|
Recommendations |
ICRAF's Responses and Panel's Comments |
Score * |
|
1. The Panel recommends that ICRAF develop a more transparent and systematic research programme planning process, including priority setting, monitoring and evaluation. This process must be sensitive to the cross programme issues, regional differences, and the need to build confidence among researchers, partners and donors. |
ICRAF's response: ICRAF has developed a detailed process of priority setting, programme planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The steps in this process are outlined in the ICRAF policy document Making the Matrix Work, and described in our 1998-2000 Medium-Term Plan. The process starts with annual regional planning meetings that assess the ongoing activities and plan future work. These regional planning workshops involve all of the partners ICRAF is working with in the region as well as the ICRAF programme leaders based at headquarters. After the Regional Planning Meetings, ICRAF holds its Annual Programme Review (APR) Meeting. This is held every year in September. The outputs of the APR are the work plans for the following year, which are captured in the Annual Programme of Work and Budget (PWB). The PWB lists all activities that are planned, the partners who will collaborate in the activity, the expected outputs and the ICRAF resources (financial and staff time) required to undertake the work. The PWB also provides the basis for establishing the goals and work programme for each scientist at ICRAF, which is then incorporated into their personal assessment form. Monitoring and evaluation is therefore incorporated at two levels: for individuals, as per their annual personal assessment; and at the programme and region level in the following PWB, where expected outcomes are directly measured against real achievements for a given year. Site, regions and programme are also subject to internally commissioned reviews, which are an important evaluation tool for Management. Similarly, the Centre is increasingly articulating quantifiable and time-bound outputs in project proposals that are then easily monitored by donors. In addition to these efforts, ICRAF is striving to further improve both priority setting and the links between priorities and resources allocation. Through this initiative, which involves decision making at the Senior Management, Division, and Region and Programme levels, a more transparent and open process should emerge. Since the last EPMR a new MTP has been produced that involved institutional-level research planning and priority setting at a strategic level and had significant input from staff, management and the Board. Panel's comments: Agreed. ICRAF's APR and PWB are important elements of an (annual) systematic planning and monitoring process. However, there is a tendency to get into too much detail at the project and activity level. As a result, institution-level research planning and priority setting on the basis of longer-term strategic considerations does not receive adequate attention. Cross-programme issues and regional differences/strategies need to be incorporated more systematically into ICRAF's strategic plan and MTP. |
1+ |
|
2. The Panel recommends that ICRAF give priority to socioeconomics and policy research by appointing more in-house expertise in social sciences. If ICRAF intends to enter strategic policy or socioeconomics research while at the same time providing the necessary input to the overall ICRAF research process, it will need to appoint at least two researchers in socioeconomics additional to the number specified in the 1992 draft Medium Term Plan |
ICRAF's response: Socioeconomics and policy research is one of ICRAF's three pillars of research, and the characterization and policy research work at ICRAF continues to assist in shaping the priorities in the other programmes and projects. We consider technology and policy as sides of the same coin, since most technological improvements require policy reform and vice versa. ICRAF is therefore one of the few IARC'S that explicitly combines biophysical with socioeconomic research at the same time and spatial scales. Indeed, the success of our work depends on the two biophysical pillars together with policy research. Furthermore, we recognize that many of the bottlenecks to wider scale adoption of agroforestry alternatives are due to inappropriate policy at the local/community level as well as at the national level. In some regions such as Southeast Asia, the main focus of our programme is aimed at the policy issues related to land and tree tenure, since improved land management will only be practiced when farmers are convinced that they have security over their natural resource base. In November 1995, ICRAF management prepared a document for the Board of Trustees that outlined our position on the Role of Social Sciences at ICRAF (BOT 27 No. 7). Overall, we have consciously expanded our capacity in the social sciences. In 1993, 13 (17%) of the international professional staff were social scientists, whereas in 1997, 20 (23 %) of the same category of staff are of that discipline. This increase is principally due to the recruitment of a policy economist at headquarters in 1997 and an increase in the number of Research Associates (P4 level with