A. Response to Recommendations
B. Other Comments by the Chairman, on behalf of the Board of Trustees
1. The Panel recommends that the Wheat Programme initiate an integrated global programme to monitor the racial composition of the populations of stem, leaf, and stripe rust in the major epidemiological regions of the developing world, and help develop complementary research capacity in key NARS.
ENDORSED:
The Wheat Programme proposes a strategy to launch an integrated global epidemiology based on nine regions, each with a coordination centre and laboratory base. Pathogenicity surveys through race analysis and adult plant reactions would then be used for monitoring through a system of trap nurseries. NARS, in many cases, have trained pathologists and CIMMYT will seek to enhance this capacity.
2. The panel recommends that the Wheat Programme move to develop breeding strategies that guarantee CIMMYT germplasm carries effective combinations of genes to all three rust diseases.
ENDORSED:
Significant progress has been made; for example, it is widely recognized that CIMMYT's breeding programme already combines the effective minor genes for stem rust and leaf rust derived from McFadden's Hope and Brazilian's Frontana. In the past twenty years, no major epidemic of the stem rust or leaf rust has been reported. Our genetic analyses indicate that we have incorporated six genes (including Sr2) to stem rust and at least ten minor genes to leaf rust. CIMMYT is now developing conventional pathological markers and molecular markers to identify top crosses with yellow rust durability.
3. The panel recommends that the Wheat Programme develop full costing of the output of its present wheat, triticale, and barley breeding programmes and examine potential cost benefits of the incorporation of double haploid and marker assisted selection technologies in these breeding programmes.
ENDORSED:
CIMMYT believes that the approach described in this recommendation is part of effective research management. We also note recommendations 7 and 9 in which it is implicit that biotechnology and genetic engineering will be incorporated into mainstream maize and wheat breeding efforts. Recent studies at CIMMYT have shown encouraging results for the double haploid system, and we believe that it may be efficient for characters such as quality and disease resistance.
4. The panel recommends that the Wheat Programme make a concerted effort to seek additional funding for triticale and barley research without which the future viability of these programmes is at risk. In the case of barley this needs to be done in close collaboration with ICARDA. If this is not possible, or not successful, then serious consideration will need to be give to the discontinuation of the breeding of these crops.
ENDORSED WITH QUALIFICATION:
CIMMYT agrees that extra funds are needed for the barley and triticale programmes particularly in the area of adaptive research however we also consider that the current effort is viable.
5. The panel recommends that the Maize Programme place greater emphasis on the development of new heterotic populations that incorporate both improved yield potential and increased stress tolerance and make these populations available to NARS and the private sector.
ENDORSED WITH QUALIFICATION:
CIMMYT agrees that the development of populations in heterotic pairs increases the possibility of obtaining lines from each population that are heterotic to each other however notes that this is not guaranteed. We have accumulated substantial evidence that a high and acceptable level of heterosis can be obtained between lines from the same population. Nonetheless, we plan to augment heterosis by pairing populations and using reciprocal recurrent selection to improve the probability of heterotic combinations between lines derived from that pair.
6. The panel recommends that the Maize Programme increase the flow of information and germplasm between maize researchers in Regional projects and at Headquarters by convening an annual meeting that includes maize scientists involved in germplasm improvement.
ENDORSED:
CIMMYT's new project structure ensures that there are better working links between regional-based and Mexico-based maize researchers. For example leadership of Global Project 4, concerned with increasing maize productivity and sustainability in stressed environments resides in Zimbabwe, with a large number of headquarters staff included in the project team.In addition, we plan to conduct an annual meeting of all CIMMYT researchers at headquarters - the first of these meetings is scheduled for November 1998. We also anticipate that a program wide database of genotype-specific data will be established, allowing more timely and efficient exchanges of information between locations.
7. The panel recommends that the Maize Program fully incorporate marker-assisted breeding approaches into the mainstream maize breeding effort, which will require clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the Maize Programme and the Applied Biotechnology Centre.
ENDORSED:
CIMMYT's maize programme is committed to using the new plant breeding tools provided by biotechnology using two guiding principles:a) CIMMYT will test new techniques in a practical maize breeding program as they become available; we need to be in the position of providing responsible advice on their use to NARS.b) the choice of crop improvement techniques will always take into account the cost effectiveness of a technique.
