26 February 1997
Dr Donald Winkelmann, Chair
Technical Advisory Committee
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Food and Agriculture Organization
00100 ROME
Italy
Mr Alexander von der Osten
Executive Secretary
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
World Bank
1818 H Street N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20433
USA
Dear Dr Winkelmann and Mr von der Osten
It is our pleasure to send you our response to the Fourth External Programme and Management Review of the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. We are pleased with the very positive report of the Review Panel and their recognition of IPGRI as a lead actor in addressing technical and policy-based issues in global genetic resources management.
The IPGRI Board of Trustees and Management have expressed appreciation to the Panel for the comprehensive, thorough and transparent process followed during the Review. Through this process several areas were identified where IPGRI can further strengthen its capacity and ability to fulfil its CGIAR and global responsibilities. We appreciate the constructive recommendations which resulted.
The Report has been reviewed extensively by the Board and staff of IPGRI and we have formulated the attached response which includes IPGRI's reaction to each recommendation. In the coming months, IPGRI will begin to define strategies for implementing the recommendations.
On the basis of this Review we feel very strongly that IPGRI can approach the future confident that it has made a successful transition into a fully functional and independent centre of the CGIAR, with a high-quality programme that truly addresses the global agenda in genetic resources conservation and management. We look forward to that future with enthusiasm.
Yours sincerely
Wanda Collins
Chair, Board of Trustees
Geoffrey Hawtin
Director General
Tel: (39-6) 518921 Fax: (39-6) 5750309 Email: IPGRI@CGNETCOM Internet: http://www.cgiar.org/ipgri
IPGRI'S RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF ITS FOURTH EXTERNAL PROGRAMME AND MANAGEMENT REVIEW
1. IPGRI wishes to place on record its appreciation for the very positive way the Panel undertook its task, for its thoroughness and ready grasp of the many complex issues and challenges facing the Institute in a rapidly changing global environment. This response is presented in three sections: firstly some general comments and observations on the report, followed by IPGRI's response to each of the specific recommendations and finally some conclusions.
General Observations
2. We are pleased to note the Panel's strong endorsement of IPGRI's mode of operation which emphasizes partnerships and places a high priority on networking. We strongly believe that this way of operating is appropriate for an institute such as IPGRI which has such a wide subject matter and geographic coverage. The Panel has recognized that the flexibility inherent in IPGRI's approach enables the institute to best meet current and future challenges and opportunities.
3. We are also pleased to note the Panel's very positive assessment of so many of the specific areas of our work. We would particularly like to highlight the strong endorsement given to some of our newer programme areas such as forest genetic resources, genetic resources policy, in situ conservation and the human aspects of conservation and use. We intend to continue to emphasize these important areas of our programme while not neglecting traditional areas of IPGRI's strength, for example our state-of-the-art research on ex situ conservation and genetic diversity assessment, and our work on documentation and information. In addition we also plan to further strengthen other key programme areas such as population genetics, the conservation of non-domesticated relatives and economics.
4. The Panel's various suggestions with respect to our activities in the regions will be very helpful as we seek to strengthen them over the coming years. In particular we agree with the Panel's observations on our innovative and successful programme in Europe, and especially the ECP/GR and EUFORGEN networks.
5. The Panel's positive assessment of the INIBAP programme is fully shared by IPGRI, and we are pleased at the Panel's endorsement of the proposed areas for programme expansion and the central role foreseen for INIBAP in the Musa Improvement Programme. We agree that the "INIBAP experiment" has been a success and provides a possible model for other programmes within the CGIAR. The report correctly points out that both IPGRI and INIBAP have benefited substantially from the merger.
6. IPGRI has grown considerably over recent years. We regard this as evidence not only of an increasing global awareness of the importance of conserving genetic resources, but also a strong expression of support by the donors for our programme. IPGRI is keenly aware of the need to effectively manage such growth and we are confident that our evolving management systems are well up to the task.
