Among other things, the Governing Board is expected to guide and monitor the programme vision, strategy, programme content and efficiency of programme implementation and quality of outputs. To that end, the Board of ICRISAT has constituted two programme-relevant committees, the Programme Committee (PC) and the Technology Exchange Committee (TEC). Each member of the Board is active in one or the other. During Board meetings, the Programme Committee (PC) and the Technology Exchange Committee (TEC) meet separately followed by a joint meeting.
The Board of ICRISAT is supposed to have up to 15 members, including the ex-officio members. Since 1996, the ICRISAT Board has acted on the recommendation of the last EPMR and appointed one additional member from Africa to the Board. The Board in 2002/2003 was therefore balanced in terms of geographic representation (three members from India, three from Africa with representation from each of the relevant regions, and one from Latin America, complemented by expertise from the Japan, UK, Australia, Canada, France and the USA).
Also the disciplinary competencies were evenly spread ranging from biotech, breeding and crop management, to IPR, NRM, and policy, although socioeconomics are currently lacking. With five female Board members, the Centre has a better than usual gender balance. The BoT has seen a fairly high rate of rotation, replacing 5, 1, 4, 3, 5, 4 and 5 members each year over the past 7 years, due in part to shifts in responsibilities of host country representatives. Unfortunately, the Board renewal is not evenly spread over the years, with 5 of 14 members leaving in 2003, including the Board and Programme Committee Chairs. The large turnover in the past few years is particularly unfortunate given the challenges the Centre faces.
The Board seems to have generally good attendance and commitment to the Centre. Today, it understands its role to be one of oversight, not management, an understanding that according to a senior member of the Board had been otherwise in the recent past. From the minutes of the Board meetings of the past 5 years it is clear that the management and funding turbulence of the Centre has been a major pre-occupation. The result of this has been a fluctuation in the amount of energy the Board was able to direct towards strategic programme oversight during a time of shifting programme priorities and programme structure. As a result, CCER's were not conducted until 2000. Also, the poor communications between management were recorded in the minutes of the PC in 1998 and 1999 when they declared that they had lost oversight of programmes and demanded better information from management.
The Panel commends the Centre for making up for lost time and implementing 4 CCERs over the past 3 years. The more recent CCERs were discussed and covered in the minutes of the Board (e.g., administration and social sciences), others were primarily under the purview of the PC (NRMP-CCER).
The Panel attended two committee meetings of the Board that are relevant to programming of ICRISAT and observed the routine way of doing Board business in March 2003. Three of the six Global Themes (GTs 1, 2, and 4) were presented to the PC and TEC during these meetings, both as PowerPoint as well as documents with the purpose of "Discussion and Guidance" by the Joint Committee. Minutes of past PC meetings reveal that the PC often offered suggestions and expressed concern regarding programme content. The Panel was impressed with the insights of the PC and TEC members and the depth and breath of questions asked and the dialogue with staff. Each of the programmes was subsequently given the tacit blessing by the Joint Committee. Neither the presentations nor the discussions in the Committees went into the resource allocation aspects of programme implementation, so that it remained unclear whether the necessary resources of funds and staff were always on hand to implement what was presented.
Although priorities within the GTs were presented and discussed, it was not clear how the broad range of activities that were presented in the various GTs fitted in the priority ranking of the overall strategy of the organization. This was not made an issue by the Joint Committee. It would be useful and appropriate if the Joint Committee would insist on reviewing the GTs in the framework of the overall strategy of the Centre, once it has been developed, before it formally gives the work plans an endorsement. The overall strategy of a Centre is embodied in a Board approved Vision and Strategic Plan. The Panel was given to understand that ICRISAT considered its brief Vision and Strategy statement to be its Strategic Plan. The Panel considers the current Vision and Strategy of limited help in guiding donors or staff. In the Panel's view the BoT should have demanded a more elaborate and concrete Vision and Strategic Plan as a basic framework for its oversight role (see also section 4.1).
The EPR Panel had an opportunity to interact with the full Board and to ask the Board some questions as to the way they perceive and discharge their duties, and their views on the issues of Asia vs. Africa balance, international public goods research, and ICRISAT's comparative advantage, and on the way the Board perceived its role in maintaining the quality of research at ICRISAT. The answers to the posed questions indicated that the issues raised by the Panel had been deliberated by the Board and that positions on these issues were not yet fixed as they had not necessarily been fully resolved. The latter is evident also from the Major Issues paper prepared by the Centre for the EPR.
