CGIAR Annual General Meeting, 2003 (AGM03)

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (AGM03)

External Programme Review of ICRISAT^[1]

The CGIAR Chairman introduced the item, and briefly explained the separate but linked external programme and management review process.

The EPR report findings were presented by Panel Chair Paul Vlek. He commended the expertise of both panels. The EPR Panel took a retrospective and prospective view and focused on strategic and programmatic matters, mission relevance and quality of science, and accomplishments and impact. It noted the Centre's excellent science output, but also that it is losing its competitive advantage in Asia. Its international public goods (IPGs) impact/delivery in Africa is not clear and the Panel felt that ICRISAT had not followed the recommendation of the fourth EPMR to focus on and contribute to Africa. The Centre does not have a solid footing in Africa, and is even losing ground, i.e. it lacks a critical mass in Africa. Management problems that were apparent include excessive changes in management, unstable organization, shifting vision and mission, dwindling support, and lack/weak fundraising strategy. In addition, it's new vision/mission is rather broad. Global themes will, however, help integration.

He gave an overview of the recommendations in the report, and noted that this is a defining moment for ICRISAT. Many activities need to be phased out in Asia and moved to Africa. It should rethink the Virtua l University, which does not appear to have any comparative advantage, lacks critical mass and is not delivering IPGs. Strategic upstream activities should be maintained in Asia, but its main activities and HQ should be moved to Africa. Most importantly, it needs a strategy for SSA.

He concluded by thanking the ICRISAT staff, field teams and the CGIAR for the opportunity to serve the System.

Interim SCIENCE COUNCIL
Emil Q. Javier, Chair

9 September 2003

Dear Ian,

It is my pleasure to submit to you the Report of the Fifth External Programme Review of ICRISAT, commissioned by the interim Science Council. The Panel was chaired by Dr Paul Vlek of the Netherlands.

The Review Report and ICRISAT's Written Response to it were considered by the interim Science Council at its 85^th meeting held on 30 and 31 August 2003 at the University of California, Berkeley. The Panel Chair presented the Report and ICRISAT was represented by the Board Chair, Dr Uzo Mokwunye and the Director General, Dr William Dar.

In addition to the Panel's Report, there are two attachments to this letter, the first containing the commentary of the interim Science Council, which summarizes the Council's views on both the Panel's Report and the Written Response from ICRISAT; and the second is ICRISAT's Response to the Review Report.

The interim Science Council generally endorsed all the 9 recommendations, and noted the very positive response from ICRISAT. The Institute has undergone a difficult period of management changes and reduced overall funding as well as reduced unrestricted funding. Despite these difficulties, there has been laudable improvement in key strategic areas in science, governance and management. Given the compelling justification for a stronger and continued international role for raising productivity, alleviating poverty and sustaining the environment in the semi-arid tropics, the Institute continues to deserve donor support.

../..

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]

The interim Science Council agrees with the Panel that ICRISAT has reached a defining moment in its evolution. It must now establish a new long-term vision and structural strategy that would: (i) consolidate its gains in Asia as it shifts its Asia work to strategically supporting the rapidly growing strength of NARS in Asia; and (ii) strengthen and redirect its focus on the challenges of Sub-Saharan Africa, necessitating a paradigm shift in research strategy to take into account the heterogeneity of agricultural environments, the relatively weak national scientific capacity in research and extension, the relatively undeveloped private sector in agricultural and related rural industries, and the unfavourable policy environment.

ICRISAT has expressed it commitment to seize the opportunity for implementing the proposed fundamental changes but it needs donor support in both "spirit and matter". Donor support for meeting the one-time relocation cost would be essential, as would high level CGIAR involvement in discussions with India on the plan to shift the Headquarters to Sub-Saharan Africa. Given the need to maintain the existing strong and valuable relationship with India for the CGIAR international effort, the CGIAR leadership should work with ICRISAT to facilitate the envisaged discussions with India government.