MSc. Degrees) who are seconded to ICRAF. In addition, by the end of 1997, ICRAF had recruited approximately 15 national professional social scientists. An additional position for an economist in Southern Africa will also be filled in 1998. Our present Director of Research is an economist, bringing that perspective to Senior Management. All our regional offices have at least one internationally recruited social scientist, except for Latin America, which at present has a nationally recruited social scientist. We are looking for additional funds to overcome that gap. ICRAF aims to continue to increase the percentage of senior social and economic scientists. Panel's comments: ICRAF has made commendable progress in incorporating the socioeconomic and policy perspectives into its research programme. However, ICRAF is still oriented towards elements more than to systems. This applies mainly to regional or ecosystems, but also in part to farming systems. In the case of the latter, ICRAF has responded to this recommendation but not sufficiently to enable coverage of economic, social and policy aspects connected with broadening of scope. A socioeconomist is also required for Programme 2 to look into aspects of marketing, market intelligence, value addition, private sector collaboration, output delivery, etc. Programme 2 needs are of high priority, as trees of high value will produce marketable products. This person should have an input in the regional programmes also. |
|
|
3. The Panel recommends that ICRAF strengthen the two steps in its research process, which seek compatibility between agroforestry technologies and production systems: · The understanding of target production systems, including time-related resource use patterns and gender issues · The specification of time-related resource use requirements of each management option for candidate agroforestry technology. |
ICRAF's response: ICRAF has made major progress in the ex-ante characterization of target production systems, including specific studies on indigenous knowledge, wealth ranking, gender issues, the temporal and spatial constraints to labour use and financial analysis. This has been particularly relevant when working with farmers in the adoption of improved fallows and leguminous fodder for smallholder dairy production. The joint results obtained from both farmers and researchers have provided a better fit of the new technologies with farmer resources. The development of research activities in land-use dynamics and the creation of a GIS/remote sensing laboratory (now called Decision Support System Laboratory), have enabled ICRAF to substantially increase its understanding of target land-use systems, their constraints and potential for agroforestry adoption. Panel's comments: There is a significant increase in the understanding of the production system at farm level and the compatibility of agroforestry technologies. Corresponding statistics based on monitoring provide the supporting evidence. It is not easy to judge how far the models are used or if input data are at hand for analysis of long-term impacts due to a variety of induced changes. ICRAF's approach is directed to existing situation and present problem scenarios. |
2- |
|
4. The Panel recommends that the Board and Senior Management should review ICRAF's expansion plans to ensure that these will not interfere with the further enhancement of science quality. |
ICRAF's response: ICRAF has expanded its activities since 1993 in line with the plans as outlined in the Medium-Term Plan 1994-1998. The number of international professional staff (including secondments) has increased from 76 in 1993 to 88 in 1997. The budget has expanded from US$14 million in 1993 to US$23 million in the same period. ICRAF has also successfully established its presence in Latin America and Southeast Asia. At the same time, we have expanded our physical campus in Nairobi by more than doubling the space at headquarters, which now include research laboratories. However, over this period, Management has taken steps to assure that ICRAF's staff and activities are not spread too thin. ICRAF staff have been consolidated at central sites in the Sahel (Mali) and humid West Africa (Cameroon) and the number of sites has been reduced in Southern Africa. Activities at the Machakos Research Station have also been scaled down. Further a policy of 'no geographic expansion', agreed in 1995, and has been firmly adhered to, despite pressing requests from several donors for ICRAF to operate in new countries. To ensure that activities can be implemented and outputs generated as planned, the Centre takes care to budget only on firm agreements with donors, and to ensure an overall ratio of 60:40 staff to operational funds. Over this period, ICRAF has also paid great attention to increasing the quality of our output and services. The increased quality of research is reflected in the quality of our publications (note the ICRAF Annual Report) and the increase in the number of internationally refereed journal articles that ICRAF staff have published. ICRAF's work is also cited more often by other scientists and scientific establishments (see EPMR document 10 prepared by the Information Support Unit, 'The literature generated by ICRAF's research: a preliminary impact