Overall, the Panel considers that the Board has, in the past few years, 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.
6.2.1 Leadership
Leadership at the CGIAR Centres is provided at several levels. The Board provides leadership through due diligence, foresight and effective interphase with management. The senior management exercise leadership on a day-to-day basis, keeping an eye on both the shorter and the longer-term. An assessment of the leadership role of the Board is discussed in section 6.1.
The Director General serves as the lynch pin of the Centre and is responsible for fostering and sustaining an enabling environment for scientific excellence and social cohesion. In this task, the leadership qualities include diplomatic and public relations skills, and go beyond the campus boundaries in order to maintain healthy host country relationships, facilitate alliances and partnerships and cultivate donors for resource mobilization. The DG is aided in this task by his/her deputies who have line responsibilities in their respective areas. The DG and the deputies on the scientific and administration sides constitute the senior management team at the Centre and are essentially responsible for managing the day to day business of the Centre, maintenance of morale and scientific ethos, and strategic and operational effectiveness and efficiency. On the scientific front, the senior scientists (theme leaders and project leaders) collectively carry the responsibility of leadership at the 'bench' level, and similarly on the administration front where middle level managers carry the responsibility.
Thus, the concepts of leadership and management effectiveness at a CGIAR Centre are not simple. They depend on the individual as well as the collective personalities, experience, qualifications and motives, a situation akin to corporate leadership. Managing a CGIAR Centre is therefore a formidable task at best of times, given the uncertainties of funding, vested interests and political uncertainties.
The Panel assesses the leadership qualities of the DG and management against this background. Since the last EPMR, the Centre has had to cope with an unfortunate chain of changes in leadership. Four DGs and 4 DDGs (ADG-Research) have followed each other in rapid succession since 1997. The Panel believes that ICRISAT has been most unfortunate in having to go through such instability in which the contrasting personalities of each of the four DGs and four DDGs must have added further anxieties.
Leadership, which traditionally has been extremely centralized at ICRISAT was largely devolved during the experimentation with the matrix management in the early 1990s. Following the 4th EPMR this process was reversed step-wise. In the process of changing leadership, the Centre's vision shifted substantially (see section 4.1) and its organization was completely re-structured twice (see section 6.2.2). With each change, the actions to be taken with regard to recommendations of the 4th EPMR were revisited and adjusted or reversed. This has led to an attitude in some staff of "lets wait and see what next" which the current leadership is in the process of remedying with team-building sessions, E-dialogues, and "crazy idea hours" meant to encourage staff - management dialogue. More substantially, the relatively longer tenure of the current DG has enabled ICRISAT to engage in a structured bottom up Institute-wide strategic planning process which is having a positive impact on the corporate morale and team spirit while offering hope of a new chapter in ICRISAT's history.
Under the new DG immediately after the 4th EPMR, a serious attempt was made to implement the recommendations of the Review during the period 1998-99. The sudden departure of the DG followed by an interim DG essentially led to a period of "reversal". The arrival of the current DG marked a new era in the leadership, including that at the collective senior management level. New vision and programme structures were defined while attention was directed to reconciling the political tensions within and outside the Institute. At the same time, leadership was provided to further develop the upstream biotechnology and genetic enhancement programme. The Panel believes that this achievement deserves a special recognition and commends the DG and his staff for this accomplishment.
It is the impression of the Panel that the transformation of ICRISAT has continued under the new leadership. The new programme structure involving GT leaders and regional representatives has laid a fresh foundation for a corporate leadership that is stronger, wiser and confident. The recent arrival of a DDG-Research improves the prospect of scientific leadership in the Centre.
Although the Panel conducted no formal survey, based on the staff interactions, it is of the view that given the stronger Board and greater delegation of programmatic and administrative authority, the stage appears to have been set for ICRISAT to transform further into an Institute for the 21st century. This transformation must involve further delegation of authority to the scientific leadership and staff, and the strengthening of ICRISAT's presence in Africa. From a research perspective, overall, leadership at the Centre seems to have built a credible and coherent system that should have a chance to show merit.
6.2.2 History and Structure
The organizational structure is meant to insure a smooth and effective delegation of authority and clear lines of communications between the various levels of the organization in implementing and monitoring the programme. The current programme organization has emerged from a series of restructuring efforts that took a programme-based structure to a project structure arranged in a complex matrix (1990s) back to a programme structure following the last EPMR. The former 12 Research Projects that operated under 7 disciplinary research divisions were recast into three Programmes, namely: the Genetic Resources and Enhancement Programme, the Natural Resources Management Programme, and the Socioeconomics and Policy Programme. Subsequently, a fourth programme was added in 2000 - -The Information Resource Management Programme.
