consultative group on international agricultural research technical advisory committee -.. .report of the third external programme review of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS tat secretariat This report (a) (b) (cl (d) (e) (f) (9) comprises: CGIAR the "Summary of Proceedings and Decisions", Extract from: Mid-Term Meeting 1990, The Hague, May 22 - 25, 1990 Letter from TAC Chairman to the CGIAR Chairman, TAC Commentary TAC Commentary on the IITA External IITA's Response to the Third Letter External transmitting Review Reports Programme Review Report Transmittal from Panel Chairman to TAC Chairman Report of the Third External Programme Review of,the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) External Management Review of IITA - Executive An Overview (Page 81 of the Report) Summary: THE CONSULTATIVEGROUPONINTERNATIONALAGRICUL~RESEARcH TECHMCATiADVISORYCOMMITTEE REPORTOF THE 'lXIRDEXTEXQGPRCXGWIEREVIEWOF THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TROPICAL AGRICULTURE (1IT.w TAC SE-T FWDANDXRICULTUREORGANIZATIONOF October 1990 THEUNITEDNATIONS Consultative Group on international Agricuiturai Research Mailing Address: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. Office Location: 801 19th Street, N.W. Telephone (Area Code 202) 473-8951 Cable Address-INTBAFRAD Fax (Area Code 202) 334-8750 From: The Secretariat July 1990 CGIAH Mid-Term Meeting May 22 - 25 1990 The Hague, The NLtherlands IITA - External Program and Management Reviews A/ recent A broadly positive view of IITA accomplishments - emerged from the external consideration by the Group. in particular, its reviews and their On the program side, Mr. Jim McWilliam, Chairman of the external program review panel, particularly commended the center for drawing up a clearly articulated strategic plan which was an excellent “road map” for the future. IITA had drawn together a number of important elements including a tight focus on a few commodities, emphasis on the African The center had a small farmer, and an agro-ecological orientation. strong farming systems program, and was vitally concerned with the role of both women and men in that context. strategic research. The review panel recommended that IITA should develop a more crop management research capacity to strengthen on-farm Training programs were well established at IITA, and were helpful in cementing the center’ s relations with national systems. The same could be said for collaborative research programs. IITA had many research achievements to its credit, but perhaps its best known accomplishment was the biological control program which had achieved spectacular success in countering the Mr. McWilliam hoped the center would have similar cassava mealybug. success with its other priority research projects. He stressed the importance of developing measures to control striga. Given IITA’ s achievements, it was regrettable that evidence of the impact of its research had not been systematically compiled. Anecdotal evidence abounded, but that was inadequate. Extract from "Summary of Proceedings and Decisions", CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting, The Hague, The Netherlands, iv Mr. McWilliam highlighted the panel’ s concerns about problems of research management which inevitably affected the quality of science at a center. A high turnover of staff, a lack of cohesion among scientists, and poor communication within and among research units were some of the problems noted. The issue of research management was taken up as well by Sir Ralph Riley, Chairman of the external management review panel. some scientists appeared to be going their own way and not working in an integrated manner with their colleagues to achieve the center’ s objectives. The Deputy Director General in charge of research bore an excessively heavy workload. Summarizing correctives proposed by the panel, Sir Ralph indicated that their main thrust was to promote carefully planned and meticulously executed team work, under the guidance of hands-on research leaders. In other respects, Sir Ralph said, there was no cause for anxiety about IITA which is a well managed institution with an effective Director General. The Board of Trustees works well and has good relations with the Director General. Top management is well organized, although it has a tendency to take somewhat too much of a ‘ Itop down” approach. Great strides had also been made in financial management. IITA faced very many financial problems five years ago. Today, these have been resolved. Sir Ralph commented, however, that allocations for maintenance of the physical out to be a false economy. a continued drop in plant at IITA could turn to continue and He also drew attention to the need for the center its information activities, and to establish a publications library policy. Commending the two reviews, Mr. M&alla referred to great The center had emerged from changes that had taken place at IITA. institution, with those changes as a stronger , more cost-effective greater potential for assisting national programs. Responding on behalf of IITA, Mr. Louis Crouch, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Mr. Larry Stifel, Director General, and Mr. Ken Fischer, Deputy Director General (Research) reaffirmed their They found external reviews both commitment to the review process. useful and effective. The center had benefitted from the penetrating examination conducted by the review panels, and hoped that donors would be well served by the outcome of that examination. Mr. Crouch said that in his view one of the most crucial points made by the program review panel was that an IITA reference book on resource management is long overdue. V The review had said that an extensive data had to be interpreted and summarized. He view, although the process of drawing together observations into a synthesis that would guide no means a simple task. body of agreed IITA’ s future experimental fully with this data and research was by He could report, he said, that IITA had already begun to address this issue. Senior staff were reviewing and compiling 20 years of systems research data, to make a conceptual framework and to begin to formulate a systems theory. Mr. Crouch noted that both panels had identified morale problems and issues that adversely affect the scientific environment. These were not new. What was new, was the priority currently given by IITA to the evolution of an appropriate scientific climate. The term encompassed not only the quality of science at the center but also such matters as research focus, motivation, and the wider conditions on which IITA’ s continued effectiveness and relevance depend. some very plantains, IITA was proud of its scientific achievements specific to its mandated crops (maize, rice, sweet potato) and in the area of biological in many areas, cassava, control. The Board and staff realized, however, that resource and crop management research remained their greatest challenge, despite the success they had already recorded in alley cropping and in minimum tillage. Mr. Stifel informed the Group that after a comprehensive discussion of the program and management review reports, IITA’ s management and staff had begun action to implement most of the recommendations, particularly those concerning research management, in the widest sense of the phrase. He had told his colleagues that IITA could realize its full potential as a vibrant, creative research institute if they were all able and willing to work together toward common goals. This required the recruitment of the very best scientists, and the growth of an environment conducive to scientific creativity. Much had been attempted and achieved on both counts. The recruitment of priority for some time , and The process had necessarily turnover of staff, but that period of stability. the best scientists had been a top a major rebuilding had been accomplished. involved a substantial and disruptive phase had ended, and IITA was entering a - The recent adoption of term contracts for scientific staff recommended by the external management review - would facilitate stability, Mr. Stifel said. As to the scientific environment or the IITA, Mr. Stifel noted that there was a history than cooperation and integration among research Negative feelings within the to the seventies. scientific culture at of isolation rather programs, dating back CGIAR about that sense Vi of isolation were so strong that IITA’ s research programs were once described as vertical columns which never touched. The development of a strategic plan had stirred the scientific air even more, because disagreements had surfaced on some of the decisions taken, despite the full measure of consultation that preceded discussions. Particularly because of its past record, IITA continuously sought to improve its scientific environment and nurture a scientific culture that was benign and vibrant. Comments made by the review panels had served as a catalyst to intensified efforts by management and staff. He was confident that steps now being taken at the center, and others to follow, were all in the right direction. Concluding on a personal note, Mr. Stifel for its counsel, support and encouragement during He would treasure the memory of those associations. thanked the Group his term at IITA. The CGIAR was an extraordinary and valuable institution, and he was confident of its ability to deal successfully with the increasingly complex problems of international agricultural research. Mr. Fischer reviewed the center’ s research mission, dealing primarily with the scientific management and research methodology appropriate for systems research in IITA’ s resource and crop management program. IITA’ s strategies, he explained, were based on an understanding that African environments are variable and low in resources. Consequently, it was necessary to improve the environment through biological means. The essence of IITA’ s approach, ecosystem based research paradigm. he said, was to develop an Describing research on sustainable land use systems, Mr. Fischer said that IITA and ILCA had focussed their studies on alley farming, using a few tree species including lucina. Together with ICRAF, they had promoted this form of agroforestry and had assisted national agricultual research systems to build up an alley farming network in Africa. Changes that had taken place at IITA over the past five years received substantial attention in the review documents as well as in The prevailing view was that the center had overcome the discussion. difficulties in both program and management inherited from the past. Major changes had been made with skill and courage. Delegates felt that this process of renewal should continue to have top priority at IITA, with scientific achievement adequately assessed and appropriately rewarded. IITA would then remain well positioned to enhance its contribution to agricultural development in western and central Africa. vii While commending the efforts made at IITA to fashion a scientific environment conducive to staff morale and scientific achievement, some delegates said that many of the shortcomings which had been pinpointed at IITA wsere to be found at other centers too. They hoped that a system-wide attempt could be made to deal with such issues. The need to record the impact of IITA,s work - and the work of all centers - was emphasized by many delegates. Some of them, with practical experience of IITA,s activities gained through collaborative programs, gave several examples of how IITA,s research had made an impact on farmers, fields in Africa. They urged that greater efforts should be made to communicate the results of research, and the impact of those results, to different audiences, be they farmers, policy makers, Or scientists. IITA,s attempt to build a new research paradigm evoked considerable interest and support. The approach was necessary, That did not mean perhaps vital , in Africa but was not without risks. the approach should be avoided, it only meant that there was need for caution and care. The center as a whole might need to conduct studies on how this kind of research should be managed. IITA had laid out the issues very clearly, and its scientists should be complimented for taking up this challenge. scientists strategy. Center management was commended for enabling to lead IITA’ s efforts at rejuvenating its younger research C0NSULnTIk-E GROUP ON I~TERNATIONPLLAGRICULIIXAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMI’ ITEE Alex F. McC8ila Chair Davis, California, March 28, 1990 Dear Dr. Hopper, It is my pleasure to transmit to you the report of the Third External Program Review of IITA which was conducted in February 1990 under the Chairmanship of Dr. James R. McWilliam. The report was considered, together with that of the External Management Review, in the presence of its Chairman, Sir Ralph Riley, at the 51st Meeting of TAC in Rome in March 1990. IITA was represented by Dr. Louis Crouch, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Dr. Laurence D. Stifel, Director General, and Dr. Ken Fisher, Deputy Director General (Research). T&C has prepared its commentary on the External Review reports and recommendations. This commentary, together with the response of IITA to the External Reviews, are attached to the KPR Report. The Committee is pleased with the conclusion of both Panels that IITA has made significant progress towards defining a sharper focus and clearer directions, as well as confronting some major management and organizational challenges. TAC endorsed the recommendations of the Review Panels and offered some additional points for IITA,s consideration. We concluded that IIT!A is a productive Centre undergoing transition. TAC is pleased to reconmend continued strong CGIAR support for the Centre. Sincerely, Alex F. McCalla Chairman, TAC Dr. David Hopper CGIAR Chair World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington DC 20433 USA f&it a~&ess: Technical ~dvisoty comm/cGIAf?. Univenity of California. Davis. CA 95616 Tel: (916) 752-6648/%49-T&~: 910-531-0785 - FAX (916) 752-6!572 Offrce~ocation: 219 fSt.Suite2C. Davis.CA xi l.!Ac CcfrpiENTARY ON THE IITA ExmRNAL REVIEW REPORTS In submitting its conmentary on the reports of IITA,s External Programm and Management Reviews, TAC commends and thanks both Panels, chaired respectively by Dr. J.R. McWilliam and Sir Ralph Riley, for their constructive, analytical and forward-looking reports. The Conzaittee also expresses its appreciation to the IITA Board of.Trustees and management for their speedy and thoughtful response to the contents of the reports. The reports were discussed during TAC 51 in the presence of the Panel Chairmen; the Chairman of IITA,s Board of Trustees, Mr. L. Crouch; the Director General, Dr. L. Stifel; and the Deputy Director General TAC is pleased to note the progress made by Research, Dr. K. Fisher. IITA during the period under review, in both its management and programes . The report of the EMR reviews the major changes in management that 11~~ has successfully completed, leading to a leaner operating structure, greater organizational cohesiveness and a high degree of TAC shares the Panel’ s view that IITA is to be decentralization. congratulated for the resolution with which it has faced the many management problems that have arisen , and is pleased to note that no major anxieties were aroused in the minds of the Panel qtembers during the course of the review. TX. also found much to endorse in the report of the KPR. TAC was especially pleased to note the progress IITA has made in implementing its revised strategy, giving greater focus and clearer direction to the research programmes. The report also reviews IITA,s achievements since the previous review, which include the release of maize material resistant to the streak virus, an achievement that was acknowledged by the CGIAR through the King Baudouin Award. The Tuber and Roots Improvement Programme has also achieved The outstanding success of the biological control of notable successes. the cassava mealy bug is now well documented and widely recognized, and has rightly led to the organization of this work as a separate programme. UC notes the Panel’ s comments, however, on the need to re-examine the underlying science of some aspects of the work on cassava and cowpea and looks forward to opportunities to discuss these aspects in greater detail during its forthcoming meeting at IITA. TAC notes the accomplishments of IITA on sweet potato and commends the satisfactory manner by which these programes transferred to CIP and WARDArespectively. and rice, are being TAC endorses the views of the EPR on the possibilities for expansion of soybean in the future. TAC has some reservations, however, about future increases in expenditure on groundnut research and considers that further joint initiatives by IITA and ICRISAT on groundnut in the region should be pursued only in the light of clear indications of increasing demand. TAC also considers that the time has now come for the CGIAR to review its System-wide strategy for soybean and TAC will analyze the needs and make appropriate proposals in its revised priorities and strategies paper. xii TX has commented in the past on the need for a more coherent programme of research on Striga, not only across the various programmes at IITA but also through collaboration with ICRISAT and other institutions working on parasitic angiosperms. TAC is disappointed to see the general lack of progress in developing this collaborative approach and urges 11~~ not only to implement the suggestions of the EPR, but also to establish more productive interaction with ICRISAT and other interested research institutions. While recognizing IITA,s achievements in training, the Centre’ s explanation that the relatively low budgetary under this head do not include the cost of the time spent activities by the scientific staff. TAC understands that staff at IITA are expected to devote part of their time to TAC notes allocations on training all scientific training. In general, TX endorses the recommendations and suggestions made by both Panels and is pleased that the IITA Board and management have responded positively to most of them. TAC notes, however, that a few of the Panels, recommendations have given rise to some contrary opinions and considers that there are some aspects of IITA,s future strategy that would benefit from further amplification. 