The report of the Second External Programme and Management Review of ICRAF was discussed at TAC 75 in the presence of the Panel Chair, Dr. Jochen Heuveldop, the Vice-Chair of ICRAF's Board, Dr. Maria de Lourdes de Freitas, and the Director General of ICRAF, Dr. Pedro Sanchez.
TAC expresses its thanks to the Chair and members of the Panel for a constructive, forward-looking and positive assessment of the future role and importance of the Centre. At the same time, the Panel's report clearly highlights the central issues and challenges facing ICRAF.
The Committee is pleased to note that ICRAF has worked hard and diligently at transforming itself into a well managed research institution, and that it has become a major force in research and development in agroforestry.
TAC endorses, in general, the recommendations of the Panel, and notes that ICRAF has responded favourably to nine of the ten, and has already taken steps towards implementing them. TAC encourages wide discussion of the report at the Centre in order to pursue the potential for collective reflections by Centre staff on the messages of the EPMR. TAC offers the following commentary, prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat, to supplement the Panel's report.
ICRAF's Strategic Plan
TAC agrees with the need for ICRAF to develop its research programme in the context of a clearly elaborated vision of the future needs of agroforestry within a holistic natural resource management framework. The Committee welcomes the Panel recommendation that ICRAF review and update its Strategic Plan, develop both strategic and medium-term plans for each of the Programmes and Regional Offices, and use these as the basis for annual planning. The Committee notes that ICRAF is in the process of decentralizing greater authority and control to the Regional Offices while maintaining cross-regional programmatic linkage through global thematic programmes. However, it shares the Panel's observation that effective support from the Research and Development Divisions at headquarters for the regional activities will be important in ensuring that ICRAF maintains a cohesive vision and "programme of action". In this regard, TAC strongly encourages ICRAF to ensure that its regional strategies will provide the building blocks for updating its Centre-wide strategy.
Quality of Science
TAC appreciates the Panel's detailed review of ICRAF's research management in terms of quality of inputs, problem formulation, methods and implementation, and outputs. The Committee is pleased to note that despite ICRAF's recent rapid growth, the Centre has developed a good strategic research programme. Nevertheless, the Panel has highlighted that ICRAF faces the challenge of ensuring that its strategic research programme keeps in step with the more applied on-farm research. In this regard, TAC strongly supports the Panel's recommendation for an increased effort in research on propagation and postharvest technologies, because of their high potential contribution to the goals of the System.
TAC noted the Panel's assessment that mechanisms for monitoring programme quality are in place. However, in assessing programme quality, TAC would like to have seen a more explicit discussion on the quality standards of the research per se in terms of soundness of theory, use of up-to-date methodology and policy relevance. It is more effective when the quality of science practised is discussed with explicit reference to the state-of-the-art, in terms of the underlying theory and methodology, and whether the methodologies are in step with progress in other comparable advanced research centres. TAC also felt the need for a stronger Panel and ICRAF analysis of the presence and quality of the Centre's sociological research, in view of the major importance of socio-cultural variables, and tenurial, institutional and distributional arrangements, for group-based and smallholder agroforestry. The discussions at TAC 75 emphasized the importance of sociological and economic research and the need to evaluate the contributions of these two areas distinctly rather than collectively as "socioeconomic research". TAC encourages ICRAF to take these elements into account as it further develops its own programme orientation and quality assurance mechanisms and processes. As well, the Committee would have preferred the Panel to identify whether ICRAF has achieved or is on the path of achieving any major scientific product regarded, in terms of its quality, as a major breakthrough.
Impact Assessment
ICRAF expects its activities to have impacts at the global, national, community and farmer levels. The Panel concluded that ICRAF's outputs and achievements are solid and in most part contribute directly to achieving its goals. The Panel found discrete examples of how ICRAF's outputs are beginning to translate into impacts. However, it would have been useful for the Committee to know how ICRAF proposes to measure the intermediate and ultimate impacts of its work at the different levels of aggregation. TAC believes that ICRAF should take a more proactive stance on the matter and pay particular attention to defining its impact assessment strategy.
Partnerships
The extent of ICRAF's partnerships is impressive and TAC is pleased with the analysis offered by the Panel regarding the balance, nature and quality of partnerships with NARS, other CGIAR Centres and other institutions. ICRAF views itself as a partnership-based, development-oriented research institute. Given ICRAF's mandate and future role in integrated natural resources management (INRM), there is no doubt that ICRAF will need to sustain a sizeable level of complex partnering, and the Panel has made two recommendations in this area both of which are endorsed by TAC.
TAC agrees with the Panel that for ICRAF to position itself as a global and regional contributor of agroforestry expertise to INRM research, other CGIAR Centres and international institutions need to be involved as partners. In this regard, TAC notes that ICRAF is the convening Centre for two Systemwide Programmes but also participates in eight other Systemwide Programmes. The Panel did not analyse what benefit ICRAF was deriving from participating in the latter but cautions ICRAF against further commitments to Systemwide Programmes, unless the intended activities fit directly within the framework of ICRAF's strategy and MTP. TAC considers this to be sound advice.