The newest arrangement is based on 6 Global Themes that replaced the three principal programmes (see section 4.1) that cater to the 4 Global Impact Target Areas or GITA's. The GITA's are broadly defined, partly unconventional Target Areas providing the centre with a lot of programmatic latitude but little focus. The human resources were re-organized in GT's to define the scope and allow for the new areas of business to be taken on by the Centre. The remnants of the matrix are found in the regional programmes that each has a Regional Representative to facilitate the implementation of the agreed upon GTs. Resource allocation is done through GT coordinators that are allocating 50% of their time to this function. Scientist's time is allocated to projects within the GT's as are most of the operational resources. The Regional Representatives control and manage infrastructure. The programme reporting is also done through the GT coordinators to the DDG and up. The DDG also manages the research support services. Country Representatives report to the Regional Representatives who report directly to the DG. The DG acts as his own Regional Representative for Asia. A diagram depicting the current structure of ICRISAT is provided in chapter 1.3.
The Regional Impact Target Areas (RITA's) are currently being developed independently but following the adoption of the GITAs and are to do justice to regional stakeholder priorities. From early results it appears that there is no conflict developing between the RITA's and GITA's, but the results of this exercise have yet to be incorporated and could have consequences for the programme structure. For instance, the area of IPM/IDM might be given higher priority in the African context so that it more logically might be managed by GT3 instead of GT2. Also, the new GT4 and GT5 might need to be more fully resourced if they are to warrant the administrative overhead of a GT.
Assessment
An organizational structure should reflect the power structure of the organization. The structure of the Centre thus is significantly flattened as recommended by the 4th EPMR and should be simpler to operate. Its effectiveness will depend on the authority delegated to the GT leaders, given the complexity regional spread of their programmes. In that regard, a disproportionate fraction of the power appears based in SA where finances are centrally planned and managed. It is, for instance, unclear whether the GT3, GT4 and GT5 coordinators based in Africa would have the authority to curtail the activities in Asia if they felt that priorities should be in Africa as suggested in the 4th EPMR. In fact, given the enormous down-scaling in Africa, it appears that this is doubtful. The senior management group is entirely HQ based and meets approximately monthly, has a full institutional mandate and claims geographic impartiality in discussion. The research committee incorporates all the heads of GTs, the regional representatives in Africa, the head of project development, the head of information resources and is chaired by the DDG Research, and is thus geographically balanced. The Director General attends at his discretion. This group now meets face-to-face 3 times a year and in a virtual mode when required. Their views are fed into the Management Group decision-making process. The administration and operations committee is also entirely HQ based, meets approximately monthly and is chaired by the head of human resources and meets monthly. In that structure it is not evident that the voice of the GT leaders based in Africa can be adequately heard though Management claims it is. Part of this depends on the ease of communications, in which the Centre has made great strides (see section 6.4).
The site visit has given the Panel a taste of the problems in communicating between Africa and Asia. Despite the substantial efforts made to extend the Internet/Intranet to the regional hubs, flow of large documents is still a tedious undertaking. The African regions were in the middle of defining their RITAs (Regional Impact Target Areas), an exercise that would have been helped by easier communications with the colleagues at HQ, particularly since the staff contingent in the African regions is thinly spread
From a listing of projects proposed for funding for 2003 presented to the Panel, the degree of engagement of staff members in fundraising becomes apparent. Virtually all scientists are generating project ideas, concept notes and proposals. The opportunity costs are considerable. The projects also span a wide range of activities in Asia and Africa. The Office of Project Development and Marketing is coordinating project preparation and fund raising efforts. The degree to which project initiatives central to the strategic mission of ICRISAT are addressed through this decentralized effort remains to be seen. Nor is it self-evident from the programme structure how consensus will be reached on the protection of core competencies in order to sustainably address areas of research for which the Centre has a prime mandate
Demands from projects and regions within the Centre will undoubtedly be conflicting at times. The organizational structure would have to be suitable to implement a strategy to manage such situations. It appears that ICRISAT is aware of this and it claims that the new structure is the proper tool to avoid conflict and maximize efficiency. It remains to be proven in an institute with a skewed set of stakeholders in the different regions.