1. Crop Management Research TAC notes the Panel’ s discussion of IITA,s approach to crop management research which is currently incorporated into three “crop-based systems working groups”. The Panel considers that these working groups have contributed to improving the linkages in IITA,s research, both between on-farm adaptive research and Centre research, and among the research programmes at IITA. The Panel sees a need, however, to strengthen both the rlesearch of these groups and their image within IITA. It considers that the research could be strengthened by providing a specific input from strategic research designed to give greater understanding of some of the underlying principles, such as the complex interactions among soils and crops in intercropping systems. The Panel sees this input as running in parallel with research on soil/water problems to be undertaken by the resource management group in the revised organizational structure. The Panel further recommends that the image of the working groups should be strengthened by giving them a clear place in the organizational structure and renaming them “System Project Groups,‘ . TX is pleased that IITA accepts the need to strengthen crop management research, but notes that the Centre disagrees with the Panel’ s recommendation that this aspect of the work should be separated TAC recognizes that IITA,s new from the System Project Groups. approaches to integrating its research are still evolving and that there might well be organizational alternatives to achieving similar purposes. Nonetheless, TAC urges IITA to keep under review the Panel’ s concerns about conducting both strategic and adaptive research through the same There are dangers that, in its desire channels and professional staff. to foster a systems approach in this way, IITA might be led into making undesirable compromises in methodology. xiii 2. Scientific Quality The quality of the science at IITA was questioned in the 1983 Review and again by the 1990 Panel. A general weakness in scientific publication and peer discussion was identified. TAC understands that the firm management needed to revitalize the Institute over the last five years has delayed attention to the question of scientific creativity. Transition is ongoing but the influx of new managers is now allowing increased attention to the problem. TAC endorses the measures taken by IITA to promote peer reviews and increased scientific publication. It notes the management's view that the turnover of staff represents an upgrading of quality. However, TAC is concerned that excessive turnover could jeopardize the continuity in It believes the staffing that is essential for scientific achievement. introduction of project budgetting will focus research efforts and facilitate the identification of issues and results meriting formal publication. TAC endorses the suggestions of the Panel for increased and inter-disciplinary interaction in the interest of scientific and peer debate. The Committee emphasizes the need for openess and self-criticism as an important criterion in the selection.of scientific leaders for the Institute. 3. IITA needs to ensure that the impact of its work is assessed. TAC notes that, with the exception of the external evaluation of the biocontrol programme on cassava mealy bug, the approach used by IITA to demonstrate impact has been largely anecdotal. The Committee encourages IITA to develop systematic approaches to assessment of impact at three levels: on science, on national systems development, and selectively on farmer productivity. TAC is sympathetic to the concern expressed by IITA on the additional costs of collecting better data for impact assessment. The Committee emphasizes the need to be selective, particularly in measuring impact in farmers fields where new, primary data is required. TAC notes that the question of impact assessment is a system-wide concern, and needs to be tackled at that level too. 4. Agroforestry and Resource Management intraopeness TAC agrees with the Panel's critical cwnts on alley farming and the need to broaden the approach into other systems aimed at sustainability. The Cormnittee notes IITA,s progress in collaboration with ICRAP, which will help to broaden its approach to incorporating woody species into cropping systems. TAC sees the intolerance of Leucaena to acid soils as a constraint to the widespread adoption of production systems that include it as the woody component. Moreover, IITA,s view of the potential for achieving impact in the moist savannas tends to lead it away from the more humid forest regions where the possibilities for successfully incorporating trees into cropping systems increase. In these regions, IITA might explore the use of other nitrogen-fixing trees planted by large cuttings, not only in alley cropping but also as more widely planted trees that are periodically pruned to give a minimum of shade with a maximum of mulch. xiv Looking to the future, TAC considers that the approach should be further broadened by including different aspects of soil and water management, such as encouraging controlled surface runoff as well as the formation of terraces and contour ridges by using easily-applied techniques. In addition to techniques that rely on strip-planting of crops and perennial veqetation, the use of simple implements and, where appropriate , animal traction should be more vigorously explored.‘ 5. Vision of the Future In its chapter "Vision of the mtture", the EPR stresses that the role of 11~~ has to be vizualized in a rapidly evolving African scene, characterized by population increase and urbanization. TX recognizes that, in some countries where humid lowlands dominate, part of the increasing demand could still be met by continued expansion of agricultural land, but often at the expense of further destruction of rain forests. Under many circumstances, however, it would be necessary, or at least preferable, to meet the increasing demand through increased and sustainable production on existing agricultural land. Further, TAC recognizes that projected yield increases are about the same as those that have been occurring in Asia, the United States and Western Europe. But because, in Africa these increases have to be achieved under less favourable agro-ecological and socio-economic circumstances, a different kind of green revolution will be required. Consequently, TAC considers that the CGIAR in general, and IITA in particular , should be more assertive in projecting the needs. It is necessary to understand more quantitatively what farming systems could meet the challenge, which crops and trees should have a central function, what minimum external inputs would be needed for maximum sustainable utilization of natural resources, and what changes in the socio-economic and policy environment would be necessary to generate the required rate of change. preparation TAC will consider of its revised the implications of these needs during paper on priorities and strategies. the Conclusions The reports of both the Programme and Management Reviews illustrate the vigorous ways in which IITA has responded to the recommendations of the 1983 reviews, and how it has gone further in desirable directions through its thorough and penetrating process of TAC recognizes that to have implemented, during the strategic planning. period under review, such extensive changes to its management structure, programmes and staffing has inevitably also been somewhat disruptive to Nonetheless, TX sees IITA as having now the continuity of effort. emerged from this process as a stronger and potentially more cost-effective institute, with greater potential for assisting the national programmes it serves. xv TAC considers both reviews to have been well conducted and to have met the requirements set out in their terms of reference. The reports give penetrating insights into the major issues and present comprehensive analyses of the current state of the Institute both from a programme and management perspective. TX commends the observations and recommendations of both reports to the CGIAR for serious consideration, taking into account the additional comments made in this commentary. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Oyo Road, PMB 5320, lb&n, Nigeria l Telephone: 4OOuw)--4oo314 Telex: TDS IBA NG 20311 (BOX 015) or TROPIB l Cable: TROPFOUND NG 11417 IKF?JA March 1, 1990 RESPONSE TO THE THIRD EXTERNAL PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT The third external program review was, with respect to the strategy of the research programs, held at a most appropriate time. The Panel was not only able to assess how IITA had implemented previous recommendations but it also had the opportunity to evaluate the extent to which the Institute’ s research, training, and international cooperation programs are in agreement with IITA’ s Strategic Plan and Medium-Term Plan as approved by TAC and the CGIAR. IITA deeply appreciates the thoroughness and competence with which the Panel carried out its onerous task. The Institute is pleased by the Panel’ s praise for IITA’ s vision of the future as set forth in the two plans, and it finds satisfaction in the Panel’ s recognition that IITA’ s programs are in accordance with them. It greatly appreciates the substantial contribution which the Panel’ s findings and suggestions will make to the development of IITA’ s program to increase the productivity and sustainability of agriculture in tropical Africa. A number of major management changes and the strategic planning process had to be concluded before the research programs could be designed or redesigned and changes made. While IITA realizes that the effects of the major reorientation may not become clear before several years have elapsed, it feels reassured by the fact that many of the Panel’ s recommendations are in full agreement with IITA’ s perceptions and that many of them are already being implemented. In the short time available for IITA to react to the program report, it is not possible to cover all the wide-ranging points made by the Panel. However, IITA has compiled its responses as concisely as possible and in such a way that they reflect the views of the Board, management and staff. To ensure that all recommendations in the program review report have been covered, IITA has adopted a method of response which deals with all the major recommendations in the order in which they appear on page vii, viii and ix and p. 70, paragraph 3. LagosAkeja Office: Plots 531 & 532 08ba Road, Ogba Estate P.O. Box 145, lkeja Telephone. Lagos 933931 lntwsational Mailing Address: & Co., Carolyn House, 26 Dingwall Road. Croydon CR9 3EE, Englsmd c/o L.W. Lamboum xviii Recommendation 1 “The Panel recommends that IITA establish a capacity for crop management research outside the systems groups and which addresses the better understanding of plant-soil interactions. (p.14)” Response IITA acknowledges the Panel’ s view that crop management research (CMR) should be strengthened, but would prefer to do so within the framework of the “Systems Research Groups.” This is not just a superficial difference with the above recommendation, but it reflects a significant divergence in view of the fundamental basis of the Systems Working Groups. IITA’ s philosophy regarding the Systems Working Groups is that they provide a systems approach to issues of food production for small scale farmers. This involves more than simple descriptive diagnoses of these farming systems, but rather analyses which lead to an understanding of the farmers’ needs, their resources and their current and potential uses of these resources. This quantitative diagnosis and feedback role is coupled with adaptive research and “descriptive” diagnosis, through on-farm activity carried out in collaboration with NARS. In contrast, the Panel’ s recommendations focus primarily on the adaptive research function. IITA believes that their approach would move research back to conventional OnFarm Client Oriented Research (OFCOR) as practiced by NARS. The Panel rightly saw the adaptive function devolving to the NARS as they develop increasing strength, and thus recommended the eventual termination of the Systems Research Groups. IITA differs in that it believes that such devolvement should free additional resources for the Systems Working Groups. This would enable them toI increase quantitative analyses of farming systems with a longer-term perspective and particular orientation to the onfarm sustainability of improved technologies. IITA believes that effective systems research is critically dependent on teams of scientists (representing biological and social sciences) working within the same unit, on the same project, in a concerted effort. Hence IITA’ s modification of the Panel’ s recommendation concerning the structure of this research. Recommendation 2 ‘ The Panel recommends a shift from a crop to a zonal base for the system groups. (p. 16)” xix ResDonse The Systems Working Groups were established three years ago to provide integration and a systems’ focus to the research of the Institute. They were explicitly recognized as an institutional innovation that would require careful assessment and possible modification after a three-year trial period. The review of the Systems Working Groups started with the Internal Program Review of RCMP in 1989. The Panel noted the ‘ strong debate ongoing in the Institute on improving the operational effectiveness of the SWG” and the fact that “one option under consideration is reorienting them from a crop to a zonal base.” The Panel has contributed constructively to this evaluation process, and IITA agrees with their recommendation that SWG should shift to a zonal base, concentrating within those zones on the major food-crop systems within IITA’ s commodity improvement mandate. Recommendation 3 “The Panel recommends that, in collaboration with CIAT, IBPGR and the Genetic Resources Unit, a characterization of the most important African cassava varieties is undertaken without delay. (p. 20)” Response IITA agrees with this specific recommendation for the formal characterization of important African cassava varieties. There are now more than 1500 clones in collections held by various African NARS, and 400 clones at IITA in Ibadan For the collections held by IITA, the Institute will allocate resources for their characterization without delay, and will share the records with IBPGR and CIAT. Because the other collections in Africa cannot be easily moved from the countries where they were collected, their characterization must be done in situ. This is a large task for which assistance from IBPGR will be sought. That the characterization of this African genetic resource has not been systematically carried out does not mean that the resources are not formally used for the improvement of cassava in Africa. IITA has systematically introduced as seed, genes of these material through selective hybridization b &J of improved clones with the best materials of the local collection and through seed collections in the country which are transferred to IITA. Some of these materials used and maintained as ‘ breeding lines,’ will also be added to the cassava collection being characterized by IITA. xx Recommendation 4 “The Panel recommends that IITA should provide stronger support for its plantain and banana breeding program at Onne with the major focus on the development of black Sigatoka resistance in plantain. (p. 23)” Response The Institute appreciates the support and high praise given by the Panel for recent research achievements with plantains, and will continue to provide strong support for this work. Indeed, urgent action has been taken to recruit a pathologist within TRIPP primarily for work on black Sigatoka disease of plantains and a short list of three candidates has already been drawn up. In addition, a senior administrative officer is being recruited locally for the management of the Onne substation. Recommendation 5 ‘ The Panel recommends the inputs of an entomologist and a pathologist to the Grain Legume Improvement Program at Kano as soon as possible. (p. 26)” Response A pathologist appointed to GLIP in 1989 has a primary research focus on cowpeas in the cereal systems of the savanna zone where Kano is located. Research on the control of cowpea insect pests for this zone is a different and more complex issue. The Institute’ s major thrust in this program, described in the Medium Term Plan, is to seek host-plant resistance to cowpea pests. In making difficult choices for the allocation of scarce resources, priority in entomological research in this program has therefore been given to the search for sources of resistance. This work, which includes the collection and study of wild Vigna species, is conducted at the Ibadan headquarters and is linked to collaborative research with advanced biotechnology laboratories in Europe and the United States. A systems analysis of the cowpea and its pests with their associated enemies in the cereal-cowpea systems of the savanna zone is presently a component of the work of the Biological Control Program. Such work will identify opportunities and needs for further studies to develop components for integrated pest management for the savanna. xxi Recommendation 7 “Given the widespread and increasing importance of Striga and other parasitic weeds to IITA mandate crops, the Panel recommends the appointment of a Striga biologist as soon as possible. (p. 29)” Response IITA agrees with the panel’ s assessment of the importance of Striga. Unfortunately the CGIAR is presently underfunded so that the Institute is unable to proceed to implement all the priorities in the Medium-Term Plan. However, while management had to impose a freeze on new recruitment in 1990, the Trustees approved an exception to permit an appointment in the maize program to deal with Striga and other pathogens. Management has decided that first priority should be given to the recruitment of a pathologist with special interest in Striga for the maize program. If funds are available in 1990, a second exception will be made to permit the recruitment of a Striga biologist, but this may have to be delayed until 1991. Recommendation 8 “The Panel recommends in view of the important economic constraints caused by pathogens the input of a pathologist at the international scientists level to the Maize Research Program. (p. 31)” Response It should be noted that the maize research program pathologist left the Institute in December, 1989. Highest priority is therefore given to the recruitment of a replacement, as described in the response to recommendation 7. Recommendation 9 “The Panel recommends in transferring the IITA Rice Research Program to WARDA that: (i) WARDA appoint and fully support a rice breeder to be based at IITA as of 1 January 1991 in order to complete the evaluation, documentation and successful transfer of rice germplasm to the Association, and that (ii) the INGER liaison scientist be transferred to WARDA as soon as office, laboratory and field facilities are available, in order to service African requirements as an IRRI/WARDA activity from the Association’ s headquarters in C&e d’ Ivoire. The full cost of the INGER program shall be the responsibility of WARDA and IRRI as of 1 January 1991. (p. 33)” xxii Response IITA