The Panel has completed its Review with the conviction that CIAT is a good Centre which is beginning to emerge from a difficult period of change and instability. It is doing high-quality science, and showing great resilience in the face of all its problems.
The Centre took a correct decision to open up new areas of research in natural resources management. Unfortunately, its calculation that this would be fully funded by additional contributions from donors proved to be wrong. Even worse, total contributions to CIAT declined, and NRM work had to be financed by shifts out of the traditional commodity programmes which were being hit at the same time by the overall financial crisis. The resignation of the Director General was followed by the appointment of a distinguished Board Member as Interim Director General; while this ensured that there was no vacuum at the top, and helped to restore staff morale, it still left open the question of long-term leadership. Compounding these problems are increasing concerns about security in Colombia.
That CIAT is coming well through all these difficulties is due mainly to the commitment of its staff. The Panel was greatly impressed by the quality and devotion of CIAT scientists, and wishes to pay a special tribute to the Programme Leaders who have held their teams together and helped to pilot the Centre through the rough waters of the last two or three years.
Looking at the broad picture of the changes that have been introduced in CIAT, the Panel sees no reason to go back on fundamental decisions. The target balance between commodity and NRM research foreseen in the Strategic Plan (roughly 60/40) can be retained. The actual balance at present is about 70/30, but there can be no question of any further building up of NRM at the expense of the commodity programmes. The shift of resources already made could perhaps have been accomplished more gradually and with greater focus, but the pain has been absorbed and the Centre should think about the future not the past.
The greater complexity of CIAT today mirrors changes that have been underway not just in other international institutions but also in national systems and indeed in the world as a whole. It is to the credit of CIAT that it launched these adjustments in a proactive and visionary manner, even if serious problems arose as they were carried out.
In downsizing to cope with the financial crisis, CIAT chose to maintain a skeletal structure of commodity and NRM programmes that could be built up again as and when funding becomes available. The Panel endorses this choice, but feels that the skeletal approach has been taken about as far as it can go. Should there be a need for further significant downsizing - and we certainly hope this will not be the case - the Centre should make a thorough review of its programmes.
The rising strength of NARS in many (though not all) countries is leading to shifts in the types of service they look to CIAT to provide. Increasingly they need an international centre, working with advanced scientific institutions in the developed world, to undertake strategic research in support of their own work. CIAT is doing well in such areas as biotechnology, virology and Geographic Information Systems. The Panel draws particular attention to the need for strategic and even basic research by CIAT and other scientific institutions on cassava and tropical forages, which are not grown in developed countries and on which a lot of fundamental information is still lacking.
CIAT has also shown initiative in adapting to the new trend towards consortia-type approaches to research, involving both traditional partners (other centres and organizations, NARS) and new actors (the private sector, NGOs). Of special interest is the creation of FLAR (described in Chapter 2.4), a mixed group of private and public sector organizations, to assume a significant level of financial responsibility for research on irrigated rice.
The Centre has participated eagerly in CGIAR Systemwide initiatives and similar undertakings. Probably individual scientists find a new challenge in this type of work. From the point of view of the Centre, however, the Panel believes it is necessary to be cautious. No less than 10 new initiatives of various types involving CIAT were started in 1994. It is imperative that CIAT organize its participation in a way that conserves enough of the time of its managers and scientists for them to handle their basic responsibilities well. The systemwide programme approach is the way of the future, and is supported by the Panel, but we hope that CIAT will not be pressed to join in too many more collaborative exercises before it has sorted out its internal problems.
Relations between CIAT and NARS have been found generally good, and in the case of the host country Colombia outstandingly so. However, there are no grounds for complacency. NARS are changing rapidly, and CIAT will have to develop new modes of interaction with them. Genuine consultation on important issues, in particular research priorities, is the name of the game. This is quite different from explaining decisions already virtually taken, or from seeking comments on programmes already drafted. There have been one or two misunderstandings with important NARS, and regular policy-level contacts between the Centre and its major clients will be advisable.
The Panel has been well satisfied with the general thrust, and the level of science, in the commodity programmes. We have put forward a number of suggestions for incremental improvements, but have found little need for formal recommendations for a change of emphasis or direction.
The Natural Resources Management Programmes are still young, although they have been able both to initiate important new research and to take over some work previously carried out by CIAT under other headings. The Panel endorses the general approach as described in Chapter 3. We feel, however, that the limited resources available call for a sharper focus through reducing the number of research sites. For the same reason we are not comfortable with the present overall organization of NRM, and have presented several options for consideration by the incoming Director General and the Board. These relate to the structuring of the work by programme, and the role of the Land Management Scientific Resources Group (which should become a programme or a unit depending on how CIAT foresees its long-term future). More broadly, work on NRM interfaces closely with socioeconomic issues at both policy and farm levels. CIAT will need to develop a clear vision on how these interfaces should be handled vis-à-vis international organizations and national offices concerned with policy. The Centre is strong in research on the interaction between small farmers and the environment, and this work should be built on.
Mounting importance is being attached in the world at large to the role of the international centres as custodians of the global heritage of germplasm. The Panel found that CIAT's Genetic Resources Unit has been without a head since the previous incumbent moved to IPGRI. We have put forward a recommendation on the profile of a new head, who should be found as soon as possible.
In the opinion of the Panel, the most immediate and important problems of CIAT relate to management rather than to science. Most of our recommendations go in this direction.
Our report has been drawn up on the eve of the selection by the Board of a new Director General. The need for inspiring long-term leadership is evident throughout the Centre. Difficult times are not yet over, and the personality of the new incumbent will be a prime factor for sustaining staff morale. In the view of the Panel a participatory style of management will be essential. During the last few years a gap has opened up between middle and lower level staff on one side and senior management on the other. The pressures arising out of the financial crisis have probably forced painful decisions to be taken too quickly, and have inhibited staff consultation. Effective consultation and participation on matters affecting the research staff needs to be fully restored. While this may slow down decisions, it will mean that they are better understood, better supported, and perhaps even better formulated when they are taken.
An area where lack of consultation has led to problems has been the introduction of the SRGs. The Panel has described in Chapters 4 and 7 the confusion among staff over the SRGs' role and functions. We believe that they are developing well as vehicles for promoting interaction across programme lines. They should not, however, be regarded as a management tool, nor as part of the management structure. In fact, the Centre needs to move in two different directions. In order to mobilize its expertise in support of system work, particularly on NRM, interdisciplinary groups are needed. On the other hand, a gradual move towards more strategic research creates a different need for disciplinary or affinity groups, that can produce a highly focused impact in a relatively narrow field.
The Panel fully backs the introduction of a project basis for research and financial management. However, the way in which this was done - without much staff consultation - led to problems which are still not fully resolved. Coming as it did in the middle of the financial crisis, the impression was created that research was becoming administration-driven, instead of administrative processes being used to promote more effective research. Whether it is right or wrong, this impression persists and will need corrective action by the incoming Director General.
In the field of human resource management, the Panel has been deeply impressed by the manner in which CIAT carried out a massive reduction in staff (affecting almost 500 employees in the last five years) without running into serious labour problems. The Panel also found every evidence that financial management at CIAT is in competent hands.
Last but not least, the Panel has been favourably impressed by the operation of the Board of Trustees.
In concluding, the Panel wishes to express the hope that the uncertainties of the present transitional period will be speedily resolved. The Centre has remained an exciting and creative place to work, despite all its recent problems. With the right leadership, and using the new modes of cooperation with other institutions and NARS, CIAT can make a significant impact during the years ahead, both in its new and in its traditional fields of research.