We trust that the Group will find the Panel's Report and attached communication helpful in reflecting on the challenges facing ICRISAT and the CGIAR in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Emil Q. Javier
iSC Chair

iSC Commentary on the Fifth External Programme Review of ICRISAT

The report of the Fifth External Programme Review (EPR) of ICRISAT was discussed at iSC/TAC 85, University of California, Berkeley, in the presence of the Panel Chair, Dr Paul Vlek, the Chair of ICRISAT's Board of Trustees, Dr Uzo Mokwunye, ICRISAT DG, Dr William Dar, and ICRISAT DDG Research, Dr Dyno Keatinge. The interim Science Council (iSC) expresses its appreciation to Dr Paul Vlek and the members of the Panel for an analytical and forward-looking report that confirms ICRISAT's areas of excellence and the praiseworthy changes during the review period, and offers recommendations for a structural transformation of the Institute in the coming years.

The iSC accepted the EPR Panel Report and generally endorsed all the 9 recommendations. The iSC is pleased to note the very positive response from the ICRISAT Board and management. The iSC provides the following commentary based on the discussions at the iSC/TAC 85 to supplement the work of the Panel.

Response to 4^th EPMR

The 4^th EPMR contained 10 recommendations. Overall the Panel considered the action taken in the research domain over the past 6 years in response to the 4^th EPMR to be of mixed quality. This is believed to be due partly to disagreements that existed within and between management and the Board. The iSC is pleased to note that the situation seems to have been sorted out, although the resulting turbulence and instability have caused a delay in the implementation of some of the recommendations. TAC in its commentary on the 4^th EPMR fully supported the recommendations and the Panel's preference for the 'new ICRISAT' with a two-pronged strategy, consistent with the contrasting needs in Asia and Africa. TAC stated, "There seem to be no reason, in principle, why the Director General of this Centre should not be based in Africa. This point is raised to illustrate how the thinking at ICRISAT should change and broaden."

The Report of the 5^th EPR contains one recommendation (Recommendation 9) that deals with the fundamental question of the future structure and strategy of ICRISAT. The iSC considers that Recommendation 9 deals with unfinished business initiated in response to the 4^th EPMR, and is of the opinion that the need to implement Recommendation 9 to create a new ICRISAT for the 21^st Century is now urgent.

Genetic Resources and Crop Improvement

The iSC commends ICRISAT for its achievements in setting up a biotechnology and transformation programme, bringing to bear "new science and tools" for conservation and improvement of its mandate crops. The Panel has recommended (Recommendation 1), and the iSC agrees, that the Institute together with the other CGIAR Centres and relevant partners, address the pressing issues on intellectual property, biosafety and public acceptance of transgenic crops. Additionally, the Panel has recommended (Recommendation 5) that ICRISAT address the anticipated problems related to delivery and marketing of transgenic material it will produce. The iSC considers these issues to be pervasive, requiring proactive attention. It is of great importance that the resource and infrastructure implications of the issues related to biosafety and delivery of transgenic material are understood clearly by ICRISAT and its partners. It is almost certain that the cost of biosafety research will not be cheap and nor will be the institutional cost of handling and transferring finished transgenic material to beneficiaries.

The iSC commends ICRISAT for its impressive achievements in plant breeding in its mandate crops. However, the iSC fully shares the Panel's concerns regarding the weakening of its breeding programmes in Africa, and the less than optimum integration between genetic enhancement work located in GT1 (Harnessing Biotechnology for the Poor) and crop improvement work located in GT2 (Crop Improvement, Management and Utilization for Food Security and Health). The iSC is in agreement with Recommendation 2 for ICRISAT to rapidly rebuild its breeding programmes in Africa, and to re-engineer its genetic enhancement and crop improvement activities to serve the differential needs of Asia and Africa for international public goods (IPGs).