is pleased that its excellent relations with WARDA are recognized. The location of a WARDA rice breeder at the Ibadan campus would be welcome. This would permit effective utilization of the rice paddies developed at the IITA Ibadan station which represent a considerable investment of CGIAR resources. It would also strengthen inter-center collaboration, particularly for systems research for the inland valleys. The transfer of the IRRI liaison scientist responsible for INGER from IITA to WARDA is in line with policy agreed upon between the three Centers. IITA would like to see the transfer implemented as soon as possible because significant resources of the Institute are devoted to his work (housing, laboratories, land, and seed stores). Recommendation 10 “The Panel recommends that the Biological Control Program evolves into a Biological and Integrated Control Program (BICP) and that a Thematic Working Group on Plant Protection is established, including all plant protectionists, no matter where they are located. (p. 37)” Resnonse IITA has been conscious of the need to promote more contacts between scientists of the same discipline, and it agrees with the concept of the Thematic Working Group. IITA prefers to name the proposed program the Pest Management Program to reflect the entire concept within which Biological Control is an important component. Recommendation 11 ‘ The Panel recommends that IITA secures as soon as possible a location for conservation of its valuable yam collection. (p. 39)” Resnonse The greater part of IITA’ s yam germplasm is already safely preserved in vitro, and the entire collection will be so in the near future. IITA agrees with the need to duplicate it and to provide better facilities for the storage of tubers. xxiii IITA proposes to discuss with the IBPGR the duplication of the yam germplasm at a suitable West African national program. This discussion must include the need for funding to enable the national program to receive and maintain the collection in vitro. Recommendation I2 ‘ The Panel recommends that KlTA seeks funds to ensure the conservation of its unique bambara groundnut collection. (p. 39)” Response IITA agrees that the conservation of its unique Bambara groundnut collection is important. However, the crop is not presently within the focus of IITA’ s research, nor is the Institute able to allocate the resources needed for the essential evaluation, documentation and preservation implicit in the term “conservation”. In response to this recommendation the Institute will therefore take the matter up with the IBPGR. Recommendation 13 ‘ The Panel recommends that IITA defers activities in molecular biotechnology at Ibadan and concentrates on cellular biotechnology, cytogenetics and modern serology. (p. 42)” Resnonse IITA accepts the recommendation to defer activities in molecular biotechnology, with the exception of the use of RFLP probes. The Institute places high priority on the use of RFLP probes as ‘ enabling techniques’ for its current breeding programs. There are already a number of advanced laboratories collaborating with IOTA in developing probes that will be of use in marking genes for African specific constraints. The Institute has developed plans for the use of such probes, and several of its scientists are experienced in the necessary method. IITA will send the necessary germplasm to the advanced laboratories that will construct the probes. Because the use of RFLP probes requires a radio-isotope laboratory, IITA is renovating a suitable facility away from the main crop improvement laboratories that will be a component of the biotechnology unit which will include cellular biotechnology and eventually cytogenetics. Xxiv Recommendation 14 “The Panel recommends that IITA appoints a second statistician (p. 44)” Response The Institute agrees with the concern expressed by the Panel about the need for a second biometrician. Indeed, this need was expressed forcibly in recent internal program reviews at IITA. The search process has been in progress since mid-1989; and interviews of two potential candidates have been held. Recommendation 15 ‘ The Panel recommends that IITA management encourage the publication of the findings of IITA research in peer-reviewed, international scientific journals. (p. 50) Resnonse IITA agrees with the Panel’ s concern about the publication of research findings, and will continue its efforts to improve the situation. Among the steps which have been taken to achieve this are: the consideration of scientists’ refereed publications record in their annual evaluation and salary adjustments. research organized into clearly defined projects, for each of which there is the expectation of a published result. an internal peer review of papers submitted for publication to ensure high scientific standards. Recommendation 16 - “The Panel recommends that wherever possible, Research Leaders be relieved of undertaking travel for other than primarily scientific purposes. (p. 50)” Response Management recognizes that travel by IITA research leaders has been extensive and attributes this partly to the need to support IITA outreach projects and NARS in Africa. In fact, the demand for such services has always been greater than IITA staff have been able to meet. IITA agrees, xxv however, that some of this travel has been at the expense of their responsibilities to their research programs at headquarters. This has been an important reason for initiating the Research Liaison Scientist scheme which will relieve directors of some of their responsibility to travel in response to requests from NARS. Research travel budgets for 1990 have already been reduced. Recommendation 17 ‘ The Panels recommend that: research management at IITA should be reorganized to bring the crop-based working groups fully into the research structure to enable collaborative research projects based on cropping systems to involve scientists from Resource and Crop Management (RCM), Crop Improvement (CI) and Biological and Integrated Control (BIG). 1. Research projects should have a leader drawn from any part of the collaborating team, whether from RCM, CI or BIC, and that projects should be of fixed duration with evaluation points and a budget: the portfolio of projects should be dynamic with continual turnover. 2. Research Leaders who are close to the working scientists should be responsible for the research groups working on resource management and crop management, crop improvement and biological and integrated control: they will ensure that research quality and output are high. There should be three Directors respectively for Resource and Crop Management, Crop Improvement and Biological and Integrated Control: this will reduce the heavy load presently borne by the DDG(R) and enable him to delegate and to concentrate to a greater extent on broad strategic issues. The Institute confirms its intention to have each sub-station under the control of an active scientist designated as Officer-in-Charge who should report to the DDG(R). The Farm Unit, as the principal research tool of the Institute, should 3. 4. 5. report to the DDG(R). (p. 56)” Response IITA invited the two panels to contribute to current discussions under way by management on the organizational structure of the research program. It was clear the present structure impaired the DDG(R)‘ s ability to deal with longer-term issues of research policy and planning, but this problem had been deferred until recently when other related issues had been resolved. xxvi IITA appreciates the efforts the two panels devoted to this important issue. Management benefited greatly from the constructive interaction with the panel chairmen in the discussion of alternative organizational arrangements . The specific recommendations in the chapter, written jointly by the two panels, are welcomed as useful contributions to the advancement of deliberations on this topic. Brief comments on the five specific points follow. 1. IITA agrees with concept of research projects as described in the chapter, and several such projects are being developed. 2. IITA agrees that research leaders should be close to the working scientists; in fact, they should be “hands-on” scientists themselves. This is amplified in the answer to recommendation 16 in the EPR on travel. 3. The organization structure recommended will be discussed internally at all levels of the research program before final recommendations are formulated by management for consideration by the Board of Trustees in April. 4-5. IITA appreciates the panels’ strong support for its decentralization of research and for the Farm Unit, as well as their endorsement of planned arrangements for management of the substations and the farm. Recommendation 18 “The Panel recommends that future Resident Scientists are appointed as IITA core staff and wherever possible drawn from existing personnel. (p. 60)” Response IITA has been seeking to minimize the differences between scientists supported by core funds and scientists on outreach projects supported by special-project funds. To this end, IITA proposed in its Medium-Term Plan that about half of the Resident Scientists be classified as “essential” or “core” staff. The TAC rejected this proposal, with the consequence that all Resident Scientists will continue to be classifi.ed as “desirable” and to be dependent upon special project funding. While IITA must continue to employ Resident Scientists on the basis of contracts with bilateral donor agencies, it will endeavor to provide conditions of service as similar as possible to those of “core” staff. The terms of employment of Resident Scientists are identical to those of core staff, but the support services that can be provided for them are strictly limited by the terms negotiated with individual donors. There has been some transfer of scientists between core and special project positions, and it is agreed that this should be done whenever possible. xxvii Recommendation 19 ‘ The Panel recommends that the Research Liaison Scientists scheme be reviewed and rejustified after two years of operation. (p. 61)” Response The Panel has accurately captured the rationale for the new Research Liaison Scientists Scheme in paragraph 2 of page 68 of their report. To quote: The production of improved technologies by IITA should be “demand pulled”, the clients being the NARS and ultimately the farmers of the region. Thus, IITA needs ongoing monitoring of demand for technology. Such demands will be influenced primarily by the general macroeconomic environment, by the resource endowments of the farming community, and by the capacity of the NARS to respond to farmers’ needs. Because this is a new scheme, it will be reviewed after two years as a matter of standard Institute policy. Recommendation 2.0 ‘ The Panel recommends that unless the existing and sound agreement between IITA and CIMMYT for maize research in Africa can be operated productively in 1990, TAC advise the System and the donors that the two Institutes have failed to resolve their differences.” Response The Institute notes the recommendation on page 70 of the Report, and confirms its commitment to the agreement with CIMMYT which it believes to be sound and workable. IITA is in the process of operationalizing it, and is moving forward with plans to develop a sub-station in Cote d’ Ivoire. A CIMMYT adjunct breeder has already joined the IITA office operating in C&e d’ Ivoire. Ibadan, 21 February 1990 Dear Dr. McCalla, It is with pleasure that I transmit the report of the Third External Programme Review of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) on behalf of the Panel. The review came at an important time during the implementation of IITA’ s MediumTerm Plan. In some respects IITA is still in transition and the Panel hopes that its efforts were constructive and will assist in speeding this transition. The Panel undertook the review with a strategic emphasis and closely examined the s goals, strategies and priorities articulated in the Plan. Visits were made to a number of IITA’ off-station activities located in Cameroon, Benin, Ghana, Kano and Onne (locations in northern and southeasternNigeria respectively). During these visits the various modes of outreach activity undertaken by the Institute were observed and discussed with IITA staff, national officials and NARS scientists in these countries. The Panel wishes to acknowledge the support and cooperation of the IITA management in arranging its visits and facilitating the main phase of the review. The review was interactive and was helped measurably by the documentation provided by the staff and the tolerance with which they responded to our requests. The Panel had good interactions with the Board of Trustees and the senior management of the Institute before and during the period of the review. We worked closely with the External Management Review Panel and found it a rewarding collaboration. Dr. Michael Collinson of the CGIAR Secretariat guided the Panel expertly through the review process, and his professional contributions to the report are sincerely appreciated. On behalf of all Members of the Panel I wish to express our thanks for the opportunity to share in this rewarding experience. Sincerely yours, .R. McWilliam IITA External Programme Review Panel Dr. Alexander F. McCalla Chair Technical Advisory CommitteeKGIAR University of California Davis, CA 95616, USA AGRfTAC:IAR/90/2 The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research- Technical Advisory Committee REPORT OF THE THIRD EXTERNAL INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME REVIEW OF THE (IITA) INSTITUTE OF TROPICAL AGRICULTURE Review Panel: Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. James R. McWilliam (Chairman) Ir. Orlando M.B. De Ponti Samuel C. Muchena Henry K. Mwandemere Rodney J. Summerfield Eric Tollens Dr. Michael Collinson (CGIAR Secretariat) TAC Secretariat Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations February 1990 xxxiii TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 2. The Setting for Stimulating Food Production in West and Central Africa IITA Today Responsesto Recommendationsof the Second External Programme Review The Strategic Plan Terms of Reference: 1990 EPR The Review Process and Report Structure xxxvii 1 1 2 2 4 4 5 6 6 6 9 9 9 9 10 11 11 11 12 13 16 17 17 21 22 23 23 24 MANDATE, GOALS AND STRATEGIES OF IITA 2.1. 2.2. Mandate and Goals Research Strategies and Programme Priorities 3. RESEARCH PROGRAMMES 3.1. Resource Management Research (RMR) 3.1.1. Introduction 3.1.2. Achievements, current focus and future plans 3.1.3. Assessment 3.1.4. Conclusions Crop Management Research (CMR) 3.2.1. Introduction 3.2.2, Achievements, current focus and future plans 3.2.3. Assessment 3.2.4. Conclusions and recommendations Root, Tuber and Plantain Improvement Programme (TRIPP) 3.3.1. Cassavaand Yams 3.3.2. Plantain and Banana 3.3.3. Conclusions and recommendations Grain Legume Improvement Programme (GLIP) 3.4.1. Introduction and historical context 3.4.2. Achievements, current focus and future plans 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. xxxiv 3.4.3. Assessment 3.4.4. Conclusions and recommendations 3.5. Maize ResearchProgramme (MRP) 3.5.1. Introduction 3.5.2. Achievements, current focus and future plans 3.5.3. Assessment 3.5.4. Conclusions and recommendations 3.6. Rice Research Programme (RRP) 3.6.1. Introduction 3.6.2. The current programme 3.6.3. Transfer of the IITA Rice ResearchProgramme to WARDA 3.6.4. Future plans for rice researchat IITA 3.6.5. Issues and recommendations 3.7. Biological Control Programme (BCP) 3.7.1. Introduction 3.7.2. Achievements, current focus and future plans 3.7.3. Assessment 3.7.4. Conclusions and recommendations 26 28 29 29 29 30 31 32 32 32 32 33 33 34 34 34 36 37 38 38 40 41 43 44 45 45 45 46 47 47 48 48 48 49 50 3.8. Research Support Units 3.8.1. Genetic ResourcesUnit 3.8.2. Virology Unit 3.8.3. Biotechnology Unit 3.8.4. Biometrics 3.9. Information Services 3.10. Research Services 3.10.1. Research Farm Management 3.10.2. Analytical Services Laboratory 3.10.3. Controlled Environment Growth Cabinets and Glasshouses 3.11. Junior and Visiting Scientists 3.11.l. Post-Doctoral ResearchFellows - Visiting Scientists 3.11.2. Research Fellows 3.12. Scientific Issues 3.12.1. Scientific publications 3.12.2. Scientific leadership and off-station travel 3.12.3. Scientific Advice: External Advisory Committees xxxv 4. RESEARCH MANAGEMENT 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. Organization and Methods Sub-Stations Problems of Present Research Management Remedial Actions Revised Management of Research Evolution of Research Management 51 51 51 53 54 54 56 59 59 59 59 61 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 67 67 5. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 5.1. 5.2. Introduction Mechanisms for Interactions with NARS 5.2.1. Resident Scientists Programme 5.2.2. Research Liaison Scientists 5.2.3. Sub-Stations 5.2.4. Crop-Based Systems Working Groups 5.2.5. Visiting Scientists 5.2.6. Post-Doctoral Fellows 5.2.7. Networking 5.2.8. The Regional ResearchProgramme for Maize and Cassava 5.2.9. Conclusion and recommendations 5.3. Training 5.3.1. Training programmes 5.3.2. Conclusions 5.4. 6. Strategies and Future Issues INTERACTION OF IITA WITH INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTRES 6.1. 