assessment'). Similarly, we have sought to improve the efficiency of our operations by implementing clearer administrative procedures, supporting field scientists with financial and administrative staff, increasing the number of Human Resources Specialists, and seeking better ways of planning and executing research and development activities with our partners. In short, we are satisfied that we have significantly improved the quality of our work while retaining its relevance to the needs of smallholder farmers in the tropics. Panel's comments: ICRAF has followed a sensible policy of geographical expansion, but its programmatic growth has, in some instances, resulted in staff being spread too thin e.g. in HULWA and LA Regional Programmes. Quality of output has generally been good to excellent, especially in the areas of policy research, soil fertility, tree ecophysiology and systems evaluation. |
2- |
|
5. The Panel recommends that the Board consider establishing the position of Deputy Director General for Research and eliminating the current position of Director of Research. |
ICRAF's response: At the time of the EPMR report, the Board did not see any justification in establishing the post of Deputy Director General for Research and informed the EPMR Panel of their views. The issue was discussed again as ICRAF prepared the Medium Term Plan 1998-2000. Again senior management did not see any justification in creating the post of DDG Research. Panel's comments: The Centre currently has Directors of Research and Development. The Panel agrees that these are appropriate positions, and that there is no need for a DDG Research position. |
0 |
|
6. The Panel recommends that an additional biometrician be appointed now to maintain essential research support and strengthen science quality |
ICRAF's response: ICRAF appointed a second internationally recruited professional biometrician in 1995. In addition, the biometrics unit has been strengthened with two national professionals at headquarters. In 1997, an additional biometrician was supplied to ICRAF as a DfID-sponsored Associate Professional Officer. ICRAF has also developed arrangements with IARC'S based in the respective ecoregions where ICRAF is active to provide biometrics support to our field operations. This has occurred with ICRISAT in the Sahel (SALWA), CIP for our Latin America programme and CIFOR in Southeast Asia. ICRAF has also worked closely with other international centres in designing and delivering training courses in experimental design and biometrics in all of the ecoregions where we work and in the principal working languages of the regions. Panel's comments: Additional biometician is not required as the present situation satisfies the needs. Most of the staff are conversant with research methodologies. Further, most of the regional programmes are serviced by other CGIAR Centres, and also by regional NARS. |
2 |
|
7. The Panel recommends that the Board request Management to submit a financial strategy for the next five years that covers alternative scenarios, identifies potential sources of funds (CGIAR and non-CGIAR) and describes the specific steps to further improve its financial condition |
ICRAF's response: Since 1993, Management has held regular discussions with the Board of Trustees on the issue of resource mobilization. The Board and Management have established a sub-committee to explore various options. Several discussion papers have been prepared and thoroughly discussed by the Board. During the past five years, ICRAF's resource mobilization strategy has focused on securing restricted grants from donors to fund components of our MTP and PWB and to widen the donor base, including the private sector. To achieve this, in 1996 ICRAF established a Projects Office which develops and tracks project proposals with donors and monitors all of the reporting requirements to donors on all approved projects. Currently ICRAF has over 100 project proposals under discussion with donors and about 85 projects that are funded as restricted grants. As a result of this effort, the major part of the expansion of our budget during the past 5 years has been from restricted grants. Currently ICRAF Management and Board are examining different options for the next five years, recognizing that the existing strategy is not likely to be sustainable in the medium term. Panel's comments: Resource mobilization remains a continuing concern at ICRAF (as at other CGIAR Centres) despite the considerable efforts by the management and staff. The funding situation is not likely to improve substantially in the next few years. Hence continued attention to resource mobilization strategies would be essential. The ICRAF Board and management are already taking steps to maintain a sound financial position for the Centre. A five year financial strategy was not developed, but the Projects Office was established, and a resource mobilization plan is being developed by management and Board. ICRAF plans to invest considerable resources in resource mobilization activity although it hopes to benefit from Ford support of a fundraising consultant who will shortly visit the Centre. |
2- |
|
8. The Panel recommends that the Board approve an investment policy for ICRAF. |