The iSC is pleased to learn that the process of integrating activities in GT1 and GT2 is already underway, and that ICRISAT intends to create an interdisciplinary partnership for genetic resources and enhancement with NARS and the private sector in the Asia region. However, the iSC remains concerned at the fact that in recent years ICRISAT has not been able to mobilize adequate stable support for its crop improvements activities in Africa that has consequently suffered from high turn over of senior staff and discontinuities. The rebuilding of ICRISAT's breeding programmes in Africa must remain a top priority, requiring the development of staff recruitment and deployment strategies that would minimize transfers and provide sufficient overlapping of personnel for effective continuity in activities with long time-frames.

Social Sciences

The iSC notes that ICRISAT agreed with Recommendation 7 to establish a critical mass of social scientists in all regions to create an appropriate balance in activities managed in GT6 (SAT Futures and Development Pathways) and social sciences research in the other Global Themes. The iSC supports ICRISAT's intention to maintain distinctiveness for social science activities at ICRISAT under the GT6 programme, while contributing to the interdisciplinary nature of the other programmes. ICRISAT is in the process of strengthening its critical mass of social scientists, and the iSC agrees that this could be done innovatively in part by hiring young professionals.

Virtual University

The Panel has seriously questioned ICRISAT's comparative advantage in serving as a key proponent in launching the Virtual University for the SAT, and recommended (Recommendation 8) that ICRISAT should rationalize its role, scope and objectives in the University initiative. Secondly, the Panel has pointed out the confusion inherent in the use of the term University which conventionally is applied to academic institutions offering degrees at the tertiary level whereas in reality the main activity of the Virtual University is to deliver information to producers and intermediate actors. The iSC therefore agrees with the concerns highlighted by the Panel and recommends that ICRISAT take the necessary steps to define clearly its ultimate objectives and role in the enterprise before further major investments of funds, personnel and management attention are directed to it.

Other Specific Programme Recommendations

The Panel has made other specific programme recommendations, namely the need: to phase out GT3 (Water, Soil and Agrobiodiversity Management) in Asia where it no longer has a comparative advantage (Recommendation 3); to prioritize and consolidate IPM and IDM activities in GT3 (Recommendation 4); to rationalize the role, scope and objectives in terms of its comparative advantage in conducting research in generating IPGs in GT4 (Sustainable Seed Supply Systems for Productivity) (Recommendation 5); and to merge GT5 (Enhancing Crop-Livestock Productivity and Systems Diversification) with GT3 (Recommendation 6). ICRISAT has accepted all these recommendations, and the iSC looks forward to their implementation.

Future of ICRISAT

The iSC strongly supports Recommendation 9 on the transfer of ICRISAT Headquarters and all programmes to Africa with the exception of its strategic plant genetic resources and enhancement programme. To implement Recommendation 9, the iSC supports the proposal on the Centre's response of establishing a Task Force to design and plan the transfer. The iSC believes that a prerequisite for successful implementation will be the availability of sufficient funding from donors to cover one-time transfer costs. It will be important to preserve the excellent relations between ICRISAT and India by involving the CGIAR leadership at the earliest opportunity in the discussion with the host government of the new arrangement for the global branch of ICRISAT that will remain in India to address the SAT needs, including those of Asia, for which there is continued support. The iSC also believes that this is an opportunity for the CGIAR to take a broad view of its operations in Sub-Saharan Africa and, as ICRISAT plans to move, to assess the needs for streamlining and coordination of CGIAR Centres operations in the region.

The iSC recommends that the Task Force that will be appointed by ICRISAT Board should consider all tactical issues related to the transfer as well as the needs for changing scientific paradigms as some programmes move from Asia to Africa. The iSC also suggests that the Task Force works closely with the Science Council (SC) while it develops its plans, perhaps by including a SC member as part of the Task Force.

Organization and Management

The iSC is pleased that the Board has become more effective in working with management and staff in turning the Centre around from where it was at the time of the last EPMR and the first few years thereafter. The current Director General and management have also contributed in creating an enabling environment for research. The resulting effectiveness and stability has had a positive effect on the Institute's relationship with the host government and on staff morale. The iSC commends this laudable transformation of ICRISAT leading to improvement in key strategic areas. The iSC considers that this changed leadership and political situation should be taken full advantage of by the Centre in pushing ahead more earnestly with unfinished business, particularly the need to structurally transform the Centre as elaborated above.