One of CIMMYT's new MTP projects, Frontier Project 6, will undertake an analysis of the cost effectiveness of marker assisted breeding and genetic engineering vs. conventional approaches.
8. The panel recommends that the Maize Program thoroughly investigate the reason for lack of adoption of improved maize OPVs and hybrids on more than 40% of the maize area in developing countries.
ENDORSED:
CIMMYT accepts the challenge to identify factors affecting the degree of adoption of improved maize although the substantiation of this recommendation is not clear to us. We expect to develop further and teach participatory maize breeding methodologies to meet specific community needs in areas where there has been a major investment in maize breeding yet adoption rates are much lower than expected.A study of factors affecting adoption rates is timely and it is anticipated that such a study may result in region specific breeding strategies and products and in a better definition of the comparative advantage of the Maize Programme vis-a-vis the private sector.
9. The panel recommends that the Applied Biotechnology Centre, in collaboration with the Wheat and Maize programmes, develop clear joint research plans with agreed priorities and focus for wheat and maize biotechnology and genetic engineering. Particular emphasis should be given to how these technologies will be incorporated into the CIMMYT wheat and maize breeding activities.
ENDORSED:
CIMMYT agrees with the recommended joint priority setting process. See also our comments on recommendations 3 and 7.
10. The panel recommends that the Natural Resources Group make conservation tillage and related soil and crop management practices the primary research focus of the NRG, with the goal of quantifying the effects of conservation tillage on water and nutrient use efficiency, soil quality, and productivity of maize and wheat based systems.
ENDORSED:
CIMMYT endorses this focus and notes that the conservation tillage and residue management themes are already central to its work in Natural Resources. They are the key elements of Frontier Project 7 which is concerned with resource degradation issues in maize and wheat systems.
11. The panel recommends that the Natural Resources Group establish a critical mass of scientific expertise in Frontier Project 7 to improve research efficiency and the complementation of strategic and applied research on conservation tillage systems.
ENDORSED:
CIMMYT agrees to strengthen the input of Maize and Wheat Programmes in Frontier Project 7. In addition, CIMMYT proposes to continue with the innovative use of consultants, associates and collaborative projects in pursuing priority themes within this project.
12. The panel recommends that the Economics Program determine, in discussions with the RCC, the balance of its research activities in institution-wide activities, support to other programmes, support to NARS, and its own frontier research.
ENDORSED PARTIALLY:
CIMMYT agrees that there should be a balance of activities under these headings however we also maintain that, under the new MTP project structure, the role of the Economics program and the input it makes is appropriate and balanced and has been determined following extensive consultation with partners, including NARS.
13. The panel recommends that the Economics Programme strengthen its presence in the Asian region through a greater use of affiliate economists working in close collaboration with NARS and ARIs.
ENDORSED:
CIMMYT agrees and we are taking steps to increase our presence in the region through special project funding. We have developed proposals for a strengthened presence in the Asian region following a similar recommendation made during the Centre Commissioned External Review of the CIMMYT Economics Program, conducted in June 1997.
14. The panel recommends that the Economics Program, in view of the increasing importance of macroeconomic policies as they affect maize and wheat, gradually place more emphasis on this aspect of research focusing on a few selected countries.
ENDORSED:
CIMMYT agrees and has commenced the development of proposals to examine macro policy issues in key maize and wheat countries including those in the Asian region.
15. The panel recommends that CIMMYT management establish a regular annual review of issues of common interest between INIFAP and CIMMYT, with each organization represented by a small group of senior administrative and research officers.
ENDORSED:
CIMMYT agrees and conducted a series of meetings during December 1997 and plans to follow up on key issues on a regular basis.
16. The panel recommends that CIMMYT management prepare all future budget proposals on the basis of full project costing, showing both income and expenditure for all project outputs.