The Panel believes that the current structure is a legitimate system for a Centre of this nature and has been proven to work elsewhere, but that it cannot be evaluated at this time due to the brief track record.
The total resources available to ICRISAT during the period since the last EPMR have been US$23.00 M in 1999, US$23.35 M in 2000, US$24.10 M in 2001 and US$23.05 M in 2002. The proposed resources for 2003 are US$22.3 M and planned resources for 2004 and 2005 are US$23.0 M and US$23.6 M respectively.
The resource allocation by CGIAR logframe outputs are as follows:
Allocations to germplasm collection and conservation (output 1) remained steady at about 10% over the period 1999-2002, but is proposed to decrease to 7% in 2003 and beyond.
Allocations to germplasm improvement (output 2) increased from 27.5% in 1999 to about 31% in 2002 and is proposed at that level beyond 2002.
Allocations to sustainable production systems through INRM (output 3) decreased from 36% in 1999 to 29% in 2002, but this is proposed to increase to about 33.5% subsequently.
Allocation to policy and socioeconomics (output 4) research have fluctuated from 11% in 1999 to 18% in 2000 and down to 16% in 2001 and 2002, and falling further to some 11% during 2003-2005 period.
Allocation to enhancing institutions (output 5) was at about 15% in 1999, decreasing to some 13% in 2002. It is projected to increase to 16.5% for the 2003-2005 period.
Thus, two-thirds of the total resources are directed towards logframe outputs 2 and 3. This is consistent with the primary mandate of ICRISAT. The planned decrease in the allocation to outputs 1 and 4 over the period 2003-2005 is matched by a proportionate increase in allocations to outputs 3 and 5. Although the lower allocation to output 5 is a reflection of the training activities being outsourced and tuition based.
In terms of allocations to commodities, ICRISAT directed 97% of its total resources in 2002 to its mandate commodities and the rest to livestock and trees related research. Sorghum and groundnut research received 48% of the resources, pearl millet and pigeonpea 29%, chickpea 8% and finger millet under 2%. These resources, in absolute equivalents, are generally below the levels recommended by TAC in the last priorities and strategies exercise for 1998-2000.
The proposed resource allocations to the six global themes in 2003 are: GT1 18.9%, GT2 24.4%, GT3 21.9%, GT4 13.8%, GT5 10.3% and GT6 10.8%. An assessment of these allocations in relation to the issues of critical mass of each of the global thematic programmes is provided in sections 5.1 to 5.6.
For GT1, a breakdown of resource allocation shows that it has a total budget allocation of US$2.6 M per year for the last six years (1997-2002) from unrestricted funds. This represents an average of 11.3 % of the total budget. Restricted project funds for GT1 averaged at US$0.95 M during the last two years and are expected to generate US$2.6 M in 2003.
A breakdown of resource allocation shows that the total yearly budget from unrestricted funds for Genetic Enhancement (interpreted to include all of GT2, and part of GT3 and GT5) has remained almost steady at US$12.77 M for the last 7 years (1997-2003). This represents on the average, 56 % of the total budget. The Restricted project fund for GT2 alone averaged at US$2.5 M during the past two years and is expected to generate US$5.7 M in 2003.
The Centre's unrestricted core-funds commitment in underpinning the Natural Resource Management Programme, of which GT3 takes up the lion's part, has come down from just over US$10 M or 42% of core resources in 1997/98 to around US$7 M or 30% since. Genetic enhancement remained relatively stable at around US$12.5 M and thus captured 48% in 97/98 but now stands at nearly 60%. The trends are more severe for the unrestricted operational research funds where genetic enhancement remained steady at around 60% whereas NRM dipped from 35% to 24%. These trends suggest that the Centre has attempted to protect the areas in which it has the better track record (chapter 2 and 3). The restricted funds mobilized by GT3 stood at US$2.8 M in 2001, US$2.4 M in 2002 and are projected at US$1.9 M in 2003.
For GT4, a breakdown of resource allocation shows that it has a total budget allocation of US$2.4-3.5 M per year from unrestricted funds. This represents 11-17% of the total budget almost equivalent to the budget allocated for biotechnology and socioeconomics. GT4 has raised approximately US$2.5 M during the last two years and is expected to generate US$3.2 M in 2003. It appears that at least during the past two years, 50% of the total resources of GT4 came from core and 50% from restricted fund sources.