Conclusion

ICRISAT has undergone a difficult period of management changes and reduced overall funding as well as reduced unrestricted funding. Despite these difficulties, ICRISAT has managed to produce science of high quality and achieve impressive impact in Asia as witnessed by the Institute gaining two King Baudouin Awards during the review period. There has also been laudable improvement in atmosphere and relations with new management and Board. Given the compelling justification for a stronger and continued international role for ICRISAT in the SAT in those circumstances where it has a comparative advantage, the Institute continues to deserve donor support.

The iSC agrees with the Panel that ICRISAT has reached a defining moment in its evolution. It must now establish a new long-term vision and structural strategy that would: (i) consolidate its gains in Asia as it shifts its Asia work to strategically supporting the rapidly growing strength of NARS in Asia; and (ii) strengthen and redirect its focus on the challenges of Sub-Saharan Africa, necessitating a paradigm shift in research strategy to take into account the heterogeneity of agricultural environments, the relatively weak national scientific capacity in research and extension, relatively undeveloped private sector in agricultural and related rural industries, and the unfavourable policy environment.

ICRISAT has expressed it commitment to seize the opportunity for implementing the proposed fundamental changes but it needs donor support in both "spirit and matter". Donor support for meeting the one-time relocation cost would be essential, as would high level CGIAR involvement in discussions with India on the plan to shift the Headquarters to Sub-Saharan Africa. Given the need to maintain the existing strong and valuable relationship with India for the CGIAR international effort, the CGIAR leadership should work with ICRISAT to facilitate the envisaged discussions with India government.

August 6, 2003

Dr Emil Javier
Chair, Interim Science Council
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Institute of Plant Breeding
University of the Philippines at Los Banos
4031 College,
Laguna
PHILIPPINES

Dear Emil,

On behalf of ICRISAT, I would like to submit to you in the attached file our responses to the recommendations made by the recent EPR Panel under the chairmanship of Dr P. Vlek.

We would like to record our acknowledgement of the fair treatment and transparent conduct of the review that we experienced with the Panel. In general, we are most satisfied with the outcome and we believe that this review will be a good guide for ICRISAT in the coming 5 years.

Best regards.

Yours sincerely,

William D Dar
Director General
ICRISAT

CC: Shellemiah O. Keya, Paul Vlek, Francisco Reifschneider, Amir Kassam Uzo Mokwunye

August 6, 2003

ICRISAT 2003 EPR RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES

1. The Panel recommends that ICRISAT continue to undertake strategic research on genomics and transgenic product development for SAT crops; and together with the other CGIAR Centres and relevant partners, address the pressing issues on intellectual property, biosafety and public acceptance of transgenic crops.

ICRISAT accepts the recommendation, and will continue to ever more vigorously undertake strategic research on genomics and transgenic product development for SAT crops. At the same time, we will expand our research in the biosafety aspects of transgenic crops, and proactively address issues related to public acceptance and IPR of biotechnology products.

2. The Panel strongly recommends that ICRISAT should maximize the synergy possible when GT 1 and GT 2 plus their partners work closely together to generate IPGs for the SAT. ICRISAT should rapidly re-build and re-engineer its crop improvement programme and further enhance the evolution of the two pronged breeding strategy for Asia and Africa.

We accept the recommendation. The process of integrating activities in GT 1 (Biotechnology) and GT 2 (Crop improvement, Management and Utilization) is already well underway. However, we accept the challenge to create a truly comprehensive genetic resources and enhancement paradigm through systemic multidisciplinary partnerships with NARS and private sector partners in the region. In this way we will fully capture the potential synergy between disciplines and sectors, and hope to serve the differential needs of Asia, Africa and the CGIAR as a whole

3. The Panel recommends that ICRISAT phases out GT3 (Water, Soil and Agrodiversity management) research in Asia where it no longer has a comparative advantage, by devolving this research to NARS. These resources should be redeployed in Africa where they should be engaged in addressing some of the major challenges in land, water and agrodiversity research facing the SAT of the continent.