ENDORSED:
CIMMYT's Board and Management agree with the need for full-project costing within CIMMYT and, indeed, within all other units of the CGIAR. Some of what needs to be done on full-costing can be done within CIMMYT itself; however, to be truly effective, such efforts will also need to be supported-intellectually and financially-by donors to the various projects.In CIMMYT's view, a commitment to full-cost accounting is far from trivial. Such a commitment embraces six distinct components, not all of which are under CIMMYT's direct control. It will be necessary: 1) for CIMMYT's auditors to work with CIMMYT management (as they are now doing) to verify the scope and quantitative estimates of costs components in the indirect cost rate(s); 2) for CIMMYT to plan for flexibility in project preparation to accommodate various donor rules for including legitimate costs in proposals. Some donors, for example, will not permit a line entitled 'indirect costs' as a specified percentage, but will allow a line or lines showing direct charges for elements (such as space charges) that might typically be included in indirect charges; 3) for the Board policy (which CIMMYT now has) to embrace full cost recovery as the goal of the Center (yet knowing that in some instances that such recovery will not be forthcoming), thereby shifting the burden of proof and argument to those projects that do not cover full costs; 4) for the Board and Senior Management to use indirect cost recovery as one component in judging performance of managers; 5) for all Centers in the CG System to move toward recovery of full-costs to prevent 'cost cutting' on indirect costs from becoming a destructive element of competition among Centers; and 6) for donors to face up to the legitimate nature of indirect costs in their funding of projects and understand that it is basically self-destructive for a Center to use unrestricted funds to cover the indirect costs of special projects. CIMMYT also notes that non-payment of indirect costs on projects leads to tensions and suggestions of 'free-riding' within the donor community itself.
CIMMYT's Board and Management believe that implementation of the principle of full-costs pricing, especially for special projects, is critical for the entire CG System and hope that a discussion of this principle will be an element of the System Review now in progress.
17. The panel recommends that CIMMYT management take all the necessary steps and obtain the necessary expert input to develop and implement an integrated strategy for information technology and the operation of CIMMYT's management information systems.
ENDORSED:
CIMMYT agrees and notes that it's Board of Trustees has approved a major review and consultancy of CIMMYT's information technology requirements. A consultants report is expected by late-1998.
18. The panel recommends that CIMMYT management implement a policy of full charging for all samples processed by the various laboratory services and evaluate the relative cost effectiveness and analytical quality of outsourcing the supply of the different types of laboratory analysis.
ENDORSED:
CIMMYT management has commissioned a review of the soil and plant analytical facility and a Users Group has been established to help set policy that will include consideration of charge back systems and provision for equipment upgrading.
19. The panel recommends that the CIMMYT Board ensure that adequate information on the budget and important policy decisions is provided to all Board members irrespective of the specific committee on which they serve; and that the flow of information from committees and Board be improved.
ENDORSED:
The CIMMYT Board concurs completely with this recommendation. Henceforth, all Board members will receive materials for each of the Board Committees, whether or not they are members of a particular committee. Procedural changes were made in 1997 to ensure that all Board members are sent quarterly financial statements and audit reports. The financial reports themselves have been amplified and redesigned, and arrangements have also been made for a specific Trustee on each committee to take lead responsibility for assessing CIMMYT's financial health (currently A. Gregson for the Audit Committee, J. Holmberg for the Program Committee, and W. Falcon for the Executive and Finance Committee)
20. The panel recommends that the CIMMYT Board commission an external review (CCER) to be conducted by mid-2000 to assess progress in implementing the project based approach to research management as outlined in the MTP. This review should include the assessment of progress towards the attainment of development of management systems to support these projects, integration of financial and human resource databases, the implementation of a strategy on information technology, and the operation of CIMMYT's management information systems.
ENDORSED:
The CIMMYT Board concurs with this recommendation and commits itself to an externally commissioned review (CCER) to assess implementation of the project-management approach outlined in the MTP. The Board understands that the 1997 EPMR occurred at a time of transition for the organizational structure within CIMMYT and believes that a serious review of the new approach is appropriate in two years. The current thinking of Board and Management is to name external reviewers in the autumn of 1999 (perhaps during Center's Week) and to compete the review before September 2000.