For 2002, GT5 was allocated US$2.4 M of which US$0.12 M (5%) was restricted project funds. For 2003, of the planned resources of US$2.3 M allocated to GT5, US$0.54 M (24%) are restricted project funds. It would appear that the bulk of the resources for GT5 are from unrestricted sources.
For GT6, the allocation for year 2002 was US$2.5 M and for 2003 it is US$2.4 M. In 2002, US$0.34 M (14%) and in 2003 US$0.33 M (14%) are from restricted project funds.
According to ICRISAT 2003-2005 MTP, the allocation of resources to Africa and Asia has been 49% and 51% respectively in 2001/2002, and is projected to increase to 52% for Africa and decrease to 48% for Asia in 2004/2005. It is not clear how the regional resource allocations are quantified by ICRISAT. The Panel is aware that ICRISAT considers that a portion of the strategic research in germplasm enhancement and NRM based at Patancheru is relevant to Africa, Thus, some of the resources actually spent in Patancheru are cost-assigned to Africa. On the other hand, the actual staff deployment figures in 2002 alone suggest that probably more than 60% (and not 51% as assumed by ICRISAT) of the actual resources were allocated to Asia.
ICRISAT's unrestricted resources have seen a significant drop during the review period from 62.4% in 1999 to 40.7% in 2002, and is expected to decrease further to some 30% during the MTP 2003-2005 period. This is in line with the trend in the CGIAR System where unrestricted resources decreased from 51% in 1999 to 37% in 2002, and the trend is expected to continue. Serious concerns are being registered by CBC/CDC/Centres and iSC regarding the negative impact of less than optimal level of unrestricted funding on science quality and innovativeness and programme effectiveness.
Until 2001, ICRISAT operated a Resource Mobilization Office (RMO) as part of the DG's office. In 2002, the Institute set up a Project Development and Marketing Office (PDMO), combining RMO and Public Awareness functions. PDMO is dedicated full-time to resource mobilization for ICRISAT's programmes. However, it is not clear how PDMO can contribute to mitigating the negative consequences of the dwindling unrestricted resources. There does not appear to be an Institute-wide resource mobilization strategy that is consistent with the needs of the different regional programmes. The three regional hubs in Africa appear to be mobilizing resources very much on their own, and most of the staff there who were interviewed by the Panel pointed to the fact that they were working mainly or entirely with "soft" money, with little help from the Headquarters.
The Panel is of the view that the management and Board should assess the operational and programmatic implications of managing the Institute in a future with less than 30% unrestricted funding. Such an assessment should aim at providing strategic guidelines for resource mobilization activities of PDMO in line with the planned research agenda, and consistent with ICRISAT's comparative advantage and goals. Such an assessment would also contribute to fostering greater transparency in the linkage between the Research and Finance Divisions.
At the time of the last EPMR, there existed several nodes of independent activity in support of research, though some worked closely together: computer services, GIS, modeling, statistics, electronic publishing and library. Due to this fragmentation, management's control over procurement of computer systems seemed to have been deficient. Also, the Panel expressed serious concern that there seemed to be no Institute-wide policies for documentation, maintenance and retrieval of research data. As a result, research data were not always handed over when a scientist left the institution, thus jeopardizing the possibility of further analysis of these data sets and increasing the risk of valuable data being lost. To avoid recurrence of such problems and to improve overall coordination, ICRISAT organized Computer Services as an Institute-wide Programme, with a Computer Services Policy and Review Committee created and chaired by the Assistant Director General, with the Head of Computer Services at Patancheru serving as Secretary to the Committee. The Panel suggested inter alia that the Board should commission a CCER on information management, and that ICRISAT may want to consider appointing a manager for all information services.
Subsequent to the EPMR, a programmatic structure was adopted by the Institute in 1998 which included an Information Resource Management Programme (IRMP) which was made up of four Units, namely: Information Technology (ITU), Public Awareness Office (PAO), Training and Fellowships Programme (TAFP), and the Library and Documentation Services (LDS). The last two were integrated into a Learning Systems Unit (LSU) in 2000.[4] Under the current organizational structure, IRMP has been transformed into the Information Resource Management Office (IRMO) as of January 2002, and PAO was transferred under the Office of the DG for better operational integration with the Resource Mobilization Office. IRMO, aside from performing support service to research, maintains the IRMP's proactive and development-oriented mandate, and views itself as ICRISAT's main facilitator for technology exchange together with the six global research themes and partners.