We accept the recommendation and will re-deploy unrestricted funding to strengthen GT 3 activities in SAT Africa in a phased manner that will then better address the major challenges of land, water and agro-diversity research. However, given the availability of opportunities for restricted funding in the area of GT3 activities in Asia, ICRISAT will continue to pursue these simultaneously and create a self-supporting natural resource management team in Asia. In this way, GT3 scientists would continue to contribute to ICRISAT's IGNRM and new science strategies and draw lessons from long-term development programs in Asia to help translate these for impact in Africa.

4. The Panel recommends ICRISAT prioritize its activities in IPM/IDM. Potential projects should be chosen with priority being give to projects that address constraints that are important in Africa and are potentially solvable through IPM and IDM approaches.

ICRISAT agrees with the recommendation and will plan to undertake IPM/IDM research as an integral part of the IGNRM approach to meet the food security needs of smallholder farmers in SAT Africa.

5. The Panel recommends that ICRISAT rationalize the role, scope and objectives in terms of its comparative advantage in conducting research generating IPGs in GT4 (Seed systems). This includes addressing the anticipated problems related to marketing transgenic materials it will produce. The purposes and goals of GT4 will be best served if its activities are strongly anchored into appropriate global themes where interdisciplinarity can be enhanced and resources more efficiently and effectively utilized.

We agree with the recommendation that the work on seed systems should generate further IPGs. ICRISAT agrees that inter-disciplinarity needs to be enhanced and would endeavor to integrate activities, wherever needed.

6. The Panel recommends that GT5 (Enhancing crop-livestock productivity and systems diversification) should transfer assessment of feed quality to GT2 (Crop Improvement, management and utilization) and cease its other activities in Asia. The level of staffing should be increased, and strategic research in Sub-Saharan Africa expanded, particularly in landscape level research on new systems. To ensure coherence in ICRISAT's programmes this theme should be merged with GT3 (Water, soil and agro-biodiversity management).

ICRISAT agrees with recommendation and will transfer the breeding for fodder quantity and quality to GT 2. Component design of IPM/IDM system will remain in GT 2, with system testing of integrated components in GT 3 as recommended. Crop-livestock systems and systems diversification will be subsumed in to an expanded GT 3 - Land, Water and Agro-diversity Management.

7. The Panel recommends more vigorous implementation of the recommendations of the CCER of Socio-Economics and Policy Research Programme at ICRISAT, 1996-2001. More social science resources should be re-allocated from GT6 (SAT Futures and Development Pathways) to the other themes under the leadership of non social scientists and the work programme of social science should be more sharply focused on strategic assessments and activities that best inform macro and longer run priority setting in ICRISAT.

We agree with the recommendation to more vigorously implement the CCER recommendations for socio-economics and policy research. We are in the process of establishing a critical mass of social scientists in all regions and global themes to undertake strategic research that will generate IPGs, as well as viable partnerships and policy recommendations of strategic importance to SAT agriculture. However, we believe that it is necessary to have some direct visibility for social science activities at ICRISAT. Thus we would seek to create an appropriate balance between those activities managed under GT6 and the remaining social science activities managed in other global themes under the leadership of non-social scientists.

8. The Panel recommends that ICRISAT should rationalize the role, scope and objectives of the Institute in the distance learning for farmers initiative called the Virtual University for the SAT and provide management with clear guidance on where the limits of ICRISAT's interest lie consistent with its comparative advantage in IPG research. Further, the term University should be replaced with a more appropriate term such as "Virtual Learning Centre for the SAT".

The recommendation is accepted in spirit. ICRISAT will further delineate the roles of ICRISAT and other members of the VUSAT coalition. Nevertheless, since VUSAT has been widely accepted and has captured the support of all partners, we shall work with the members of the coalition and the Board to find a suitable way to implement the recommendation.