6.2. Introduction CGIAR Centres 69 69 69 71 72 73 6.3. Non-Associated International Centres 6.4. Other Contacts with CGIAR Centres and Non-Associated IARCs 6.5. Research Partnership with Public and Private Advanced Research Institutes xxxvi 7. VISION OF THE FUTURE 7.1. Achievements and Impact 74 74 75 75 75 76 77 77 77 80 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: AN OVERVIEW 81 s Role 7.2. The Evolution of ETA’ 7.2.1. Introduction 7.2.2. Economic and Policy Framework 7.2.3. Collaboration with NARS 7.2.4. The Development of Prototype Systems 7.2.5. Bridging Gaps s Activities 7.3. The Future Scale of IITA’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS EXTERNAL MANAGEWENT REVIEW OF IITA ANNEXJ3S Annex I Annex II Annex III Annex IV Annex V Annex VI and Annex VII-A Annex VII-B Annex VIII Composition of the External Review Panels Terms of Reference for External Programme Review Panels Documentation for Review Panel Programme of EPR Panel Country Visits and People Met Main Phase of the EPR IITA Programme Objectives Publication Output of ETA Staff - 1985-89 Off-Station Travel of IITA Programme Directors, 1986-89 Glossary of Acronyms xxxvii SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The evolution of IITA since its inception in 1967 has been largely a responseto the growth and development of the West and Central African region it serves. From the outset it was realized that IITA must adopt an interdisciplinary approach to research if it was to solve the diverse and complex problems of the humid and sub-humid tropics. The goals of feeding a rapidly growing population of hungry people based on more productive and sustainable systems of food production remain formidable. Mandate, Strategies and Priorities The Institute’ s current philosophy, clearly articulated in its Strategic Plan, is based on focus, integration and collaboration. The Plan, which forms the foundation for the MediumTerm Plan, is designed to chart the broad course of the Institute through the next decade, It contains a restatementof the Institute’ s mandate which is embodied in four principal goals: * to develop systems for the managementand conservation of natural resources for sustainable agriculture in the mandate region to increase the performance of selected food crops that can be integrated into improved and sustainableproduction systems to strengthen national agricultural researchcapacities of the region through training, information and outreach activities, and to improve quality characteristicsand post-harvest technologies to realize more complete utilization of IITA mandate crops. * * * These four goals, together with the operational strategies designed to achieve them, involving a focus on agroecologiesand smallholder clients within a farming system orientation, are congruent with those of the CGIAR System. They provide the Institute with a sharper focus and clear directions around which to develop its researchpriorities. The Panel commends IITA for its decision to focus research on three of the major crops in the mandate region (cassava,maize and cowpca) and to maintain a more modest effort on three additional crops (yam, plantain and soybean). All six crops represent important CGIAR priorities and have been targeted by TAC as deserving increased investment by the CGIAR, especially.in sub-SaharanAfrica. Research ProPrammes The two Review Panels have suggestedmodest reorganization of the research managementstructure of the Institute. These suggestionshave been made in order to reduce the responsibilities placed on the Deputy Director General of Research;to bring research leadership closer to the working scientist; and to better integrate research efforts on crop and resource management,crop improvement and biological and integrated control. The proposed Systems Projects Groups have been incorporated more strongly into the research structure to improve linkages for the synthesis of technology components within the farming systems of the region. The Panel commends the more rigorous approach of the Resource Management Research Programme to the study of the important components which contribute to the sustainability of xxxviii the fragile soil systems that characterize the region. Regenerating, sustaining and enhancing the productivity of the land resource base is fundamental to the IITA mission. The Commodity Improvement and Biological Control Programmes have recorded several major achievementsover the last decade. The prestigious King Baudouin Award was given to IITA for the development of resistance to maize streak virus which is stabilizing the yields of maize crops throughout Africa. The release and establishment of a parasite successfully controlled the threat of cassavamealybug throughout the cassavabelt of the continent. Other achievementsinclude the release of high-yielding clones of cassavawith improved resistance to major pests, and the development of better adapted germplasm of cowpea and soybean also with improved resistanceto key pests. Soybean varieties are now able to fix biological nitrogen when nodulated with the ubiquitous strains of rhizobia indigenous in most tropical soils, and their seeds store well. The Rice ResearchProgramme, having produced some successful upland and irrigated, blast-resistant rices for Africa, is being transferred to WARDA. That Association now has the mandate for rice improvement in West Africa. The ongoing work on hybrid maize and black Sigatoka-resistantplantain shows considerable promise. The research programmes at IITA have been well supported by the Research Support Units in Genetic Resources, Virology, and Biometrics, and by Farm Management and Analytical and Information Services. The Panel was impressed by the professionalism and dedication of staff in these Units. Research at IITA One directive in the Terms of Reference given to the Panel was to evaluate the excellence of the Institute’ s research programmes. The Panel has not shirked this responsibility. The Panel fully accepts that IITA is in transition from what it was to what it will become. It found areas of excellence that were well focused with strong and productive research programmes, including many of the smaller groups and Units. The Panel was also impressed with the vigour, collegiate culture and quality of the research work at the Sub-Stations. It congratulates IITA for responding to the recommendationsof the previous External Review and to the advice of the Strategic Planning Groups to begin to decentralize research into targeted agroecologies. Concerns about the maintenance of scientific excellence at the CGIAR Centres have been expressedin several different connections, including recent references to the problem among Boards of Trustees. There is a feeling that pressuresof work are militating against a creative scientific environment. The Panel found that the research environment at IITA sometimes constrains scientific dialogue and creativity. Some research leaders spend too little time guiding and participating in the research of their programmes becauseof other demands on their time. Research staff also complain that they tend to bc overwhelmed by the many demands on their time which is the result of “shooting at too many targets”. There is, in many areas, a lack of effective collaboration between scientists across programmes. The plant improvement emphasis at IITA tends to restrict the opportunity for other scientists to explore wider applications of their own discipline. The Working Groups have not yet been able to capture the full cooperation of their scientific colleagues in the commodity programmes. Many scientists in the Institute have a poor record of publishing their work in international refereed journals. The Panel is pleased that managementis now addressingthese important issues to achieve a stronger scientific ethos in the Institute. xxxix Collaboration IITA is beginning to develop more effective collaboration with the NARS. This is being achieved through the Resident Scientist Programmes, researchnetworks, systems working groups, Sub-Stations, Information Services and, more recently, through a new initiative involving Research Liaison Scientists. The Panel urges that outreach scientists be employed as IITA core staff, irrespective of source of funds, to increase their allegiance to the Institute. The NARS are being strengthenedthrough post-doctoral, post-graduate and visiting scientists programmes and through group training at IITA and in-country. Some 6,000 research and extension staff from all over sub-SaharanAfrica have benefitted from this experience. The low level of core support for training, noted by the previous EPR, has improved but, by 1993, will still only represent an estimated 6.8% of the core budget. Other forms of interaction and collaboration occur between IITA and other CGIAR and non-associatedCentrcs. Most of these collaborative relations are effective. In contrast, the Panel found no evidence that the strained relations between IITA and CIMMYT, evident during the last External Review, have improved, despite the existence of a sound formal agreement. The Panel has not made any attempt to “second guess”the priorities and scale of the IITA future programme. An attempt has been made, however, to establish some of the parameters and constraints that may apply in the social, economic and financial environment of the Institute’ s mandate region throughout the 1990s. Summary of Main Recommendations 1. The Panel recommendsthat IITA establish a capacity for crop managementresearch outside the systems groups and which addressesthe better understanding of plant-soil interactions. (p. 14) The Panel recommends a shift from a crop to a zonal base for the system groups. (p.16) The Panel recommendsthat, in collaboration with CIAT, IBPGR and the Genetic ResourcesUnit, a characterization of the most important African cassavavarieties is undertaken without delay. (p. 20) The Panel recommendsthat IITA should provide stronger support for its plantain and banana breeding programme at Onne with the major focus on the development of black Sigatoka resistancein plantain. (p. 23) The Panel recommendsthe inputs of an entomologist and a pathologist to the Grain Legume Improvement Programme at Kano as soon as possible. (p. 26) Given the widespread and increasing importance of Striga and other parasitic weeds to IITA mandate crops, the Panel recommendsthe appointment of a Striga biologist as soon as possible. (p. 29) The Panel recommendsin view of the important economic constraints caused by pathogens the input of a pathologist at the international scientist level to the Maize Research Programme. (p. 31) 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. XL 9. The Panel recommendsin transferring the IITA Rice Research Programme to WARDA that: (i) WARDA appoint and fully support a rice breeder to be based at IITA as of 1 January 1991 in order to complete the evaluation, documentation and successful transfer of rice germplasm to the Association, and that (ii) the INGER liaison scientist be transferred to WARDA as soon as office, laboratory and field facilities are available, in order to service African requirements as an IRRI/WARDA activity from the Association’ s headquartersin Cote d’ Ivoire. The full cost of the INGER programme shall be the responsibility of WARDA and IRRI as of 1 January 1991. (p. 33) The Panel recommendsthat the Biological Control Programme evolves into a Biological and Integrated Control Programme (BICP) and that a Thematic Working Group on Plant Protection is established,including all plant protectionists, no matter where they are located. (p. 37) The Panel recommendsthat IITA secures as soon as possible a location for conservation of its valuable yam collection. (p. 39) The Panel recommendsthat IITA seeks funds to ensure the conservation of its unique bambara groundnut collection. (p. 39) The Panel recommendsthat IITA defers activities in molecular biotechnology at Ibadan and concentrateson cellular biotechnology, cytogenetics and modem serology. (p. 42) The Panel recommendsthat IITA appoints a second statistician. (p. 44) The Panel recommendsthat IITA managementencourage the publication of the findings of IITA researchin peer-reviewed, international scientific journals. (p. 50) The Panel recommendsthat wherever possible, Research Leaders be relieved of undertaking travel for other than primarily scientific purposes. (p. 50) The Panels recommend that: researchmanagementat IITA should be reorganized to bring the crop-based working groups fully into the research structure to enable collaborative research projects based on cropping systems to involve scientists from Resource and Crop Management @KM), Crop Improvement (CI) and Biological and Integrated Control (BIC). *. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1.4. 15. 16. 17. Research projects should have a leader drawn from any part of the collaborating team, whether from RCM, CI or BIC, and that projects should be of fixed duration with evaluation points and a budget: the portfolio of projects should be dynamic with continual turnover. ResearchLeaders who are close to the working scientists should be responsible for the research groups working on resource managementand crop management, crop improvement and biological and integrated control: they will ensure that research quality and output are high. There should be three Directors respectively for Resource and Crop Management, Crop Improvement and Biological and Integrated Control: this will reduce the heavy load presently borne by the DDG(R) and enable him to delegate and to concentrateto a greater extent on broad strategic issues. * * XL1 * The Institute confirms its intention to have each sub-station under the control of an active scientist designated as Officer-in-Charge who should report to the DDG(R). The Farm Unit, as the principal researchtool of the Institute, should report to the DDG(R). (p. 56) * 18. 19. 20. The Panel recommendsthat future Resident Scientists are appointed as IITA core staff and wherever possible drawn from existing personnel. (p. 60) The Panel recommendsthat the Research Liaison Scientists scheme be reviewed and rejustified alter two years of operation. @. 61) The Panel recommendsthat unless the existing and sound agreementbetween IITA and CIMh4YT for maize research in Africa can be operated productively in 1990, TAC advise the System and the donors that the two Institutes have failed to resolve their differences. CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1. The Setting for Stimulating Food Production in West and Central Africa Sub-SaharanAfrica is a complex and diverse region with great disparities in political maturity, institutional development, resource endowments and national commitments to agriculture and rural development. The proven existence or lack of exploitable mineral and petroleum resources are largely reflected in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita of individual countries, which range from about US$ 150 in Zaire and Chad to about US$ 4,000 in Gabon. Most countries in the region export forest products and cash crops. The predominant cash crops are coffee, cocoa and palm oil in the equatorial zone, and cotton and groundnuts in the savanna areas. As the export of raw materials plays a major role in national economies, these economies suffer from the instability and downward trends in commodity prices on the world market. The petroleum-producing countries, the richest in the region, have been particularly affected by reductions in oil prices throughout the 1980s. In Cameroon and Nigeria, remarkable progress was made during the 1970s in strengthening rural infrastructure and the agricultural research base. More recently, the impact on these economies of declining oil and primary commodity prices has meant that national budgets have been eroded. One consequence is that the resources allocated to agricultural researchhave been almost halved. Most countries in the region have implemented structural adjustment policies, with considerable help from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. State involvement in national economies is being reduced, more realistic exchange rates are being adopted, government budgets have been slashed, the numbers of civil servants have been reduced, and greater emphasis is being devoted to the private sector. Agricultural research in the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) has been adversely affected by this restructuring, primarily becausethe budgets allocated for operating costs have been reduced and by limitations imposed on staff recruitment. Concurrently, several governments are attempting to reduce food imports, either drastically as in Nigeria (where most food imports are banned) or through quotas and import duties (as in Zaire). In most countries, however, wheat imports at world market prices continue unabated, often aided by concessional sales of food aid. Some of the NARS are being rebuilt with assistancefrom bilateral and multilateral donors. The World Bank is also assisting many countries by strengthening of the NARS through infrastructure development, provision of equipment and training of staff. Concurrently, the Bank is financing major agricultural services projects with strong emphasis on training and visit extension. This emphasis, in turn, places heavy demands on the NARS in terms of ability to undertake adaptive research and on their subject matter specialists. Throughout the region, salaries comprise at least 80% of the agricultural research budget. Operating funds are therefore inadequate and restrict many research programmes to on-station work. Nevertheless,many on-farm adaptive trials are carried out in externally-funded special projects. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Task Force on sub-SaharanAfrica estimated that the total funding allocated for food crops research in 11 coastal countries of West and Central Africa is between US$ 100 and US$ 150 million per annum. Nigeria was estimated to account for two-thirds of the total expenditure - while, at the other extreme, less than one-tenth of the total is spent by six countries combined. Average expenditure on food crops research representsbetween 0.5 and 1.0% of the agricultural GDP. Nigeria, Cameroon, and Ghana are the principal “technology generating” countries for West and Central Africa. Other countries in the region are best described as “technology 2 adopting”. Nigeria has by far the largest NARS with about 900 PhDs in agriculture, with more than 270 researcherson food crops of which 30-50% hold PhD degrees and have more than five years research experience. In practice, a policy of self-sufficiency in food production discouragesimports, subsidizes agricultural inputs in general and fertilizers in particular, and promotes training and visit extension through the large agricultural projects. In 1989, more than 2,000 tons of domestically produced hybrid maize seed were sold in Nigeria and perhaps as many as eight private seed companies are now engaged in producing and distributing improved seeds, in one case via soft drink outlets. “Emergent farmers” are increasingly common in Nigeria, buying small quantities of external inputs and producing food primarily for sale. Smallholder fanners are expanding the scale of their operations and are adopting new technologies, facilitated by a strong demand for food crops, reasonably good rural infrastructure and input delivery services. Against strong population growth of the order of 3% per annum, Nigeria is unobtrusively undergoing its own agricultural revolution; the country has improved the human resource base, institutional strength and infrastructure development and has recently adopted agricultural policies conducive to self reliance and sustained growth in food production. It is against this backcloth that IITA’ s efforts in producing improved technology (the driving force for stimulating food production) and decentralization of those efforts through substations must be seen and evaluated. 