The 1999 CCER on Information Resources Management and Partnership did not address the fundamental question of the longer-term information management strategy as it was not part of the terms of reference. Instead, it examined a mixed set of information management activities of varying levels of importance. The key message from the CCER was that information and knowledge management should be a major strength at ICRISAT, with a programme status. IT must be included in this reorganized Programme because IT has to be mission-led, not technology-led. It recommended strengthening competency in knowledge management; establishment of IRMP (now IRMO); integrating LSU as a unit of IRMO; appointment of a Programme Director (now Head, IRMO); computerization of ICRISAT; establishment of an e-library; re-engineering the training strategy; and improve connectivity across locations.
At the February 2000 Board meeting, the report from TEC on the CCER was adopted, and provided guidance to management. At the September 2000 TEC meeting, the management presented the strategies for partnership, training and education and public awareness, and an action plan for Information Technology. TEC endorsed the focus on "learning" instead of training, and called for mechanisms for information diffusion for achieving impact. A report on an update on the implementation process for learning systems was considered at the October 2001 meeting. ICRISAT proposed to shift training towards e-learning and distance learning approaches. At that meeting an operational framework for information management was discussed which led to the IRMP being transformed into the proposed IRMO in January 2002. The operational framework focused on strengthening research-extension-farmer linkages in the SAT based on communication of information on agricultural innovations, and technology-based knowledge and advice to promote learning, action and capacity building.
The activities under IRMO are implemented through three units, namely: Learning Systems (training), Information Systems and Library and Documentation.
The Learning Systems Unit undertakes its work with scientists from ICRISAT, universities and the private sector in three modes: scholarly studies; joint project attachments, and specialized training courses. In scholarly studies, M.Sc. and Ph.D. students do their thesis research at an ICRISAT location while completing their course work at a recognized university, either in a developing country or developed country. Joint project attachment provides learning opportunities for universities scientists as research fellows or apprentices. Specialized training courses develop knowledge and skills of participants on new technologies, research methodologies, research management, and other contemporary topics. Recently, IRMO began reviving the Institutes' in-house training at Patancheru in collaboration with a private partner.
The Information Systems Unit in collaboration with the Learning Systems Unit launched a Computer Based Training programme of knowledge sharing through the establishment of community information hubs in the rural areas, where para-professionals are trained to mediate information flows between rural residents and sources of knowledge, The first set of pilot hubs have been set up in the State of Andra Pradesh in collaboration with the State Government as part of the watershed and livelihoods project.
Similarly, IRMO has embarked on a pilot computer-based distance learning initiative on coping with drought in a drought stricken village of Addakal in Andhra Pradesh, undertaken in collaboration with the Canada-based Commonwealth of Learning, BR Ambekar Open University and two ICAR institutes. In addition to providing information, ICRISAT aims to understand how such information delivered at the right time can help rural communities enhance their capacity to cope better with drought.
The Library and Documentation Unit continues to strengthen its collection of information along ICRISAT's research themes. At the same time, the facility to access the e-library from distant and remote locations has been extended during 2002 to locations in Africa.
The Virtual University for the Semi-Arid Tropics (VUSAT) for Asia was launched in India in June 2003 by ICRISAT together with the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation. The plan for the VUSAT initiative was approved by the Board in March 2003. This multi-agency coalition for the Virtual University is made up of major open universities in South Asia, state governments, and advanced research institutes dealing with climate management. According to ICRISAT and IRMO senior management, the VUSAT aims to develop climate literacy and drought preparedness among rural communities, development workers, service providers, policy makers and other strategic sectors through the integrated use of ICT, open distance-learning, and other communication media. The Virtual University also expects to test the effectiveness of new tools (e.g., space technology, the Internet, satellite-based tracking of ground events in hydrology etc) in communication and learning.
The vision driving the VUSAT initiative is more than drought preparedness, mitigation and response. It is described as "Reaching the unreached; voicing the voiceless in the semi-arid tropics". The mission is "Empowering SAT communities with information, knowledge and skills to enhance their farm productivity and sustainability". The nature and concept of VUSAT is described as "A virtual mass-based education, training and communication institution, offering life-long learning opportunities to the poor, complementing and supplementing open distance learning initiatives in agriculture". The objectives are to: "Educate and train a wide array of stakeholders in the dry tropics; communicate relevant information for community mobilization; establish and sustain a virtual network of policy makers, researchers, educators, service providers and farm communities". The envisaged initial geographical scope of VUSAT is to cover South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
The Communication system has been considerably upgraded in terms of the quality of infrastructure and institute-wide connectivity. All the regional hubs and major locations of ICRISAT in Africa have been provided with dedicated connectivity to the Internet. The global Intranet facility allows ICRISAT as a whole to maintain contact on a real time basis. This is permitting the regular exchange of news throughout the ICRISAT network, and key administrative and policy information is accessible to ICRISAT staff through secure web pages irrespective of location.