ICRAF's response: ICRAF developed a financial strategy that was approved at the 29th Meeting of the Board of Trustees in April 1996. Included in the strategy is a policy on developing an Operating Fund, previously referred to as working capital, whereby ICRAF must retain up to three months of operating expenses in the Operating Fund. The target for this is US $ 4.0 million and is expected to be achieved by December 2000. ICRAF has also fully accrued for termination benefits and repatriation costs for all staff. Panel's comments: The policy needs review. It will be both impossible and unnecessary to reach a target of $4 million by 2000. |
2 |
|
9. The Panel recommends that ICRAF develop as soon as possible a joint strategy with the NARS for devolution of ICRAF's country level agroforestry research to the appropriate NARS, while maintaining a strong support role through regionally based teams and headquarters staff. |
ICRAF's response: ICRAF developed a strategy with NARS on the issues of partnerships in agroforestry research and development. The strategy was then transformed into a policy document (Policy Document No. 4) and approved by the Board of Trustees. It remains the main policy guideline that outlines the criteria and principles that shape ICRAF's philosophy on partnership with NARS. ICRAF continues to recognize the importance of collaborative research with NARS and other partners. We also continue to see that we have a role to play in assisting to strengthen NARS' capacity to undertake agroforestry research. Finally, as the capacity of NARS to implement agroforestry improves, their role in the management and implementation of regional programmes will increase and ICRAF's presence in these regional programmes will be increasingly one of research partner. Devolution has taken place at all sites in Senegal, Burkina Faso, Niger and Brazil, and at specific sites in Tanzania (Tabora), Zambia (Chalimbana) and Zimbabwe (Makoholi). In line with this trend, ICRAF has worked with NARS institutions to support them in providing general introduction to agroforestry training courses. This has allowed NARS to take over the responsibility and ICRAF to concentrate its training programme on specialist courses. Panel's comments: CRAF's partnership approach is sound, and it has significantly improved its regional presence. However, it does not yet have a long-term strategy for shared research partnership with NARS. For the time being it seems more important to clearly define what is devolution, when and how to apply strategies for implementation. Quality of collaboration behaviour is a different aspect of this same process that needs further attention. The Panel comments extensively on this issues in various sections of Chapter 3. |
1 |
|
10. The Panel recommends that ICRAF's Board propose to CIFOR's Board a joint approach to seek complementarity. This would identify areas of work in the forestry-agroforestry continuum, which is the sole interest of one or the other centre |
ICRAF's response: In general terms, CIFOR deals with issues related to natural forests and plantation forestry. ICRAF deals with trees in farming systems, or those areas that fall outside forestlands. There are clearly areas of potential overlap, and both institutions have seen this as areas of opportunity for collaboration. In 1994, ICRAF and CIFOR prepared a common statement to outline these areas of difference and commonality. In 1996, CIFOR completed its longer-term strategy and both institutions have recently completed their respective Medium Term Plans (1998-2000). During the past five years, the area of closest collaboration has been in the systemwide programme dealing with Alternatives to Slash and Burn (ASB) agriculture. CIFOR and ICRAF have clearly defined roles to play in ASB, based on their comparative advantages. This collaborative work is taking place in Indonesia and Brazil. Recently ICRAF, CIFOR, CIAT and IFPRI have decided to join forces to develop a common strategy in the Peruvian Amazon, based in Pucallpa, Peru. Again, ICRAF and CIFOR have clearly defined roles to play in these consortia, based on the common strategy and each other's comparative advantage. The Directors General of ICRAF and CIFOR meet and talk regularly, and thereby prevent issues arising and are quick to iron out any problems as they arise. The Board Chairs of each centre sits on the Board of the other to report on activities from their centre and influence the programmes of each. Further, in 1997, both CIFOR and ICRAF decided that it was timely for the respective Directors of Research to meet annually, to exchange information and identify additional areas for collaboration. Finally, ICRAF's Regional Office for Southeast Asia is based on the campus of CIFOR's headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia. ICRAF is satisfied that different but complementary roles have been clearly identified for each institution and that good working relationships have developed to ensure close collaboration exists. Panel's comments: ICRAF and CIFOR have taken a number of steps to ensure that their programmes are complementary, and that areas of overlap are reduced as far as possible. There is much room for intensive collaboration as all basic requirements are in place. |
2- |
* 0 - Not implemented; 1 - Partially implemented; 2 - Fully implemented
