TAC COMMENTARY ON THE FOURTH EXTERNAL PROGRAMME AND MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF IPGRI
TAC expresses its thanks to the Chair and members of the Panel for a constructive Report which was discussed at TAC 72, in the presence of the Panel Chair, Dr. Calvin Qualset, the Chair of IPGRI's Board, Dr. Wanda Collins, and the Director General of IPGRI, Dr. Geoffrey Hawtin. TAC endorses, in general, the recommendations of the Panel, and notes that IPGRI has responded favourably.
TAC is pleased to note the progress made by IPGRI during the period under review, in both its management and programmes. However, the Committee draws the readers attention to the fact that while the Report is strong and rich in describing and analyzing IPGRI's work and progress, the full measure of the assessment given in the text is not always reflected in the summary and recommendations. Also, some of the most valuable comments in the text of the Report refer to matters of importance well beyond the Centre under review. TAC offers the following commentary, prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat, to supplement the Panel's Report.
The Role of IPGRI
The Panel stresses that IPGRI is not principally a research but a catalytic and facilitator institution. However, the Panel did not analyze how IPGRI could further strengthen the way it carries out such functions. As IPGRI is the only Centre in the CGIAR System which functions predominantly as a catalytic and facilitator institution, it would be useful to examine further the skills and competencies that are needed to operate most effectively in this way. IPGRI should include such an analysis as part of its strategic planning exercise scheduled to take place during 1997.
TAC notes that IPGRI's commitment to hands-on-research is through its partnership and its own in-house research is limited. TAC wonders whether IPGRI's ability to keep abreast scientifically, and the perception of the Institute as a leading research institution in the field, would be further enhanced by undertaking more bench and field research in-house. In particular, TAC considers that much in situ conservation requires an understanding of the long-term ecology of plant communities, whether natural or agricultural communities. This will require ecological genetic research and IPGRI should consider how this can be included among its responsibilities, keeping in mind that such research would be of interest to several other CGIAR Centres. TAC noted IPGRI's sense that much of what is learned through such research will have broad application and reasons that this should give IPGRI the opportunity to work with other Centres on CGIAR commodities in such efforts.
IPGRI's Focus
IPGRI has a very broad subject matter and geographical mandate. Also, the global interests in genetic resources conservation are driven by international political anxieties of the world community as reflected in the Global Plan of Action. Consequently, there is a particular challenge for this Centre and for the System in setting priorities and in getting coherent action across a number of Centres. However, to ensure that IPGRI's agenda and activities are closely linked to CGIAR goals, rigorous priority setting is essential so that the Institute can carve out from the global agenda a subset of concerns, in accord with the Global Plan of Action, that is at the heart of CGIAR's interests. TAC concurs with the Panel that IPGRI's work is not focused because priorities are set at a broad institutional level that are not adequate to guide strategic decisions about programme priorities. Also, there is a need to strengthen the linkages between strategic programme planning and the resulting operational aspects, especially for the rapidly expanding regional activities. TAC is concerned that inadequate focus in IPGRI's activities could lead to a scattering of the Institute's efforts.
Research Quality
During the review period, IPGRI has significantly increased its contract research activities. However, the Panel pointed out that the selection of the contract partner institution generally appeared to be less than systematically done: the contract partner being approached because the IPGRI staff member taking the initiative knows the partner he or she considers up to the task. Although the Panel did not directly criticize the validity of this approach, it did point out that a more open process in the identification of a contract partners would provide opportunities for systematically sourcing the highest possible quality; and noted that the introduction of competitive elements in this process would enhance cost-effectiveness of the research undertaken and strengthen the catalytic role of the Institute in the global genetic resources research system.
TAC does not agree with the Centre's reservation about the recommendation for IPGRI to develop a mode of subcontracting for part of its research programme through the issuance of calls for proposals for designated research topics, because of IPGRI's concern that it should not be seen by its partners as a funding agency. TAC believes that there are a number of ways by which subcontracting of research can be effectively organized and managed without IPGRI appearing to be a funding agency. Further, the quality control inherent in the recommended approach would help IPGRI to further enhance the scientific quality of its professional performance.
Impact Assessment
TAC notes that the Panel did not address the issue of impact of IPGRI's work. IPGRI is a young institution in its present form, and the impact of some of IPGRI's work is likely to be difficult to assess because of the service nature of its activities. However, IPGRI does engage in a number of activities whose impact should not be too difficult to assess, and TAC was informed in the discussion that impact assessment activities are underway at the Institute. TAC urges IPGRI to continue to give attention to this important aspect of its work, and looks forward to seeing the results.