Assessment
The core business of ICRISAT is to generate and disseminate information products, knowledge and technologies. In any international research institution, information is a dynamic concept and must be managed in the most advanced state-of-the-art manner. It is an input as well as an output in the research process, and it is generated, transmitted, stored, exchanged, modified, transferred and disseminated within the knowledge system along the Research to Development Continuum. Training is a means of transferring information, knowledge, skills and tools. Overall, the Panel believes that ICRISAT strategic framework for information management and learning has evolved effectively and is beginning to pay dividends. The Board minutes show that serious attention was paid to guide the evolution of the information and ICT-related functions and objectives of ICRISAT, and the Institute has responded in a committed and effective manner to the key recommendations of the 1999 CCER.
ICRISAT is part of the global knowledge system on all aspects of SAT agriculture in which its main preoccupation is the generation and dissemination of new information. Thus ICRISAT's emphasis on learning, information access and reaching remote rural areas is laudable. Advances in ICTs will continue to have a direct influence on the relevance and quality of research at the Centres as well as on how information can be accessed by clients, users and ultimate beneficiaries. The Panel commends ICRISAT for taking advantage of the opportunities arising from advances in ICT for upgrading its communications infrastructure for connectivity, networking, knowledge exchange, library access, learning and capacity building. ICRISAT is particularly commended for piloting the ICT-based open distance learning initiatives, including those covering poor inaccessible rural communities for drought management. ICRISAT must ensure that the IPG research value of this experiment is effectively managed, and generic lessons for success are identified for sustained large-scale impact.
The Panel believes that ICRISAT must be clear about its role and scope in promoting and operating ICT-enabled distance learning initiatives. Undertaking research on the efficacy of ICT-based distance learning for vulnerable rural communities, for example, for anticipatory action on drought could be justified if the aim is to generate outcome and impact-oriented IPGs.
The Panel seriously questions ICRISAT's comparative advantage in operating a distance learning initiative of the type and scope embodied in the VUSAT. Such institutions are the core business of national research and education systems. The VUSAT initiative, although of high public relations value and visibility, will demand significant long-term resource commitments and attention. The Panel is concerned that no serious thought appears to have been given to the legal implications of setting up VUSAT or to oversight and quality control or to the roles and responsibilities of the coalition members. The Institute should undertake serious assessment and deliberations on the legal implications of setting up VUSAT. In theory, ICRISAT could provide the initial catalytic help to get the initiative off the ground but take a back seat role subsequently. No such strategy has been proposed by ICRISAT. The Institute should be more explicit about its short and longer-term role and its overall strategy in coordinating the VUSAT coalition.
The Panel is also particularly concerned that a terminology specific to tertiary education, i.e., "university" has been used for an activity far removed from tertiary education. ICRISAT management contends that the name is not an important element of the initiative, and that it had been suggested by the coalition. The Panel finds this explanation somewhat wanting for substance and foresight, and finds the use of the term "university" inappropriate and confusing. Also, the fact that no charter exists for the university is not a matter of concern to ICRISAT management, yet it should be.
In the light of the above and before hopes are raised and major investments of funds, personnel and attention are directed by ICRISAT:
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".
Since the vision and strategy of ICRISAT to 2010 would involve greater investment in research and development in sub-Saharan Africa than South Asia compared with the past, we examined the physical facilities available to ICRISAT to support their activities in these regions. A Centre Commissioned External Review (CCER) on the Functions - Administration, Finance, Human Resources and Operations of ICRISAT that was published in 2001 provides some information on the physical facilities.
In South Asia, ICRISAT has the large Patancheru campus in India with a total area of 1390 ha. The campus has all of the necessary facilities for an international agricultural research centre, including, 800 ha of arable land and 65 ha devoted to extensive research laboratories with a new biotechnology facility, the gene bank, offices, conference rooms, greenhouses, houses, and dormitories and canteens. The main problem confronting ICRISAT is to develop additional uses for these extensive facilities involving partners to achieve efficiencies by cost sharing and renting, and ICRISAT is taking steps to do this.