1.2. IITA Today The Institute is approaching its first quarter century based on the date of acquisition of a 1,000 ha base site on the outskirts of Ibadan. It has a fine record and has achieved a great deal during this difficult and turbulent period of West Africa’ s history. One highlight since the last External Programme Review (EPR) was the receipt in 1986 of the prestigious King Baudouin Award in recognition of its successin developing resistance to the maize streak virus (MSV), and which has made a significant contribution to the potential for maize production in Africa. The Institute is passing through a critical stage of development as it strives to consolidate on the strength and the experiencesof the past two decades. It recognizes the need to restructure and to face the demands of the accelerating changes that will characterize the future environment in which it must operate and develop its technologies. The Strategic Plan, which forms the basis of the Medium-Term Plan (MTP), provided valuable direction for this transition. It is encouraging to witness the impact of these changes and the extent to which IITA is moving to ~decentralize its operations in the region and the strengthening of the quality and relevance of its research. There is real evidence too of a marked increase in collaboration between IITA and its clients - the national research programmes of the region (NARS). The Institute has evolved into an important research centre in Central Africa; it is well known and respected in the region. The challenge for the future will be for IITA to continue to provide leadership in agricultural research and to deliver its products in ways that complement the growing skills and increased capacity of the NARS of the region. 1.3. Responses to Recommendations of the Second External Programme Review The responsesby IITA to the published recommendationsmade by the Second EPR in August 1984 have been reviewed. The Panel confirms that the Institute has responded effectively to many recommendationswherever it has had the opportunity and capacity to do so. 3 The capability of IITA to respond to the Review was overtaken in many respects by the Strategic Planning Study launched in 1986. That planning process involved the strategic diagnosis of the III-A environment, a reformulation of programme objectives and priorities, and the development of operational strategies intended to achieve those objectives. Many of the suggestions and recommendationsof the 1983 EPR were embodied in the MTP approved by the Technical Advisory Committee to the CGIAR (TAC) in May 1988. The Strategic Plan provided the framework for a more appropriate balance between onstation research at Ibadan and that conducted elsewhere, and between these research efforts and outreach activities that have since provided increased opportunities for collaborative efforts designed to help strengthen the capacity of the NARS. The development of IITA Sub-Stations located in the major agroecological zones of the region, including Francophone Africa, which are fast becoming the new focus for the Institute’ s commodity improvement and systems-based research programmes, is further evidence of the concern of IITA for decentralizing activities and expanding coverage of the mandate region. Those 1983 EPR recommendationswhich concerned the commodity programmes have been adopted in principle but much remains to be done to encourage strategic research, particularly in areas of pest and crop management,which are in line with the broad recommendation of TAC to develop a stronger focus on the important priorities of the programmes. In the context of this Report and unless stated otherwise the term “pest” conforms with FAO usage and therefore includes all noxious organisms, such as insects, mites, fungi, bacteria, viruses, nematodes, parasitic and non-parasitic weeds (and sometimes rats and birds). The policy that IITA should concentrate on far fewer key staple food crops (maize, cassava and cowpea) in the major commodity researchprogrammes, and to sustain smaller, wellfocused improvement programmes on soybean, plantain and yams, was developed during the Strategic Review. Although not entirely congruent with the 1983 EPR recommendations,that policy is consistent with the spirit of that advice, i.e. to sharpen the focus of the commodity research programmes in the Institute. The genesis of a stronger and more explicit agroecological orientation for the Institute can be traced in the previous EPR but the revised emphasis evolved and was certainly reinforced by the Strategic Plan. Then again, the many recommendationson farming systems research, which are embodied in a quote from the 1983 EPR report “It (FSR) provides the essential background of knowledge and support against which the crop improvement programmes function”; have been encapsulatedin the new Resource and Crop Management Programme (RCMP) which includes the Crop-Based Systems Working Groups (CBSWG) within crop managementresearch (CMR). These Groups have been brought together in order to achieve a better synthesis between the technology components from resource management research (RMR), the other arm of the RCMP, the commodity improvement programmes, and the needs of the client farming systems of the region. International cooperation, including efforts in training, has been strengthenedwithin IITA and is now given the emphasis and status equivalent to the Commodity and RCMP Programmes. A more rational policy on modes of collaboration and training has been developed and the focus and objectives of the International Cooperation and Training Programme are now more carefully aligned with the objectives and mandate of the Institute. 4 Cooperation between IITA and other Centres within the CGIAR System and with nonassociatedInternational Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs) has also been expanded. A total of eight international research centres are now working closely with IITA, and an equal number are involved in additional, more specific interactions. The 1983 EPR review made special reference to the importance of strengthening collaboration between IITA and the International Centre for Maize and Wheat Improvement (CIMMYT) for work on maize for the lowland tropics of Africa. Although considerable progress has been made, and lines of responsibility have been agreed, the Panel regrets to record that it will take time for greater mutual confidence and effective collaboration to develop between the two sister Centres. The major recommendationsof the 1983 EMR with regard to IITA research programmes have been implemented. Deputy Director Generals responsible for research [DDG(R)] and for international cooperation [DDG(IC)] have been appointed. In summary, the combined efforts off the Second EPR and the subsequentStrategic Plan have been effective in restructuring the managementof IITA and in developing a better framework and focus for the research and outreach programmes of the Institute. The Panel is fully aware that the Institute is still evolving towards the goals articulated in its MTP. 1.4. The Strategic Plan Confronted with the challenges presented by a diverse and rapidly changing African scene, and the urgent need to develop new research goals and strategies for the future, IITA launched a strategic planning study in 1986. The elements of this planning process included a detailed examination of the IITA environmental setting (ecological, economic and institutional), the definition of clear goals and research programme priorities, and the development of operational strategies to achieve these objectives. The Strategic Plan (1989-2000) draws its inspiration from the Institute’ s mission: ” to increase the sustainability of food production of the world’ s humid and sub-humid tropical zones.” It is strongly client-driven and largely future-oriented. It forms the tenets of the IITA MTP, which provides a blueprint and set of guidelines for the Institute’ s activities over the quinquennium to 1993. The vision of IITA’ s future, and the explicit strategies established to achieve objectives in the complex setting of current and future African environments, has provided the Panel with a valuable framework and institutional setting ‘ within which to conduct its strategic review. The Director General, the Board of Trustees, national programme representatives,and those dedicated staff and consultants who constituted the study groups and provided the inputs to the Strategic Plan are to be congratulated for its clarity and quality, and the contribution it has made to guiding future directions for the Institute. 1.5. Terms of Reference: 1990 EPR The EPR was requestedby TAC to make a thorough and independent appraisal of the Institute and all its activities and to transmit a final report to the Chairman of TAC. The broad topics listed in the Terms of Reference included the mandate of the Institute, the operational strategies and research programmes, and the manner in which they are organized 5 and managed. In addition, the Panel has been asked to consider the available facilities and resources within IITA in relation to current and future plans, the extent to which the Institute collaborates with other institutions within and outside the mandate region, the achievementsof IITA research, and the impact these technologies and activities have had in the mandate region. The detailed Terms of Reference are given in Annex II. 1.6. The Review Process and Report Structure The preparations for the 1990 EPR, the consultations concerning Panel membership, details of the review programme and the Terms of Reference were discussed by TAC in consultation with the Institute and with the CGIAR membership at its meeting in May 1989. In December 1989, both the EPR and External Management Review (EMR) Panel members visited IITA at the time of the annual Board of Trustees Meeting in order to discuss the objectives and plans for the forthcoming review. The Panel members met a wide crosssection of the IITA staff, assembleda comprehensivecollection of information and briefing documents, and planned visits to several IITA off-station (Ibadan) activities, These visits then took place immediately prior to the Review in January-February1990. They included IITA projects and Sub-Station activities in Cameroon, in Kano and Onne (in northern and southeastern Nigeria respectively), and in Benin (Cotonou) and Ghana. This itinerary allowed the Panel to observe the various modes of outreach activity undertaken by the Institute and to discuss their relative merits with IITA staff, national officials and NARS scientists in these countries. The results of a separatequestionnaire sent by TAC to a wide cross-section of national systems and universities in Africa have been incorporated into the Panel viewpoints expressedin this Report. The Report The EPR was not intended to be a conventional peer review (i.e. to conduct a detailed scientific examination of all aspects of the IITA programmes of research and international cooperation). Rather, its purpose was to review the Institute’ s present and future goals, research strategies and priorities, and to assesstheir congruence with those of the CGIAR and the stated objectives of the programmes. It was also intended to review the priorities, scientific and other outputs, balance and impacts of the major research programmes, and their respective contributions to the overall balance and quality of the Institute’ s research activities. The structure of the EPR Report reflects this approach. Early chapters review the mandate, goals and research strategies of IITA as articulated in the MTP, followed by an assessmentof the various researchprogrammes. The report then deals with the important collaborative activities undertaken with the NARS and other institutions, including related Centres within the CGIAR System. Finally, the Panel has attempted to assessthe future opportunities and directions of IITA programmes, and to grapple with the difficult problems of estimating the desirable scale and surety of funding which will be needed for the Institute to undertake its stated mission. CHAPTER 2 - MANDATE, GOALS AND STRATEGIES OF HTA 2.1. Mandate and Goals In “challenging” the mandate and goals of the IITA Strategic Plan, the Panel is not seeking to ‘ second guess’those who helped develop the Plan and then bring it together as the MTP for approval by the CGIAR. Rather, our purpose is to review that Plan, which has guided the Institute for the last three years, and to monitor progress. The Panel is anxious to deliberate any modifications or interactions that may now be desirable to cope with the accelerating rate of change in the research environment and in the requirements of clients serviced by the Institute. The mandate of the Institute since its inception in 1967 has been charted in a document prepared especially for the Panel. The document describes progress from a virtually open-ended interpretation of the mandate in 1967 (which centered on the need to increase the output and improve the quality of tropical food crops) to a more focused and realistic brief given to the Institute to reflect the goals and strategies established in developing the Strategic Plan. This “mandate” is incorporated in the four operational programme objectives given in the Plan (see Annex VI). These objectives emphasize the need to develop sustainable agriculture for the humid and sub-humid tropics; this has always been one of the important goals for IITA. They also stress the need to increase the reliable productivity of selected staple food crops and to integrate them into sustainable agriculture. The quality and post-harvest managementof produce need also be improved to better ensure more complete utilization of crops for food. These three goals are integrated and bear directly on the fourth, which is to strengthen the agricultural research capacity of the scientists in the national programmes through collaboration and access to training and information. The IITA mandate is broad. To date, it has been revised and restated five times since it was first drafted (the most recent revision being in 1987 during the strategic review). It would be helpful for IITA to develop a more succinct and forceful mission statement which should reflect the Institute’ s current goals and commitments. Accordingly, the Panel suggeststhat IITA articulate the current version of its mandate in a clear and forceful mission statement as a declaration of its major goals and commitments. 2.2. Research Strategies and Proeramme Priorities Four clearly articulated strategies are presentedin the MTP. These include: * The adoption of West and Central Africa as the primary geographic focus; the region contains the greatest area of lowland humid and sub-humid tropical environments. A focus on African smallholders wlho represent about 75% of the people in the region. The development of an agroecological orientation as a framework for the Institute’ s research programmes and as a guide for the gradual decentralization of research away from Ibadan to where studies on resources and commodities will be most relevant. * * 7 * The inculcation of a farming systems orientation in the Institute to improve the linkages between IITA and its ultimate client farmers so that technology generated will be relevant in the real world of African agriculture. The Panel has been asked to compare the congruence of these goals and the strategies used to achieve them with CGIAR priorities, and to assessthe mechanisms in place within the Institute for monitoring and revising them. Each of the four goals that comprise the mission of IlTA are well within the Institute’ s mandate and are congruent with the major goals of the CGIAR as they appear in the CGIAR “Priorities and Future Strategies”(1987) document. The CGIAR statement on sub-SaharanAfrica, for example, includes the key statement: “adaptive research integration and coordination of effort, decentralization, networking, and collaboration with NARS”. All of these activities are well representedat IITA. The TAC, in its discussion of the urgent need for research on sustainability, also points out that Centres should develop a “sustainability perspective throughout their programme” and, further, that concerns for sustainability “may make it desirable, if not essential, for some Centres to give increased attention to research on problems of resource management”. The farming systems orientation of its research was mandated to IITA and is fundamental to its mission. It has since become important to many of the crop improvement programmes of the commodity-based Centres within the CGIAR. The strategies or decision criteria identified by IITA are all primary concerns of CGIAR. The focus on West and Central Africa, a region with a significant proportion of the population in sub-SaharanAfrica, is of special significance to CGIAR with its emphasis on the smallholder or family farmer and concern for the urban and rural poor. The decision to define the IITA operational region in terms of agroecological zones provided a rational basis to guide the Institute in the decentralization of some of its activities. It defined too the focus for the Institute’ s research, based on ‘ considerationsof sustainability, crop adaptation, and the needs and preferences of client fanners. The Panel believes that these strategies are highly relevant to the goals of the Institute and that they have helped to shape the environment in which the research is undertaken. Innovative research programmes are the means by which the goals of the Institute are achieved; their direction and focus are determined by the priorities assigned to both activities and commodities. Priorities are based on the needs and potential of the region, CGIAR priorities, other established research programmes and considerations of efficiency as measured by returns to investment in a particular activity. Within the broad area of resource and crop managementwhich underpins all research activities at IITA, a difficult judgement for the Institute has been the setting of commodity priorities. Many crops are grown in the farming systems of the region and, over time, the IITA commodity focus has sharpened. At present the Institute is giving primary emphasis to the improvement of three major crops: maize (with a responsibility for the humid and sub-humid tropics of West and Central Africa); cassava (with responsibility for all climatic regions in Africa); and cowpea (with a worldwide mandate). Emphasis is also given to three additional commodities, yam, plantain and soybean, each with smaller well-focused pmgrammes. Work on rice is being transferred to WARDA, that on sweet potato to CIP, and work on cocoyam has been discontinued. 