positive endorsement of our efforts, recognizing the value and effectiveness of operating as an "honest broker". The partner survey conducted by the Panel has provided some useful feedback and justifies additional analysis that will undoubtedly help IPGRI to further strengthen its partnerships in the future.

4. We are also very pleased with the Panel’s assessment of the quality of our work, and in particular of the science we are conducting. Operating in the way we do, the impression is sometimes created that IPGRI is not involved in research but is in effect purely a technical support organization. While support to the national programmes is our main raison d’être, we strongly believe that in order to be effective in this we need to be at the forefront of science. The Panel has cited many examples of where this is the case and indeed noted that IPGRI is "a world leader in its field and its scientists command the respect of their peers". We recognize that maintaining this scientific credibility is essential to our modus operandi. Furthermore, many of the difficult problems confronting the conservation of genetic diversity, and its use as a tool for social and economic development, require the application of the very best that science has to offer.

5. We agree with the Panel, that many of IPGRI’s management structures and procedures have not kept pace with the rapid growth of the institute, and that some adjustment is needed to best position IPGRI for the further growth anticipated. The relatively informal structures that served the institute well when we had a staff of about 100 and an annual budget of $19 million, as was the case at the start of this review period, are less appropriate now that we have nearly 280 staff members in 27 countries and an annual budget approaching $30 million.

6. We would also like to underscore the point raised by the Panel concerning the negative effects on IPGRI of a declining percentage of our income being unrestricted. While our total budget has increased substantially, unrestricted funding has declined. This has put considerable stress on a number of aspects of IPGRI’s work that have traditionally been covered from such sources and for which it is hard to secure restricted support. IPGRI joins the Panel in calling on the donor community to bear this in mind when allocating resources to the Centre.

7. With the completion of this external review and the appointment of a new Director General, this is clearly an appropriate time for IPGRI to embark on a new strategic planning exercise. Thus we intend to initiate a process very soon of looking anew at our programme priorities and the strategies by which we address them. This will involve extensive consultations with a large number of partners, from all those stakeholder groups that have a role in helping to set our agenda. The planning exercise will build further upon the Global Plan of Action, which itself was developed though a highly consultative process in which IPGRI was heavily involved. It is intended to complete this exercise by the end of 2004.

8. The report contains a wealth of thoughtful, wise and helpful suggestions. Far too many, in fact, to be able to comment on them all here. However, we have taken stock of these suggestions and have developed a timetable and process for addressing them. In the following paragraphs we confine our comments mainly to the 12 formal recommendations of the report.

Response to the EPMR Recommendations

9. Recommendation 1

We agree with the Panel’s recommendation that we not spread our efforts too thinly and identify a number of key topics of critical importance to the conservation and use of genetic diversity on which to focus our research. The process of identifying appropriate topics will be a part of the proposed strategic planning exercise. Priority will be given to those topics that require a holistic approach, and that are of critical importance to resource poor communities and the weaker national programmes.

10. Recommendation 2

IPGRI agrees with this recommendation and will undertake across-region analyses of forest genetic resources data in collaboration with appropriate partners.

11. Recommendation 3

We fully agree with this recommendation and note that the recent appointment of new Directors General at all three institutes - CIFOR, ICRAF and IPGRI - presents an excellent opportunity to take stock of existing collaborative arrangements and activities and to develop new ones.

12. Recommendation 4

We believe that good progress has been made during the period of the review with integrating INIBAP within IPGRI. Nevertheless, we fully agree with the Panel that more should be done, especially to capture greater synergies between the work of the INIBAP and PGR programmes, both thematically and in the regions. We note all of the Panel’s helpful suggestions contained within this recommendation and will take them fully into account as we further address this issue within the context of developing the new strategic plan for the whole of the institute.

13. Recommendation 5

We very much welcome this recommendation. While it was made in the context of our work on Musa, we foresee the need for a clear policy and guidelines on GMOs for the whole of IPGRI. We have already played a significant role in helping to shape the Future Harvest Centres’ collective position on GMOs, and we intend to continue to do so as this position evolves further. We are currently looking into the implications for genetic resources conservation of GM technology (e.g. the extent of geneflows between different populations) and recognize that our work on Musa offers an ideal basis for the further development of our overall policies and strategies regarding GMOs.

14. Recommendation 6

We fully accept this recommendation and are actively trying to secure the necessary resources to support the position of a full time economist at headquarters. In recruiting for this position we will be seeking someone with considerable experience of social as well as economic issues. We also agree with the suggestion of the Panel that we work even more closely with IFPRI in addressing certain key economic issues of importance to our overall work on genetic resources.