In sub-Saharan Africa, ICRISAT currently has three sets of physical facilities where research can be conducted: the ICRISAT Sahelian Centre (ISC), Sadore, Niger; the ICRISAT Samanko Research Station near Bamako, Mali; and the Bulawayo Campus at Matopos, Zimbabwe. In addition, ICRISAT had built a research facility some 55 km south of Kano, Nigeria in 1997. This facility consists of a 30 ha farm and 10 ha for buildings and laboratories. This research station was closed down two years later in December 1999 and handed over to the state government but currently is not being used for research.
The ISC is a comprehensive research centre that was inaugurated in 1990 on a 500 ha site at Sadore, 45 km from Niamey, the capital of Niger. The low rainfall and sandy soil at ISC are typical of major pearl millet producing areas of the Sahelian zone of the SAT. The site has 3500 sq. m of buildings, including, laboratories, a gene bank, offices and houses, and 600 sq. m of greenhouses. Some 80 ha of irrigable land is available for research. The ISC also owns and operates a residential Training and Visitors' Centre in Niamey that has 16 rooms, a dining facility and clubhouse with a swimming pool and recreational facilities. In earlier years, as many as 164 staff (7 IRS and 157 NRS) have worked at ISC. However, as a result of a significant reduction in funding in 1996/97, a decision was made to consolidate programmes previously carried out at ISC into the Samanko Research Station in Mali, and to consider closing down ISC. This decision was reversed recently partly because of funds mobilized by the Desert Margins Programme and several staff have been moved back to ISC which now has 6 IRS on site.
The Samanko Research Station was formally inaugurated in 1991 on a 124 ha site that is 35 km from Bamako the capital of Mali. The research station has laboratories, glasshouses and offices but no housing with most IRS living in Bamako. This site is in the Sudan Savanna zone of the SAT, has more rainfall than ISC and is more suitable for rainfed production of sorghum and groundnut than is ISC. In 1998, this station was designated as the main centre for ICRISAT research in West Africa and this was followed by an increase in the number of ICRISAT scientific staff. Recently, some ICRISAT scientists have been moved to ISC and now there remain 2 IRS ICRISAT positions and 2 ICRISAT/CIRAD positions at Samanko. Several research scientists and support staff from WARDA (about 18 IRS and 42 support staff) who were driven out of Ivory Coast by the civil war have been provided space for research at the Samanko Research Station, and some scientists from ILRI and ICRAF also use the station.
The ICRISAT Bulawayo campus was constructed on land in the SAT provided by the Zimbabwe Matopos Experiment Station about 30 km from Bulawayo in 1984. The campus has laboratories, offices, administrative buildings, a gene bank, glasshouses and 32 houses for NRS. ICRISAT also has 13 houses for IRS in Bulawayo. In 1999, the decision was taken to make the station the focused ICRISAT site for SAT research in southern Africa, primarily for breeding and agronomy with pearl millet and sorghum. ICRISAT has four experimental farms in Zimbabwe: 50 ha at Matopos; 18 ha at Lucydale which is 15 km to the south of the campus; 13 ha at Aisleby which is 45 km to the north of the campus; and about 5 ha at Muzarabani in the Zambezi valley 160 km north of Harare. Despite a worsening Zimbabwean political and economic environment, through good partnerships ICRISAT staff have managed to maintain on-farm activities and meet all project obligations. A USAID grant that provided much of the funding for the construction, operation and research of this campus for about 20 years (Sorghum and Millet Improvement Programme or SMIP) is due to end on September 14th, 2003. In recent years the SMIP expenditure rate has averaged about US$900 000 per year. Four of the 9 long-term IRS at the ICRISAT-Bulawayo campus are wholly or partially supported by the SMIP and no other significant funds are available to support these programmes at this time. Critical problems that must be resolved by ICRISAT include the following questions. Who will own the immovable assets on the campus (e.g. offices, laboratories and staff housing) once the USAID grant expires? Where will future financial support for the ICRISAT-Bulawayo campus come from and will it come soon enough to prevent loss of experienced IRS and the momentum of ICRISAT activity in southern Africa?
|
[4] The CCER on Information
Resources Management states that in 1999 ICRISAT Created a new Division named as
the Partnership and Information Management Division (PIMD). The new Division
with a mandate for knowledge management consolidated into the Institute’s
information related units, earlier dispersed over a number of different groups
in the Institute. |