1. On page 92 of the draft report the EPMR Panel suggests that Trustees not be included in CCERs if those reviews are to have validity for later EPMR evaluations. CIMMYT's Board understands the importance of arm-length evaluations, but also recognized the need for increasing Trustee involvement in certain substantive areas of a Center and for using certain specific talents that a particular Trustee may possess. CIMMYT believes that CCERs serve many purposes and that the right Trustee on the right issues in the right review need not compromise the validity of CCERs for almost any purpose. In short, CIMMYT would have preferred a less categorical statement in the EPMR report on the role of Trustees in reviews.
2. In a separate consultancy, John Griffith provided the EPMR Panel a report on CIMMYT Board issues. In addition, he interacted informally on several occasions with Trustees and Management on a series of financial issues. CIMMYT found virtually all of his suggestions to be helpful, and wishes to record its appreciation for his assistance in these comments.
3. On page 69 of the draft report, the EPMR Panel indicates that 'progress needs to be made in clarifying the connection and relationship between mission and strategy and decisions being taken by the Board, especially related to the budget...'. At one level of generality, this observation is appropriate for all Boards of all organizations at all times. Even more than that, however, the CIMMYT Board accepts this comment as being specifically appropriate and useful. The Board has already made some changes in this regard, such as having a 'lead' Trustee on each of the Board committees with particular responsibilities for assuring appropriate program/funding linkages. More can and will be done in this general area in the future.
That said, CIMMYT's Board feels uneasy about prevailing views within parts of the current CGIAR system as regards funding and governance. The CGIAR financial system of the late 1990s is very different than the one that prevailed fifteen years ago. In the 1980s, there could be (and was) much more centralization of fund raising and fund allocation. Centers could 'book' budgets on January 1st; most of these funds were certain and unrestricted; January budgets tended to be relevant for most, if not all of the year; and a Board meeting twice each year could monitor expenditures against budgets rather easily.
By the early 1990s. however, the situation had become quite different. Fund-raising had become much more decentralized and market-driven; funding became, at the same time, more uncertain and more restricted; budgets made in good faith on January 1st often had shelf-lives of only a month or two because expected income and concomitant expenditures both changed; and monitoring became a weekly or monthly task, with many options, and not a semi-annual look at variances from the January 1st budget. Research managers dealing with market-driven systems in many parts of the world have grown to understand these points well; however, they appear to have been less easily grasped by individuals who have worked only in bureaucracies and whose experience and focus historically have been only on the expenditure side.
CIMMYT's Board raises this point, not because the Board's financial oversight has been perfect, but rather because the Board believes that parts of the CGIAR system are still 'living in the financial world that prevailed in the 1980s. In the old system, expenditures could be 'controlled' by TAC, Center Boards and/or Management with great precision. In the new system, Management must have more flexibility to operate on both income and expense sides of the ledger and to move unrestricted funds so as to maximize the total research output of the Center. This conclusion, in turn, has important implications for governance issues, including how a Center Board should approach its fiduciary responsibility.
The CIMMYT Board's view is that Trustees, with the assistance of TAC and other System-level Committees, should define carefully the boundaries of what research it regards as legitimate. The Board should also make clear to Management what it expects at year's end with respect to reserves, or reserve draw-downs, i.e., a 'bottom' line, which may or not be zero (meaning the differences between income and expenditures) for a given year. Within these boundary and bottom-line parameters, however. The CIMMYT Board feeds that Management must have considerable financial discretion. Moreover, it is unlikely that a Board can become sufficiently well informed to monitor decisions on a monthly basis, without at the same time intruding into questions that rightfully belong to Management. For example, it may be impossible to specify with precision the amount of expenditures for a given commodity or area of inquiry, if the financial 'market' for research in a particular area says otherwise. Clearly the Board needs to monitor research objectives and to press Management towards preferred outcomes. But when the income situation for a Center may be very unclear as late as September, new budget and budget-control processes are required. These circumstances emphasize the need for astute financial capability in the Center's Director-General, for in some fundamental sense, a Board can only monitor the 'bottom' line and the Director General's performance in meeting financial objectives.
The link between finance and governance, and the implications of those links for the financial role of Boards is, in CIMMYT's view, only partially covered in the EPMR draft report. The Board feels this is an issue worthy of discussion within TAC and the CGIAR more generally and hopes that it will also be a topic addressed by the System Review Panel.