8 These revised priorities were establishedduring the strategic review based on “relevance indicators” similar to those used in the TAC review of CGIAR priorities. The indicators used are described in the IITA Strategic Plan and represent a rational and sound assessmentof their importance in the region, their relevance to the target groups, the research opportunities and the likelihood of success. All six crops of interest to IITA represent important CGIAR priorities. Furthermore, they have all been targeted by TAC as deserving, where possible, increased investment by CGIAR, especially in sub-SaharanAfrica. The Panel commends the wisdom of the decision by IITA to reduce the number of crops studied and to focus on three of the major food crops in the mandate region. It also endorses the decision to maintain modest efforts on the three additional crops which are or may come to be important in West and Central Africa, and which are not the responsibility of any other Centre within CGIAR. No research thrust is focused on groundnut (Arachis hvnogaea) in the humid and subhumid lowlands of West and Central Africa although close to 40% of the groundnuts in subSaharan Africa are produced for food in this region. Within CGIAR, the mandate for groundnut research lies with ICRISAT which limits its research efforts to the semi-arid tropics. The Panel suggeststhat IITA consult with ICRISAT on the future of groundnut research for Africa. The monitoring and revision of the Institute’ s goals, strategies and priorities as currently described and made operational in the MTP, precede the development of the next five-year plan in 1993. Strategic plans must be flexible and may well need revision at regular intervals depending on the rate of change in both the external and internal environments. Recently, IITA has adopted the practice of internal reviews of its researchprogrammes. The review panels are composed of staff members of IITA, members of the Board of Trustees, and external consultants, including key representativesfrom the NARS. Such reviews are seen by the managementas peer assessments of HTA efforts and they are instrumental in enhancing the scientific quality of the research at IITA. The Panel commends this initiative and comments further on it in Section 3.11. The Panel fully endorsesthe IITA Strategic Plan and its translation into the current MTP. It is well conceived and soundly based. The Plan has given the Institute a new focus, and a more realistic mandate to addressthe problems of the region - throughout the remainder of the planning period and thereafter. CHAPTER 3 - RESEARCH PROGRAMMES 3.1. Resource Management Research 3.1.1. Introduction Resource Management Research (RMR) and Crop Management Research (CMR) are two basic activities of the Resource and Crop Management Programme (RCMP), formerly the Farming Systems Programme (FSP), of IITA. Inputs from these two research activities combined with information from the Commodity Improvement Programmes, it is envisaged, will be synthesized into socio-economically attractive and ecologically sustainable farming systems for smallholder farmers in the various agroecological zones of West and Central Africa. 3.1.2. Achievements, current focus and future plans The former FSP undertook research on soils and land management(land clearing, soil and water management,soil fertility, and farm machinery); on crops and crop management (alley cropping, live mulches and cover crops, weed managementand crop protection); and on on-farm research. Research carried out by FSP during the past two decadeson non-acid soils of the forest/savannatransition zone, little of it within the farmers’ socio-economic framework, has led to a better understanding of biological, chemical and physical processesin the soil. It is through understanding and manipulation of these basic processesthat appropriate methods of land clearing, vegetative fallows, intercropping, no-tillage, erosion control, and alley cropping may lead to sustained food crops production and the conservation of the resource base. There is indicative evidence that some components are not only finding their way into farmers’ fields but also generating an awareness,among research scientists, of the need to focus on sustainability rather than on short-term gains. Following the recommendationsof the second EPR, IITA reoriented the then FSP programme to include on-farm research; it intensified collaboration with NARS and initiated a general decentralization of research efforts. The crop-based systems approach in IITA under RCMP provides the conceptual framework within which RMR operates to develop more specific goals concerned with the managementof those resources(edaphic, ecological, and socioeconomic) that combine to limit crop production. The task of RMR is to couple the results of the more empirical application research, including inputs such as the recycling of organic matter, biological nitrogen fixation, soil amendments and fertilizer application, through process-orientedstudies of the biological, physical and chemical characteristics of these fragile soil systems. Understanding the important underlying factors which contribute to sustainability in these soil-plant systems will enable the group to develop a series of functional models of critical components of these systems, which will provide a basis for the extrapolation of resource managementprinciples. These objectives represent a change in research perspective; they include a greater emphasis on strategic research focused on model-basedprocess and systems studies to understand the determinants of soil degradation and/or sustainability. One important determinant is population density and this should influence the selection of sites for RMR. This is further discussed in Section 3.2.3. below. 10 The restructured RCMP, with a new leader of RMR, additional agroclimatology/ modeling, resource economics and soil chemistry staff, and the development of the Mbalmayo Sub-Station (MSS) in Cameroon, combine to provide for a new focus, rationale, and wider coverage. The Programme will not only continue to build upon past experience and achievementsat IITA and elsewhere, but will also undertake detailed surveys of the nature of the resource base before attempting experiments on station. Throughout this period the group will participate in Systems Working Groups (SWG) of on-farm studies and then on experimentation to gain a better understandingof the factors which constrain production. Long-term goals involving strategic interdisciplinary research on soil physical, chemical and biological processesand their interactions with crop species and farming systems, will provide an understandingof the determinants of sustainability and the development of appropriate resource managementsystems. The Panel commends this change in emphasis and supports RMR undertaking interdisciplinary processesand systems research in resource management. 3.1.3. Assessment The diversity in agroecologies,soils and farming systems poses complex problems for RMR scientists. Evidence indicates that traditional and empirical single component approaches of the past are inappropriate for the development of realistic resource managementtechnologies for the region. Resource managementresearchwill take the lead in developing models that are intended to include examination of the basic processesof water and nutrient dynamics, the crops and crop associations,and farming systems. In proposing to recruit and train NARS to collect the minimum data sets (MDS) the programme should be sensitive to NARS own needs for the information. Where collection is essentially a service for IITA, a contractual arrangementmay be appropriate. The Panel recognizes the limited modeling capacity within RMR and the availability of modeling expertise elsewhere. It urges RMR to make judicious selections and use of these models and to seek collaboration wherever necessaryto adapt them to the particular needs of the programme. The lack of scrutiny, synthesis and review of information and derived principles based on twenty years of FSR carried out at IITA is a serious problem. An IITA reference book on resource managementto complement those Ion tillage and erosion control is long overdue. Although some information can be found in journals, IITA publications, and unpublished reports, some data sets may have been lost and an extensive body of experimental data remains to be interpreted and summarized. It is imperative that past work is now analyzed thoroughly and used to develop those functional relations between the important variables that could be recorded and used to help describe the various components of systems under investigation. The attainment of a satisfactory balance within the programme, among disciplines and among research approachesand locations (on-farm and on-station) will depend on how soon the resource managementprogramme is ultimately shaped. The potentials of alley cropping as a system to explore the contribution of leguminous/non-leguminousshrubs and trees in sustainablecropping systems are evident, although the continuing emphasis and premature publicity for alley cropping per se, at the expense of other agroforestry systems or other forms of ground cover, is of concern. This is especially true for Leucaena systems; the species is not well adapted to acid soils, where this technology is needed most urgently. Leucaena is also under threat from a leaf-eating psylid (Heoeroosvlle cubana) in the Asia/Pacific region. For alley cropping to be publicized as a 11 valuable new technology to assist farmers to achieve sustainableproduction, it must be accepted and adopted by those farmers. There is, as yet, little or no evidence of farmers adopting the. technology - possibly because of the additional labour involved and the long gestation period (5 6 years) before the benefits begin to be realized. This technology could perhaps be more appropriate and more readily adopted if it were targeted on farmers who would benefit most from it. Other agroforestry technologies and the use of other combinations of forage and crop legumes with the alleys crops should not be overlooked in any study of suitable technology for research on soil sustainability. Collaboration on alley cropping research between IITA, ICRAF and ILCA is commendable. Work in Brazil and Hawaii indicates that lime, phosphorus and soluble silicates have rejuvenated senile and degraded soils. The Panel urges RMR to consider the technical feasibility and economic viability of such interventions. The staff are adequatelytrained and professionally qualified to undertake the programme of work planned. Programme leadership is sound and knowledgeable, morale is good; the blend of long local experience with new skills and interdisciplinary interaction augurs well for the future. 3.1.4. Conclusions The RMR thrust, then, is to build on results from earlier work in studies of basic dimensions of the resource base (environmental, edaphic, biological, and socio-economic parameters) in evolving a plan within which to frame the directions and focus of future research programmes. This exercise will form the basis for developing specific and applied goals in the selection and synthesis of predictive system models that will then be used to evaluate acceptable technologies for extrapolation within the region. The appointment of the new programme leader and staff in agroclimatology/modeling, resource economics, and soil chemistry renders the programme well structured, well led and focused on problems central to the mission of IITA. 3.2. 0-0~ Management Research (CMR) 3.2.1. Introduction The Crop Based Systems Working Groups (CBSWG) of the CMR serve a key linkage role in the synthesis of technology components within the farming systems of the humid and sub-humid tropics of West and Central Africa. They have evolved from experiences in the earlier, unconsolidated, adaptive research thrusts of the FSP. The perception on the part of IITA at the time the strategic planning process started in 1986, was that a more structured set of research thrusts could play an integrative role in the Institute. The Panel endorsesthe concept of Systems Working Groups (SWG) as a vehicle for achieving synthesis and linkage. The Panel also endorsesthe clearly articulated viewpoint of the RCh4P Director that the NARS will ultimately have the comparative advantage for this linkage role, and that IITA will, in due course, work itself out of a job. It believes that an explicit operational strategy towards this goal is needed, including priority for training in adaptive research to build capacity within NARS to assume this linkage role. 12 The designated functions for CMR are diverse: (8 @I “A service function involving on-farm screening, testing, and evaluation of technologies generated by experiment station research. An adaptive research function, involving the adjustment or adaptation of existing technology to a particular set of environmental conditions, either agroecological or socioeconomic, through on-farm research. A feedback function providing relevant information from farm level characterization, diagnosis and/or adaptive research to scientists developing resource management technologies or breeding improved varieties at research stations.” [IITA, MTP pp. 17, 19891 cc> Of these three functions, the feedback mechanism is of paramount importance to meet the Institute’ s strategy of inculcating a farming systems orientation within IITA. Beyond these three basic functions within IITA the MTP states that the Working Groups: “offer excellent opportunities for cooperation with scientists of the national programmes. .. .. .. collaboration is expected to comprise a significant part of their research agenda.” [IITA, MTP pp. 18, 19891 CMR comprises three CBSWG, one for each of Cassava,Maize and Rice. Each Group has an establishment for an agronomist and an agricultural economist, and provision for participation from relevant scientists of the crop improvement and resource management programmes. 3.2.2. Achievements, current focus and future plans Major changes of emphasis in several IITA applied research programmes bear witness to an increasing awarenessof client needs. Cowpea breeding has shifted to the development of materials more congruent with farmers’ usage of the crop. GLIP has moved significant resources to Kano within the most important cowpea agroecology. Soybean improvement includes consideration of the utilization of the product and also gives attention methods of harvesting. The MRP has reacted to identified storage pest problems with IITA improved varieties by raising its priorities for husk cover and storage insect control. The RMR has also modified its orientation in several ways. On-farm research through the ‘ ITU (in Benin) has confirmed earlier work and convinced RMR scientists that rapidly growing annuals, [mucuna (Mucuna pruriens)in this case] can play a role in the control of imperata (Imperata cvlindrica), a weed of increasing importance in West and Central Africa. RMR has shifted strongly towards the study of intercropping as the dominant cropping system of farmers in West and Central Africa. One estimate gave intercropping experiments as 55% of the total programme effort in 1989 compared with just 25% in 1985. These are positive indications of better linkages between IITA and its ultimate client farmers through on-farm research. Some of these improvements stem from a more receptive attitude on the part of some programme scientists following their increased exposure to the findings of scientists in the SWG. 13 Concurrently, in moving IITA materials and practices to farmers’ fields (a further recommendation of the 1983 EPR), SWG scientists have begun to define the technical constraints on the viability of technologies in different farming systems and to develop the management adaptations necessaryto overcome these. Alley Cropping has received a great deal of attention (and considerable publicity), and provides examples. Studies since 1986 have shown that applications of small amounts of P and Ca can improve establishment and early growth of leucaena (Leucaena leucocenhala), and that the best time for the application of alley prunings as a mulch for maize is at planting. Nitrogen releasedby decomposition of prunings applied at that time has an effect on maize yields comparable to that from 50-75 kg inorganic N ha -I depending on the species pruned. Difficulty in establishing the alleys, labour shortageson test farms, and the delay in profitability, requiring fanners to wait for as long as perhaps five or six years to be able to identify benefits, have led researchtowards strategies for the parallel introduction of marketable products from annual and perennial crops in the alleys. Although there is only limited evidence of significant farmer adoption, progress has been made in adapting the basic principles of alley cropping and other materials and techniques, intercropping among them, to the circumstancesof groups of farmers around selected sites. The On-Farm Research methods used by SWG scientists have been published by IITA in ‘ A Field Guide to On-Farm Research’ . This publication is in heavy demand from the NARS, and is being reprinted in French. The staff concerned are commended on its success.There is also commendable awarenessof the need to distinguish the roles of men and women in farming to properly evaluate the implications of planned technological interventions. Finally, the SWG have also made progress in linking their research with the work of the NARS of the region. The Groups have collaborated in on-farm projects with national researchersand with staff from the state-basedAgricultural Development Projects (ADPs) in Nigeria. There is also collaboration for the transfer of results and methods through networks which include national system and IITA staff as members. Noteworthy are the West African Farming Systems Research Network (WAFSRN), an informal group of collaborators on cassavabased systems and a new initiative by the MBSWG to maintain contact across the region with collaborators interested in adaptive research in maize-basedsystems (COMBS). 