7. We were somewhat disappointed, however, by the Panel's apparent perception that our programme might be overly "donor-driven". We have made deliberate efforts to only approach donors for funding in areas of highest priority to the institute. Of course, like all institutions dependent on external funding, we have to carefully match our requests to the interests of the donor agencies themselves. We believe we have been successful in doing this, and where donor interests have tended to emphasize certain areas of the programme rather than others, we have been able to use unrestricted funding to maintain overall programme balance.
8. As IPGRI continues to evolve, further thought will be given to the question of the balance between staff located in headquarters and those in the regions. We take note of the comments of the panel with respect to the need to maintain a critical mass of expertise in Rome and Montpellier while at the same time seeking to strengthen our presence in the regions, so as to be able to best serve the needs of our principal partners, the national programmes in developing countries.
9. IPGRI's primary concern is for plant (including forest) genetic resources. The creation of SGRP has also provided a window for the institute onto other areas such as domesticated livestock, aquatic and microbial genetic resources. Over the coming years the institute intends to further evaluate its potential role in the conservation of such resources.
10. The Board wishes to point out that it is fully satisfied with its new and innovative structure and method of operating, and regards it as a model that other Centres might also find worth considering. The experimental period is now over and contrary to some earlier fears, it has not placed an increased workload on the Board Chair or staff. It is more transparent and has greatly increased full Board participation in decision making.
11. IPGRI's system of CCERs has evolved since it was initiated five years ago. We note the comment of the panel with respect to Board participation on CCER panels and the suggestion to not include Chairs of other Centre Boards on future reviews. IPGRI's experience in both these respects has been positive and we do not feel that the objectivity of our reviews has been compromised in any way.
IPGRI's Response to the EPMR Recommendations
12. Recommendation 1: IPGRI agrees with the Panel that GRST should undertake a systematic programme of baseline genetic diversity surveys. We interpret this recommendation to mean that IPGRI should design such a programme and develop and promote suitable protocols for implementation by national programmes and through networks.
13. Recommendation 2: This recommendation stresses the importance of solving actual problems rather than just increasing academic knowledge through the use of case studies. Such an approach is indeed central to IPGRI's research programme. While agreeing with the Panel, IPGRI must strike a balance between solving immediate problems and more strategic research which aims to underpin future "problem solving" research.
14. Recommendation 3: IPGRI will explore mechanisms for strengthening its staffing in documentation, as recommended, taking into account also the skills and responsibilities of regionally-located staff. Although the precise nature of the Documentation Advisory Support Group recommended by the Panel requires clarification, the concept of a participatory mechanism to assist in the identification of documentation needs and constraints, and to develop and implement solutions, is received with interest and will be explored together with SGRP. It is further noted that implementing this recommendation will incur added costs.
15. Recommendation 4: The recommendation to appoint a Training Officer echoes earlier recommendations (e.g. by the DIT CCER). IPGRI agrees, and recruitment of a full-time Training Officer is already planned but is currently on hold pending sufficient funds becoming available.
16. Recommendation 5: The Board is somewhat surprised at the Panel's analysis of COGENT and the resulting recommendation to reconsider IPGRI's facilitating role in the network. There also appear to be some misconceptions about the situation regarding coconut genetic resources and the biology of the crop. We wish to point out that 95% of the world coconut production is from small farms, and that the COGENT Steering Committee members are deeply concerned with solving the problems faced by small-scale producers. We thus regard COGENT as a very relevant activity for IPGRI and the CGIAR. The Board, however, does accept the recommendation of the Panel concerning the importance of targeting smallholders but stresses that this is already the case and is exemplified in a proposal, recently submitted to a donor, to strengthen on-farm coconut research.
17. Recommendation 6: We agree with the Panel on the need for close interaction and integration between Regional and Thematic Groups and the need. to more precisely define the roles and responsibilities of Regional Groups. Mechanisms to help ensure such interaction are contained in the recently revised Project Management Framework. We recognize the need for careful monitoring of its implementation.