15. Recommendation 7

IPGRI agrees with this recommendation, and considers it to be fully in line with our intended future work programme on policy. Advice on genetic resources policies, regulations and legislation is one of the most frequent requests of our national programme partners. Foremost in this are requests for advice on the ITPGRFA and related provisions of the CBD - especially on access and benefit-sharing.

16. Recommendation 8

We agree with this recommendation and will look into ways in which we can most cost-effectively achieve greater inter-regional collaboration. Our intention to have videoconferencing facilities in all our Regional Offices in the near future should contribute positively to our ability to meet this objective.

17. Recommendation 9

We recognize that there is need for a careful assessment of the balance of staff time devoted to leading and participating in research on the one hand, and undertaking fund-raising, project management and technical assistance on the other. This balance will receive attention in the context of the strategic planning exercise.

18. Recommendation 10

We accept this recommendation in principle. While recognizing the need to maintain the critical distinction between the roles and responsibilities of the Board and management, we fully accept that a more formal relationship between the two is needed. We will consider in detail the many helpful sub-recommendations when the Board considers this issue in more depth at its next meeting.

19. Recommendation 11

We agree with the Panel that with the increase in size and complexity of IPGRI, there is a need for more formal planning and decision-making processes. Thus we accept this recommendation in principle. While it will be possible to implement some of the sub-recommendations almost immediately, others will be considered in more detail at the next Board meeting.

20. Recommendation 12

We fully agree that there is an urgent need for extra senior staff time to be devoted to resource mobilization and donor relations. While some short-term solutions should be possible, the details of how IPGRI will implement this recommendation in the longer-term will be addressed in the strategic planning exercise.

Conclusions

21. We note the observations of the panel in the concluding chapter concerning the future of ISNAR. IPGRI stands ready to consider whatever assistance, if any, the Board of ISNAR and the CGIAR as a whole deem appropriate.

22. We appreciate the very positive tone of the whole report, and especially as reflected in the concluding chapter. We are pleased that the Panel considers that IPGRI has a bright future, a view we fully share. Taking into account the Panel’s recommendations, with the continued support of our many donors, and in collaboration with our many and diverse partners, it is our firm intention to make this bright future a reality.

March 21, 2003

Dr Emil Q. Javier
Chair, interim Science Council
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Institute of Plant Breeding
University of the Philippines at Los Baños
College, Laguna, 4031 Philippines

Dr Francisco Reifschneider
Director
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
The World Bank
1818 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20433, USA

Dear Drs Javier and Reifschneider,

I am pleased to transmit to you the Report of the Panel that conducted the Fifth External Programme and Management Review (EPMR) of the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.

The Panel finds IPGRI to be strong and effective. Moreover, in these rapidly evolving scientific and political times, its role as an honest broker in the developing world and in the CGIAR is as vital as ever. IPGRI has grown from a staff of 100 to 250 and is set to continue. However, IPGRI is facing reductions in unrestricted funding at the same time as it is achieving increasing success with project funds. This imbalance is at the root of much of our comment.

We stress the importance of strategy formulation and priority setting. We stress the need to find the right balance in the genetic resources research programme and in the Centre’s policy research. We explore measures to ensure more clarity in management’s decision making and easier communication between components of the decentralized Centre. We suggest ways of helping the Board follow best practice in fulfilling its governance role. We also comment on the merger of INIBAP and IPGRI and urge the Centre to complete the job so that full scientific synergy can be achieved.

We would also take this opportunity to say that we found the good health of the Centre to owe much to the charisma and fine leadership of Dr Geoff Hawtin, the DG of IPGRI since 1991. He will leave this summer to continue his contribution to global PGR as interim Secretary of the Global Conservation Trust.

We would also like to record our thanks to the IPGRI Board, management and staff, including those posted in the eleven countries visited by Panel members during the review, who cooperated with us in every way and provided us with all the facilities we required.

Sirkka Immonen from the iSC Secretariat and Selçuk Özgediz from the CGIAR Secretariat (who helped from a distance) served as resource persons and supported the Panel throughout the review. We thank Ruth Erickson from the iSC Secretariat for putting this report together.

Finally, the Panel members and Consultants join me in expressing appreciation for the opportunity to participate in the challenging task of conducting this Review. We hope that the Report will be useful to the CGIAR as well as to IPGRI and its partners.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Mike Gale FRS
Chair
External Review Panel

SDR/iSC:IAR/03/01

CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
Interim SCIENCE COUNCIL AND CGIAR SECRETARIAT

REPORT OF THE
FIFTH EXTERNAL PROGRAMME AND MANAGEMENT REVIEW
OF THE
INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE
(IPGRI)

Interim SCIENCE COUNCIL SECRETARIAT
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
March 2003