Banana and Plantain
TAC notes the Panel's conclusion that the integration of INIBAP into IPGRI has been successful and the recommendation that INIBAP be considered fully integrated into IPGRI. TAC endorses this recommendation and applauds both groups for their effort. However, for whatever formalities remain, TAC requests IPGRI to develop a timetable for full integration in collaboration with the INIBAP Support Group, and keep TAC informed on progress. IITA has a global mandate in the CGIAR for research on crop improvement and on productions systems development and management of plantain and banana. It would be unwise for IPGRI/INIBAP to also initiate similar research, and TAC was pleased to receive assurances from IPGRI management that its banana and plantain programme will not engage in hands-on breeding or in research related to production systems. TAC expects that the banana and plantain programme of IPGRI will develop in a manner consistent with the Institute's mandate.
TAC is concerned about the effectiveness of the coordination in banana and plantain effort in the CGIAR System where the responsibility of the effort is shared between IITA and IPGRI/INIBAP, TAC considers that there is a need to develop greater coherence in CGIAR's banana and plantain agenda and its implementation in the different regions, and agrees with the Panel's recommendation that IPGRI/INIBAP and IITA should undertake a joint strategic planning exercise at the earliest possible date to: (a) define the CGIAR's total effort in banana and plantain, taking into account other major breeding programmes, and the CGIAR's input into the Global Musa Improvement Programme; and (b) agree upon a MOU between IPGRI and IITA that would ensure complementarity and operational effectiveness. In this regard, TAC notes that recently IPGRI/INIBAP was identified to serve as the executive secretariat of the Musa Improvement Programme. IPGRI should carefully explore the long-term institutional implications of entering into such a commitment in the light of the concerns mentioned above.
COGENT
TAC was pleased to note IPGRI's claim that COGENT operates for the benefit of smallholders. However, TAC urges IPGRI to be sensitive to the fact that research may not always reach small-scale growers and keep a watching brief to ensure that benefits do flow to the poor.
Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP)
The Panel has raised several important questions about the coherence and direction of the genetic resources commitment in the CGIAR System as a whole, and thus its visibility and weight in the global scene. TAC concurs with the Panel that there is an urgent need for this situation to be addressed more proactively by all those concerned, and concludes that, in view of the increased interests at the global level as reflected in the Global Plan of Action, the external review of the SGRP will also address the issues raised, including those related to animal and aquatic genetic resources, in a Systemwide context.
Policy Research
The Panel touched very briefly on IPGRI's work on policy, which to date, has been only a small fraction of its output. As a result of changes brought about by the Convention on Biological Diversity, the CGIAR has expressed the view that IPGRI should develop in-house capacity for genetic resources policy research and advice. IPGRI wishes to appoint a legal expert in addition to having available the part-time services of a Senior Honorary Fellow for policy work. TAC has some reservations about the decision to hire the legal expert, inasmuch as IPGRI enjoys extremely good relations with FAO with whom it has a MOU whereby FAO assumes the leading responsibility in legal and policy matters regarding plant genetic resources. Where IPGRI feels the need to have further legal advice, TAC considers that such service can be easily and probably more efficiently outsourced.
One of the many areas in which policy work would be useful in international fora, to the CGIAR itself as a key player in plant genetic resources, and to national governments who depend on IPGRI's advice, is in drawing out the economic consequences of different policy options with respect to plant genetic resources. In this work IPGRI can draw upon the burgeoning work in economic evaluation of biodiversity being carried out in many advanced research institutions. This work may well be extremely useful in view of the prevalence of a wide range of opinions concerning the value of genetic resources - opinions which are inadequately backed by good quality data and analyses.
TAC notes with satisfaction that there are plans for IPGRI and IFPRI to conduct joint work on economic issues relating to plant genetic resources, and hopes that this work will enable IPGRI to deepen its policy research. TAC's view is that much such research should be incorporated in the SGRP.
Governance
The Report comments extensively about the functioning of the Board. The Panel notes that the IPGRI Board has been operating without standing committees (except for a small Executive Committee), and has made an insightful analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of this novel arrangement. The IPGRI Board has been creative in the development of unconventional work patterns. TAC encourages the Board to continue to operate creatively but agrees with the Panel that, for this model to succeed, the Board must ensure that its arrangements allow for the continuity and stability of key Board functions, including monitoring of the implementation of Board decisions.