18. Recommendation 7: IPGRI sees long-term value in the recommendation to shift resources to the Institute's Objective 2 (promoting international collaboration), with Objective 1 (the strengthening of national programmes) being addressed primarily through regional approaches. However, we view this with some reservation as national programmes are the necessary building blocks of any regional or international effort. In line with the Global Plan of Action, IPGRI aims to support national programmes so that they can both more effectively benefit from, and contribute to, regional and international efforts. As national programmes become stronger, IPGRI's Objective 2 will gradually evolve to take precedence over Objective 1.
19. Recommendation 8: IPGRI agrees that its regional strategies require further elaboration. This will be done in consultation with key partners.
20. Recommendation 9: IPGRI concurs with the Panel's four sub-recommendations regarding the full integration of INIBAP within IPGRI. We will explore with the INIBAP Support Group its future role in relation to both the INIBAP programme and proposed Musa Improvement Programme (MIP).
21. Recommendation 10: We agree with the recommendation to carry out joint strategic planning with IITA, not only in the context of the Musa Improvement Programme but also in the regional networks in Africa. IITA has already contributed to the development of the draft proposal for MIP and will participate in the March 1997 meeting to launch the programme.
22. Recommendation 11: The Panel notes the difficulties created by having the Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources (ICWG-GR) composed of individuals from different levels within their Centres. However, we believe that the problems this creates are not insurmountable and that goodwill among the members, a strong sense of ownership of the programme and a personal desire to participate effectively in it are ultimately more important than their level of decision-making authority within their own institute. Nevertheless we agree with the recommendation that IPGRI should explore possibilities for ensuring that all members of the ICWG-GR are empowered to make appropriate decisions, when needed, on behalf of their Centres. The recommendation to appoint one or more external advisors to the SGRP will also be explored with the ICWG-GR.
23. Recommendation 12: IPGRI agrees that there are still opportunities for the CGIAR to further increase the coherence of its genetic resources work to more fully realize its potential contribution to the global system in the post UNCED era. However, we believe that this issue would best be addressed by the proposed TAC external review of SGRP rather than by IPGRI initiating a separate and possibly overlapping effort.
24. Recommendation 13: The full Board of IPGRI is involved and operates on a year-round basis rather than confining its activities primarily to its Board meetings which take place twice per year. Because of its commitment to full Board involvement and transparency in its processes, an Executive Committee decision has been required only once in the past two years. Although the Board will continue this mode of operation, the leaders of any Task Groups assigned to Programme and Audit/Operations functions at future Board meetings will be added to the membership of the Executive Committee as recommended.
25. Recommendations 14 and 15: IPGRI agrees with these two related recommendations regarding the need to further articulate the linkages between the institutional, thematic and regional strategies, and to develop operational statements to guide resource allocation. The recommendation that this be carried out jointly by staff, management and Board is also received positively. This will be done in the context of the planned revision of IPGRI's long-term institutional strategy, "Diversity for Development".
26. Recommendation 16: IPGRI is somewhat concerned at the Panels depiction of the institute as taking an opportunistic approach to its relationships with partners. Partnerships have in many cases developed over a large number of years and IPGRI's staff have very extensive webs of contacts. In contracting out research, IPGRI not only seeks to maximise the quality of the research conducted, but also uses such contracts as a means of developing the research capacity of partner organizations and to help promote their participation in the international arena. Thus we have strong reservations about the recommendation to issue calls for proposals and are concerned that IPGRI not be seen by its partners as a funding agency. Nevertheless we will explore that part of the recommendation that calls for a greater use of peer reviews for evaluating project plans.
Conclusions
27. Finally IPGRI would like to thank the Panel, once again, for its helpful suggestions and recommendations. While the Board would have appreciated an opportunity for greater interaction with the panel prior to the conclusion of the report, we are happy that the exercise has provided the Institute with an excellent opportunity both to take stock of where we are today as well as to look to the future. The last EPMRs of IPGRI and INIBAP produced a total of 32 recommendations and we are pleased that the present Panel was able to note that of these only one had not been implemented, partially or fully. We anticipate being able to report a similar record in implementing the current recommendations at the time of IPGRI's 5th External Programme and Management Review.
Rome, 26 February 1997