3.2.3. Assessment At their inception in 1986 IITA stated the intention to evaluate the performance of the SWG after three years of operation. There has been strong debate within the Institute and the Board, and the question was also addressedby the Internal Review undertaken in 1989. The Panel seeks to contribute to the evaluation of the present operational strategy. The performance of the Groups in CMR has to be judged on their effectiveness in forging linkages between the NARS, their farmers’ systems and research at IITA, and between the IITA research programmes themselves. Issues remain about the operating strategy and organization of the SWG, and the Panel seeks to be constructive in addressingthem. Programme Balance The Panel found objectives reflected in current CMR experiments extending beyond the three functions which defined the role of the SWG in the MTP. 14 Agronomists have remained involved in experimental work concerned with both the development of prototype managementpractices for their target crops, often in an intercropping context, and in the understanding of soil and plant processes.Seeking the principles of physical, chemical and biological processes,and their interaction, in soil is the mandate of RMR. An understanding of plant-soil interactions is important to IITA and is entirely consistent with the title ‘ Crop Management Research’carried by the SWG. It is not consistent however with the three functions cited by the MTP and such work dilutes the efforts which the already underresourced SWG are able to devote to their designated functions. There is a clear need to separatediagnosis in the research of principles of soil and crop management, which are long-term commitments, and the diagnostic role in adaptive research. Pressure from the proliferation of objectives can lead to compromises in approach and method which jeopardize achievement in all areas. The Panel urges the Institute to recognize this confounding of objectives. The Panel recommends that IITA establish a capacity for crop managementresearch outside the systems based groups and which addressesthe better understanding of plant-soil interactions. The logical home for this capacity is in RCMP in parallel with RMR working on soil processes,and its logical title is CMR, currently the umbrella of the SWG. The SWG are already understaffed and cannot be compromised further. New CMR capacity will require a change in the disciplinary balance of the Institute. Capacity in physiology and agronomy should be strengthened. The Panel believes the term Working Groups leaves a weak image of what must be substantive research efforts. It suggeststhe title Systems-project Groups (SG) as a stronger alternative. Programme Approach The Panel has expressedits support for the Working Group concept. It has also endorsed the viewpoint that adaptive research, feedback and synthesis is in the ultimate comparative advantage of the national systems. The SWG are destined to work themselves out of a job by encouraging a build up of national capacity to serve as the eyes of the Institute with its, and their, farmer clients. There is no way in which IITA can fully substitute for NARS and undertake adaptive research across its mandlatearea. It must be selective in the number of sites at which it can work. There is an historical basis for the location of the main on-farm research sites used by the SWG. The Panel recognize the need for a period of transition to better sites but believes the approach to new site selection should be addressedfor the Institute as a whole. The approach needs to ensure that Institute-wide locational priorities can be rationalized and that site results can be extrapolated to a defined population of farms. The location of alley cropping trials is an important illustration of the need for a more scientific approach to characterizing the mandate area. As noted earlier, several of the technical and economic characteristics of alley cropping are defined and combine to determine the circumstancesunder which the technology will find a place with farmers. Systems become increasingly stressed as land becomes scarcer; fallow rotations am less feasible and labour productivity declines. The location of trials in pressured areas increasesthe probability of alleys improving existing labour productivity. Planning needs to identify sites among the target populations most likely to use the technology. “Pushing it out” to a site chosen only for its location in an agro-ecological zone ignores the human dimension vital to selecting appropriate sites. Scientists are attached to their technologies and there are continuing investments to make them succeed. The Panel acknowledgesthat to leave existing alley cropping sites after several 15 years of effort devoted to them would be a difficult decision. Nevertheless, if a comprehensive planning framework identifies target populations more clearly suited to alley cropping, those decisions will need to be faced. Continuing mismatches will be counter-productive to the credibility of OFR with fanners, with national collaborators and with other IITA scientists, and also counter-productive to IITA itself. The MBSWG has begun its own characterization in the Northern Savannah.The RMR agricultural economist has characterization in the workplan though it is given least priority due to the urgency to prove the benefits of alley cropping on the existing sites. COSCA is undertaking an exercise for cassavawhich should capture much of the data needed for limited farming system characterization in four countries of the IITA regional mandate area. Existing initiatives are piecemeal. To help select such sites and provide the Institute a region-wide perspective on locational priorities within the mandate area it is important for IITA to establish a planning framework covering the humid and sub-humid tropics of West and Central Africa. It is the burgeoning population which pressuresthe soil and water resources and the framework needs to capture this human dimension as well as the agroecology in its zonation. The Panel believes the densely populated areas warrant higher priority in IITA programmes and form a logical focus for both the adaptation and adoption of IITA intensifying technologies, and for feedback to the Institute. Such a framework should identify and briefly characterize the farming systems within the agroecological zones of the mandate region. A combination of Geographical Information System (GIS) and single visit survey methods seem appropriate. The methods are already available at IITA and have been tested during the first phase of the COSCA Project. The articulation of the statistical “population” of farming systems in the mandate region will aid the Institute in all types of sampling and extrapolation. For example, crop improvement programs cannot respond to every quirk in the preferences of small numbers of producers and consumers. They must be satisfied that each criteria is sufficiently widespread in the target populations and sufficiently important to the clients to include it as a breeding priority. Any additional criterion has major implications for the orientation of the breeding thrust and must be fully weighed before it is taken into the programme. Farmers’criteria for varietal selection in IITA crops is a relatively slowly changing phenomena responding to long-term dynamics of the economy and the availability of seed. The strength, location and extent of the various criteria across the mandate region can be explored at long intervals by relatively rapid and inexpensive survey techniques. Appropriate methods for cassava are already in use by COSCA. A similar single survey could suffice for all IITA crops across the mandate region. A judicious choice of survey method can also reinforce IITA coverage of its mandate region and help meet an urgent need to confirm and improve the targets for IITA breeders. It is acknowledged in the Institute that lack of participation in the SWG by the crop improvement scientists is a key weakness in their operation. One reason is that current SWG coverage and inability to extrapolate research findings inhibits estimates of the varietal needs of the region-wide populations. Improving the dynamics of the SWG is also a further reason why these questions of coverage need to be urgently addressed. Finally, although a good start has been made in adaptive research and feedback in collaboration with NARS, the Panel emphasizesthe importance of expanding this effort both to enhance coverage and also to reduce the period to NARS maturity in this type of research. Expanded collaboration with NARS, ADPs and their equivalents would be one thrust of an 16 operational strategy for the development of OFR capacity in NARS, the other priority calls for more training in adaptive research. Programme Organization The national systems face similar linkage problems within their own organizations. The OFCOR studies undertaken by ISNAR in nine countries have clearly shown that synthesizing component technologies for interpolation into farmers’ systems requires active managementof the component/systeminterface. (ISNAR: 1988, 1989, OFCOR; the Cases and Comparative studies.) It is the Panels view that the SWG suffer from a lack of coordination and a lack of representationin inter-programme discussions. There are relatively few opportunities for interaction on scientific approach and methods; those that do exist are informal and any outcomes are not made operational. Elsewhere (Section 4.5), the Panel has recommendedthe appointment of a ResearchLeader for the new CMR and the proposed SG, the person appointed would provide active management and representationin discussions across programmes. In the role of coordinator of the system project groups the leader would also implement consensuson SG approach and methods, and rationalize activities in the field and with national systems. As noted earlier, a strong debate is ongoing in the Institute on improving the operational effectiveness of the SWG. One option under consideration is reorienting them from a crop to a zonal base. (A zone is defined as sub-divisions of an agroecological region formed by relatively homogeneousfarming systems.) The Panel recommends a shift from a crop to a zonal base for the system groups. It is perceived to have the following advantages: * * It would help widen coverage and contribute to sharper locational focus; The geographical area to be covered by one SG is much reduced, each would then have more opportunity to consolidate long-term collaborative relations with national colleagues in adaptive research working in their respective zones; It would allow the SG to employ the full farming systems perspective, congruent with IITA farmer clients; This in turn would allow a more flexible look at the future of systems in which be inhibited in the commodity balances change over time. Such flexibility CBSWG which now encourage scientists to promote the programme commodity; For the same reason it would inhibit ‘ capture’ of the Group as a field service unit by the commodity teams; and * * * * It would require interaction with a broader range of component scientists, widening the exposure to a systems orientation within IITA. The Panel believes the shift to a zonal base would reinforce agroecological orientation, a central strategy of the Institute. 3.2.4. Conclusions and recommendations The Panel see the SG as a sound concept for integrating component technologies into systems from an understandingof the physical, biological and socioeconomic circumstances of 17 the farmers of the region. The Panel believes that four modifications are needed to operate the Group concept effectively: 0) (ii) Full-time focus on two of the functions designatedto the SG, i.e. feedback and adaptive research; More effective selection of site location and a sound basis for extrapolation through the identification of priority target farming systems from an Institutewide planning framework; Wider coverage of the mandate region through an extension of collaboration with NARS and other adaptive research capacity as may be available; and Reorganization of the SG on a zonal base and the appointment of a Research Leader for CMR who will coordinate the SG. Recommendations (iii) (iv> The Panel recommends that IITA establish a capacity for crop management research outside the systems groups and which addresses the better understanding of plant-soil interactions. The Panel recommends a shift from a crop to a zonal base for the system groups. 3.3. Root, Tuber and Plantain Improvement Programme 3.3.1. Cassava and Yams Introduction IITA now has Africa-wide responsibility for cassava and global responsibility for yams. Cassavais economically the most important staple food crop in sub-SaharanAfrica. Cassavais important in all the agroecological zones where IITA is active. Yams rank first in Nigeria in terms of calories and protein contributions to the diet. Nigeria produces some three-quarters of all yams in Africa. Achievements, current focus and future plans The major achievementsof cassavaimprovement at IITA have been the development of high yielding clones with various degrees of resistanceto major pests [i.e. cassavamosaic virus (CMV), cassava bacterial blight (CBB) (Xanthomonas camnestris pv. manihotis), cassava anthracnose(CAD) (Colletotichum gleosnorioides ssp.), cassavamealybug (CM) (Phenacoccus manihoti) and cassava green spider mite (CGM) (Mononvchellus tanaioa)], and with lower HCN concentrations, and the strengthening of cassavaimprovement programmes in the NARS. For yams, several improved clones have been developed and released. The minisett technique for improved seed yam production is now being adopted throughout several countries in the region. For sweet potatoes, which are now the mandatory responsibility of CIP, high yielding clones with various degrees of resistanceto major pests have been developed and distributed to the NARS. 18 It is difficult to assessthe overall impact of products of the Root, Tuber and Plantain Improvement Programme (TRIPP) on cassavaproduction, or on the income of smallholders or on food security. The only evidence of impact is often anecdotal because of the lack of reliable agricultural statistics throughout much of Africa. Most of the available data relate to the distribution of improved IITA cassava stem cuttings. One study in 1985 in Oyo State of Nigeria, wherein IITA is located, concluded that only one-fifth of the cassava hectarage is under IITA varieties; areas of significant adoption largely coincided with those localities that received an initial supply of plantable stem cuttings. The slow multiplication rate of cassava (1:5) hinders rapid spread and impact. In Zaire, the largest cassavaproducing country in Africa, impact is reported as “minimal” according to a recently completed impact study commissioned by USAID. However, several other improved varieties are pending release and are expected to have greater impact than their predecessors..Hitherto, IITA has claimed that improved cassava varieties are expanding rapidly in hectarage and that they are replacing traditional varieties. By and large, this claim cannot be substantiatedand so the Panel suggeststhat IITA monitors in a more systematic manner the diffusion of improved varieties and measurestheir impact on cassava production according to objective criteria. The Collaborative Study on Cassava in Africa (COSCA) may help to quantify the impact of IITA varieties although it was not designed specifically for this purpose. The findings of this study should be scrutinized carefully; there is a dearth of impact studies on cassava in Africa. The current focus in TRIPP is on the breeding of pest resistant, high yielding varieties of cassava well adapted to various agroecologies,and with good consumer acceptanceand improved post-harvest characters. Collaboration with NARS is particularly strong in Nigeria, Cameroon, Zaire and Ghana. The policy of TRIPP is to make seeds available to the NARS such that specifically adapted varieties can be developed locally through further breeding and selection. On request, varieties in tissue culture are made available to the NARS but such varieties are seldom well adapted to precise agroecologiesor are suited to local consumer preferences. Most of the NARS are now able to grow out and distribute tissue culture material as a result of training efforts by IITA. The proposed balance in TRIPP between root crops and plantains in terms of research resources is targeted at 70:30 and so even if achieved strongly favours root and tuber crops. The proportional allocations to strategic and applied research activities are unbalanced; too many efforts are devoted to traditional breeding and testing at the expense of work on more strategic research. Although TRIPP cites 16 “linkages” with advanced laboratories abroad, the Panel notes that many of these represent “research services”to IITA.’ As such, they do not indicate scientifically synergistic collaboration. For example, IITA wilI be only indirectly involved in the “Trans World Cassava Virus Project” organized by Dr. R. Beachy and C. Fauquet located at St Louis, Missouri, USA. The principal focus of the TRIPP programme has remained more-or-less unchanged over the last twenty years, i.e. the breeding of improved varieties, with emphasis on host plant resistance. More recently, some emphasis has been given to improved post-harvest technologies and on quality parameters which influence consumer acceptance. A major new initiative is the Collaborative Study of Cassavain Africa (COSCA) which is funded primarily by the Rockefeller Foundation and, within IITA, is under the responsibility of RCMP. After a somewhat difficult biti, the project is now progressing well in six countries in its first of three planned phases. The project complements two less intensive studies undertaken earlier by CIAT in Latin America and Asia. The Panel regrets that IITA did not estimate the variance of key parametersbefore launching the baseline (phase 1) survey. This would have increased the probability that the sample size selected was adequate. It is now not clear whether statistically reliable extrapolations of the parameters recorded in the baseline survey to major cassava growing regions and countries will be possible. It depends whether the village 19 sites selected adequately sample the variability in cassavaproduction across the countries concerned. Nevertheless,the study may generateuseful information for improving the targeting of cassavaresearch. This is an ambitious undertaking which will place heavy organizational and logistic demands on IITA and on the NARS concerned. It provides a basis for developing longer-term national capacity to undertake surveys in the countries involved and it may serve as an example of multidisciplinary research in addressingthe potential of a particular crop and its major production constraints. Given the scale, scope and importance of the project, IITA needs to ensure the full involvement of TRIPP, both at Ibadan and in the NARS concerned, to ensure that the baseline data are relevant to any subsequenttesting of cassavatechnologies in different regions. Although the choice of countries involved in the COSCA project provides a wide range of agroecological conditions, population densities and market access infrastructure, some important cassava-producingcountries have been omitted because of budgetary constraints. It is suggestedthat additional national or bilateral funding be sought for the subsequentinclusion in the survey of, for example, Cameroon, Rwanda, Kenya, Madagascar, Central African Republic, and Congo. Subject to the statistical reliability of results from ongoing work, the same methods should be used in order to take full advantageof the potential of cassava for increasing food production and improving incomes of poor people throughout the region. Assessment The principal constraint to the effectiveness of TRIPP is a lack of clear programme focus and tight priorities; too many objectives are pursued concurrently and too superficially for too many agroecologies. Targeting of research will require more information on the agroecological zones and on the farming systems concerned; effective collaboration with the RCMP programme could do much to provide essential information. A further, related and major constraint to progress is the lack of appreciation within TRIPP of genotype x environment interactions and reliance on the qualitative description of variability in the major traits for which breeding is done. Since strong genotype x environment interactions are neither quantified nor understood, breeding at Ibadan for specific environments cannot be effective. Because of strong genotype x environment interactions, the materials released by IITA are not well targeted for specific agroecologies. During the last twenty years, cassavabreeding and mass selection have produced some superior clones but the Panel believes that innovative approachesare needed urgently to make further significant progress. Crop physiological studies (simulation modeling) which relate phenology to dry-matter accumulation and partitioning, the seasonaldevelopment leaf area, rate and duration of root growth, and the availability and utilization of water and nutrients have not been undertaken by TRIPP, despite the fact that CIAT pioneered work in this area more than a decade ago. In contrast, BCP have made extensive use of the CIAT findings. Studies of the effects of environment on physiological processesand in relation to pest damage are also urgently required. Clearly, physiological research in TRlPP needs sharper focus and stronger execution. Cassavamosaic virus (CMV) is widespread throughout Africa and seriously limits the yields of many traditional varieties. The improved clones selected at IITA have various degrees of resistance to CMV, some are highly resistant. Further investigations are now essential to better understand the nature and epidemiology of the resistance. Much the same is true regarding CBB, CAD, CM and CGM to which improved IITA clones show some degree of resistance. Now that South American material vulnerable to CMV will be used increasingly in the IITA breeding programme (with the collaboration of CIAT) the relations between yield and disease expression need to be quantified. 