Relationship with CIFOR
The Panel notes, as in the CIFOR review, that although the formal relations established between ICRAF and CIFOR are cordial, the amount of programmatic cooperation and joint involvement has been less than optimal, considering the potential complementarity of the talents and interests involved. TAC agrees with the Panel's view that ICRAF and CIFOR need to develop the relationships and mechanisms that allow them to complement and supplement each other where possible and share responsibility jointly where their interests overlap. Some five years ago the Directors General of the two Centres undertook a study of their complementarities within the context of the Alternatives to Slash and Burn Programme. Since then, both Centres have established regional presence in which regional research and partnership strategies have yet to be explicitly defined.
TAC recommends that ICRAF and CIFOR undertake a joint strategic planning exercise at the earliest possible date to (a) define opportunities for collaboration; and (b) agree upon a MOU that would ensure complementarity and operational effectiveness.
Development Division
The Panel report points out that ICRAF is evolving into an institution that gives explicit and equal emphasis to the research and development activities needed to ensure that the results are put into use as rapidly as possible. ICRAF has taken several steps to operationalize the research-to-development continuum, including the establishment of the Development Division. The Panel report places a strong emphasis on the need to focus on producing international public goods. With respect to those related to development activities pursued by ICRAF, the Panel has recommended research on dissemination methods and techniques, as well as market development research and strategic planning for value added activities. TAC supports the recommendations that are consistent with the need for ICRAF to avoid being drawn into purely extension type activities, and emphasizes the Institute's potential in evolving policy recommendations for governments. More attention should be paid by ICRAF to the social and institutional strategies that must match technological recommendations in agroforestry. The Committee agrees with the Panel that there is a need to draw on experiences from around the world in these development-oriented activities and to do selected research in the area. This research should also be linked with the carrying out of constraint and needs analysis with partners to define alternative dissemination pathways and approaches.
Governance and Management
The Panel points out that ICRAF's governance and management functions are now more complex, and has recommended that the Board should strengthen its programme oversight by becoming more proactive in setting its agenda as well as institute a formal procedure to schedule and commission Centre Commissioned External Reviews. TAC endorses this recommendation which should improve the effectiveness of the Board in discharging its due diligence functions as well as its communication with management and staff. TAC notes the favourable response of the Board to this recommendation.
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry
ICRAF
PAS/262
29 July 1998
Dr. Donald L. Winkelmann
Chairman
Technical Advisory Committee
355 East Palace Avenue
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
U.S.A.
Mr. Alexander von der Osten
Executive Secretary
CGIAR
701 18th Street, N.W.
Room J-4073
Washington, DC 20433
U.S.A.
Dear Dr. Winkelmann and Mr. von der Osten.
On behalf of the ICRAF Board of Trustees and Management, we are pleased to respond to the recommendations presented in the Report of the Second External Program and Management Review of the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry.
The review panel's report has highlighted ICRAF's successful evolution from an advocacy council to a strategic research centre with a research agenda and a mode of operation that support the CGIAR's mission and goals. In addition, the panel has provided a valuable analysis and strategic evaluation of crucial program and management issues that will affect the future development of ICRAF. These include: planning and priority setting; positioning within the research and development continuum; program quality, linkages and impact; and governance and management.
The Board and Management highly appreciate the panel's overall positive assessment of ICRAF's research, management and governance performance. We are particularly encouraged by the panel's assessment of the Center's efforts to enhance research quality and output, as these areas were given high priority by the Board and Management during the past five years. We also note with satisfaction the panel's endorsement with ICRAF's recent strategic decision to position the Centre more explicitly with a research and development continuum.
..../2
***
Director General's Office: United Nations Avenue; P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi, Kenya
Telephone: (254-2) 521003; Telefax: (254-2) 520023; E-Mail: [email protected]; HTTP://WWW:CGIAR.ORG/ICRAF
***
The report has provided ten recommendations: four relate to planning and priority setting; four pertain to ICRAF's role within the research and development continuum; and two address issues of governance and management. We value the insight of the panel in identifying a clear and concise set of recommendations that will undoubtedly enhance ICRAF's ability to meet challenges and respond to opportunities that lie ahead. Our specific responses to the panel's recommendations are attached.
You will note that we endorse all but one recommendation. However, we are well aware that significant resources will be required to implement at least five of the endorsed recommendations. As a matter of high priority, ICRAF's Board and Management will deliberate on the ways and means of implementing the recommendations. Our challenge will be to identify the tradeoffs, through a priority setting process, between these new and expanded activities and those in our current agenda. Concurrently, we will actively seek additional resources to support the new activities that have been proposed by the panel.
In addition to our formal response to the ten recommendations, we have taken note of numerous valuable suggestions and observations that were made by the panel. These will be carefully examined by the Board and Management at the next Board Meeting.
The final chapter of the report focuses on "ICRAF into the twenty-first century." The panel has underscored the crucial importance of "trees on farms" in improving the welfare of farmers and rural communities while safeguarding the environment. The panel envisions agroforestry as evolving within a more holistic and integrated natural resource management framework and urges ICRAF and others to forge new and creative partnerships and seek additional resources in order to contribute more effectively to the goals of poverty reduction, food and nutritional security, and environmental enhancement. The Board and Management of ICRAF, without reservation, accept these challenges, and will pursue them with renewed vigor and enthusiasm.
Finally, we take this opportunity to formally thank the EPMR panel and the TAC and CGIAR secretariats for their contributions to a rigorous and incisive review.
Sincerely yours,
Pedro A. Sanchez
Director GeneralYemi M. Katerere
Chair, Board of Trustees