9. The Panel recommends that ICRISAT should rapidly restructure its programmes and transfer its headquarters, and all programmes except its strategic plant genetic resources enhancement programme to sub-Saharan Africa.

ICRISAT accepts the spirit of the recommendation. It accepts the challenge to find a win-win scenario to enhance its impact in Africa and affirms its commitment to continue shifting core resources to address the needs of the farmers of sub-Saharan Africa as a high priority whilst yet dynamically responding to the ever-changing needs and profile of its stakeholders in Asia. ICRISAT will immediately establish a task force to comprehensively study the programmatic issues, costs (both human and financial), host country agreements, and donor support for various potential change scenarios. However, ICRISAT does not accept the view that the ICRISAT-Asia team should be devoid of INRM or social scientists as we see these as a necessary compliment to supporting well-targeted, upstream genetic enhancement activities. We would propose therefore to retain at least a minimum presence of such disciplines in Asia supported by special project funds.

Dear Dr Javier,

I am pleased to transmit the Report of the Panel that conducted the Fifth External Programme Review (EPR) of ICRISAT.

The Panel has highlighted the remarkable scientific accomplishments of ICRISAT. It believes that the management upheaval and the accompanying loss of morale and confidence that characterized much of the second half of the 1990s is now generally water under the bridge. Under the stable leadership of the current Director General and the Board, there are strong signs that ICRISAT is gaining strength. The Institute has begun to chart a new course of action for the medium and longer term based on a systematic bottom up process of setting its regional and international priorities and strategies. The Panel stresses the need for completing the strategic planning process and defining the right balance between Africa and Asia in ICRISAT's role, objectives and institutional presence, which hopefully will take the recommendations of the Panel on board.

The Review has come at a defining moment for ICRISAT. After 30 years of committed research and laudable impact, the Institute must fundamentally reconstitute itself for the 21^st Century taking into account the contrasting needs, challenges and opportunities in its mandate SAT zones in Asia and Africa. This reconstituted ICRISAT would have its HQ in Africa and comprise: (1) a strong integrated germplasm enhancement and natural resource management programme focussed on and coordinated from Africa; and (2) an upstream cutting edge genetic resources and enhancement programme coordinated from a part of the campus at Patancheru where ICRISAT's unique international germplasm collections are located.

The Panel recognizes the challenges inherent in the course it has recommended for ICRISAT. The institutional and programmatic restructuring called for are fundamental and can only be carried out successfully during this transition period with the special support of the CGIAR.

The Panel received help and support from several sources. We are grateful to ICRISAT Board, management and staff for providing every assistance to carry out our task smoothly and efficiently. Consultations with the Board, management and staff at every level, both at the HQ and in locations in Africa were frank, open and cordial. The same was true of our interactions with ICRISAT's partners in Asia and Africa who shared their opinions and perceptions of ICRISAT and its activities, including the future role of ICRISAT.

I would like to thank you for assembling a capable and experienced team for the challenging task of conducting this Review. The Panel has worked exceptionally well together throughout.

I want to add my own special thanks to the members of the Review Panel for their effort to make this report accurate and useful, and for being sports and available at any hour of the day. The Resource Person assigned to the Panel, Amir Kassam, from the interim Science Council Secretariat, deserves our grateful thanks for his competence, sound advice and good humour.

We are confident that the ICRISAT Board, management and staff are capable, in collaboration with their partners, to take and implement the strategic decisions which now must be made if ICRISAT is to serve the poor people of the SAT regions. We strongly recommend that the iSC and the CGIAR extend them their full support at this critical moment in ICRISAT's history. We hope that this Review Report will assist the Institute's development in the years to come.

In closing, all the Panel members join me in expressing appreciation for the opportunity to serve the CGIAR System as a member of this Review Panel.

Yours sincerely,

Paul L.G. Vlek
Chair

SDR/iSC:IAR/03/11

CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Interim SCIENCE COUNCIL

Report of the
Fifth External Programme Review
of the
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT)

Interim SCIENCE COUNCIL SECRETARIAT

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
June 2003