20 The Panel regrets that contacts between TRIPP and the BCP at Cotonou are very poor. Thus, the overall strategy for developing pest control needs to be more clearly defined with a view to integrated pest management,specifying the relative contributions of biological control, host plant resistance and other tactics. This approach will lead to a more cost effective allocation of resourcesto crop protection work with cassava. The collaboration which is now underway with CIAT will considerably enlarge the basic gene pool and, in time, will enable IITA to better serve the major ecosystemsof Africa. Reciprocal transfer of high yielding varieties across similar agroecological zones in Latin America and Africa, after introduction of necessarypest resistances,holds promise for more rapid progress in cassava improvement. The production of different levels elf ploidy (tetraploids, triploids and haploids) in cassava following interspecific hybridization at IITA should give new impetus and opportunities to cassava breeding worldwide. CIAT is developing researchthrust in this area and close collaboration between the two Institutes will be essential to hasten progress. IITA has now developed a long-awaited standardizedfield guide and recording system for international trials of cassava. Unfortunately, the IITA cassava germplasm has not yet been properly characterized and recorded in a databank (see GRU, Section 3.8.1.). Furthermore, the systematic characterization of the dominant varieties in the major cassava growing countries (e.g. in Zaire, Nigeria and Tanzania) has never ‘ beenundertaken. The Panel recommends that, in collaboration with CIAT, IBPGR and the GRU, a characterization of the most important African cassavavarieties is undertaken without delay. The COSCA study will be instrumental in identifying these varieties. Research in post-harvest technology is now given stronger priority at IITA, with two core scientists and two post-doctoral fellows devoted to the work. The Institute is planning to devote three essential scientists-yearsto post-harvest research for the remainder of the h4TP. The Panel welcomes the first IITA strategic study meeting on post-harvest technology research held’ in October 1989. The viewpoint of TAC is that current focus of research within CGIAR on key post-harvest constraints which limit Ihe full potential impact of commodity improvement programmes is effective and should be maintained. TAC also considers that roots and tubers merit particular attention. Lack of proven post-harvest technologies for storage, processing and conversion into commercial products are primary constraints to the expanded use of these crops for both food and feed. The Panel endorsesthe TAC position on post-harvest technology and recognizes the importance of such research for the utilization of roots and tubers in Africa. Despite donor pressure to expand research on these topics, the Panel suggeststhat IITA limits its activities to the extent that findings can feedback into the commodity improvement programme (“characteristics for genetic improvement to improve post-harvest parameters”) and as far as IITA has a comparative advantageto undertake the research. The Institute should make every effort to build strong collaborative programmes with the NARS in this area and give emphasis to more strategic issues. The Nigerian Government is planning a major expansion of the national effort on post-harvest technologies. Information from NARS and private companies on processing characteristics should continue to be exploiteld and fed back into the commodity improvement programme. There is continued collaboration between TRIPP and the NARS with particular emphasis on training and germplasm exchange. The Panel suggeststhat TRIPP anticipate a trend towards increased production of root and tuber crops in East and Southern Africa, for which there is evidence in densly populated areas in some countries. The Panel encouragesIITA to continue to 21 support the East and Southern African Root Crops ResearchNetwork (ESARRN) which coordinates the planning and execution of regional research of common interest to NARS in the region and between NARS and IITA. There is an urgent need for a sharper scientific focus in work on cassava. Hitherto, an excessive number of uncritical experiments on the crop have been undertaken with too few resources. The programme is overstretched. It needs, on the one hand, to engage in more strategic research whilst, on the other, increasing collaboration on more applied and adaptive research with the NARS. There is also a poor balance between the efforts devoted to cassava improvement and those devoted to other disciplines. Indeed, most activities are centered on plant improvement, leaving large deficiencies in several areas of plant protection. There has been and is virtually no reciprocal professional contact between TRIPP and the BCP. The number and disciplines of present TRIPP staff are inadequate to cover the range of activities needed for effective root and tuber crop improvement. The comparative advantagein yam improvement is with the Nigerian NARS. IITA should continue to maintain the large yam germplasm collection (see Section 3.8.1.) and should focus research on critical constraints to improvement: the problem of “shy flowering” is an obvious priority. Cognizant of the overall budgetary situation, the Panel suggeststhat IITA maintains its present effort on yams and exploits opportunities for collaboration with selected advanced institutions with expertise in the biology of flowering. 3.3.2. Plantain and banana Introduction Plantain improvement has been one component of the TRIPP programme since 1988. Crop improvement efforts on plantain are based at the Onne Sub-Station (Onne) in the perhumid forest zone in southeasternNigeria. The Onne programme concentrateson plantain (a starchy banana) which is a major staple food crop for people in the lowland humid tropics of West and Central Africa. Achievements, current focus and future plans Early work was concerned with the problem of “yield decline” and the development of cropping systems to increase the sustainability of the leached acid soils of the region. Staff at Onne have developed an efficient Tissue Culture Laboratory which has multiplied cooking bananas (ABB genomic constitution) which show good resistanceto the newly introduced disease, black Sigatoka (Mycosphaerella fiiiensis), a serious fungal pathogen which has become the major constraint to banana and plantain production in West and Central Africa. The SubStation has distributed large numbers of young plants, developed through micropropagation, to the NARS and has assisted in the development of a tissue culture laboratory within the Agricultural Development Project (ADP) in Imo State for the delivery of planting material to farmers, Black Sigatoka disease can be controlled by fungicides but these products are hazardous to apply, expensive and rarely available. To combat the problem in plantains, F, hybrids have been developed from crosses between both French and False Horn plantain (AAB) and a wild diploid plantain species (AA) from Asia. More than 370 hybrids have now been produced and several promising F, hybrid genotypes are now available. These are proving to be high yielding with good palatability and strong resistanceto black Sigatoka disease. The Panel congratulates the staff at Onne on theseachievements. 22 The selection of particularly fertile, seed-beatingfemale parents and the production and culture of embryos to produce viable F, hybrids is unique in plantain. The research is innovative and extremely promising; it can be expected to provide valuable Sigatoka-resistant varieties for distribution to growers in the region within the next five years. The success through advanced breeding techniques achieved at Onne opens new horizons for the genetic improvement of plantains with respect to banana weevil resistance,nematode resistance, dwarfism, and minimizing yield decline. These are exciting prospects for the future. All banana and plantain germplasm is sent to IITA in the form of in vitro plantlets via INIBAP. The collection and subsequentdissemination of germplasm is also undertaken in collaboration with INIBAP. Assessment The Onne Sub-Station is small but very well organized and efficiently managed; it provides an excellent environment for research on IITA mandate crops. The Plantain Programme, which is supported by an INIBAP coordinator, a plantain breeder and a tissue culture specialist, is exceptionally well managed and has been very successful. The Panel records its admiration of these achievements. Without doubt, the comparative advantageof IITA in plantain and banana improvement is its geographical location within Africa coupled with the ability to establish a breeding programme, to select for resistanceto black Sigatoka and other major pests, and to field test promising hybrids in representativelocations. Onne has a small but talented staff, good tissue culture and field facilities and, given logistic and backup support, the potential for a successful longer term breeding programme. The presence of the INIBAP Regional Coordinator at Onne is very desirable. Together with the taxonomist/breeder and the Tissue Culture Laboratory, the Sub-Station can serve as a marshalling point for plantain and banana genetic material from West and Central Africa (including Sigatokaresistant material from the IITA programme) to be sent to the Transit Centre at the University of Leuven in Belgium; from there it is redistributed to those countries serviced by the INIBAP network. The advantage to IITA will be the access to germplasm from other plantain and banana research groups world-wide, to broaden the genetic base of the existing collection. The freeexchange of germplasm has not always been possible; some banana improvement research centres have been unwilling to release breeding materials. These centres must be encouragedto adopt a more enlightened policy. The Sub-Station is recruiting a full-time administrative officer-in-charge to take responsibility for day-to-day administration. This will allow the breeder to devote his time to a research programme which has the potential to achieve a major impact on the breeding of plantain and possibly also banana. As foreseen in the MTP, the services of a pathologist are urgently needed to complement the breeding efforts on the problem of black Sigatoka disease at 0lll-E. 3.3.3. Conclusions and recommendations Cassava is considered to be an “orphan” crop; much the same perspective applies to the plantains. There are just six full-time core scientists engaged in cassava, yam and plantain 23 improvement. At the time of the Panel’ s visit a much-neededpathologist was being recruited but the programme continues to require the inputs of a core staff entomologist. Cassava and yam improvement are centered around breeding for improved host plant resistancesto pests but without a strong input from plant protection; the inevitable consequenceis a massive qualitative screening effort with little surety of return. In view of the constraints and economic importance of insects, mites and diseases,more emphasis should be given to an integrated approach to the control of these pests. This can be achieved by concerted efforts of plant protection scientists at Ibadan and the BCP. Major advances in the breeding of black Sigatoka-resistantplantains open up new opportunities for interspecific hybridization in the Musa species. IITA should strongly support the plantain and banana breeding programme at Onne and should collaborate more closely in the INIBAP Research Networks and germplasm exchange programmes. To avoid loss of momentum in research and militate dilution of the research effort, the Farm Manager should remain at Onne until his successoris in post. Recommendations The Panel recommends that, in collaboration with CIAT, IBPGR and the Genetic Resources Unit, a characterization of the most important African cassava varieties is undertaken without delay. The Panel recommends that IITA should provide stronger support for its plantain and banana breeding programme at Onne with the major focus on the development of black Sigatoka resistance in plantain. 3.4. Grain Legume Improvement Program (GLIPl 3.4.1. Introduction and historical context The single most important issue to emerge from the 1983 EPR and especially from the Strategic Planning Review, was that of de-centralization of IITA research activities. This change of emphasis offered to GLIP the opportunity to concentrate research efforts on cowpea, for which the Institute has a global mandate, in that agroecological zone and on those farming systems where most (i.e. 80-95%) cowpea crops are grown - i.e. in the sorghum/pearl millet cereal-farming systems of the dry savanna. The Panel strongly endorsesthis decision. The Panel attach much significance to the establishment of sub-stations and, for cowpea, to Kano Sub-Station (Kano) in particular. Two significant factors have combined to strongly influence research on grain legumes at IITA since 1970: the emphasis given to these crops in successive revisions of the IITA mandate and the interpretations of those responsibilities by successivegenerations of GLIP staff. The initial charge given to IITA in July 1968 was “the improvement of food crops of the tropics, both as to quantity and quality”. No commodities were specified. By September 1971, with four principal staff in post, and the ethos of scientific disciplines serving the needs of plant breeders firmly established, the GLIP was given “worldwide mandatory responsibilities covering all climatic regions for research on cowpeas, soybeans, pigeonpeas and Lima beans.” The medium-term priority was then “to breed and learn 24 how to grow and protect improved varieties” and, in the long-term, “to develop systems of farming which optimize the return of economic farm products per unit area of land”. In May 1975, the trustees agreed with IBPGR for IITA “to collect and preserve the genetic resources of African grain legume (and root and tuber) crops”. Two years later, this responsibility was extended to include “the exploration, collection, conservation, documentation and evaluation of genetic materials of food legumes”. Until 1976, the IITA mandate was limited to the “humid tropics”. In April of that year, the geographical mandate was extended to include “the humid and subhumid tropical zones”. Simultaneously, the Institute “accepted responsibility, covering all climatic zones, for research directed to the improvement of cowpeas”. By that time, all principal GLIP staff in post in 1971 (including the first Programme Leader), together with one-half of the staff appointed in 1972, had left the Institute. The 1976 revisions of the IITA mandate were approved by the Board in April 1977: GLIP was given additional responsibilities other than research on and improvement of cowpea, i.e.....”to conduct research in the humid and subhumid regions of Africa for the improvement of pigeonpea and soybean”and of “other crops which are, or may become important in these zones, including Lima bean, winged bean and other grain legumes.” The First Quinquennial Review mission reported to TAC in Nairobi in 1978 that whilst in general agreementwith the IITA mandate, the Institute should “maintain the current low level of research on less important grain legume crops (Lima bean and winged bean)“. By 1979, all but one of the second generation of GLIP staff, appointed in 1972-74, had left. In retrospect, and perhaps reflecting discontinuity in staffing, an opportunity was lost in 1977 to begin to decentralize crop improvement efforts on cowpea. By the time of the TAC Second EPR of IITA in September 1983, many of the GLIP staff appointed in the mid-1970s, and including the second Programme Leader, had departed. Since that Review, IITA in general and GLIP in particular has narrowed programme focus: the efforts of GLIP are now devoted primarily ‘ to cowpea crop improvement and to “maintenance breeding” of tropical soybean. The stability of GLIP stafIing has also improved. Given these changes in the mandate, the human and support resources available, the earlier turnover of staff, and the failure of some scientists to publish the findings of their research (see Section 3.1 l.), then much of the wisdom and accumulated experience remains in the memories of those who have gone before. The Panel notes too that IITA programmes Annual Reports have limited circulation and are not subject to external peer review. Annual Reports, then, are unsuitable archival repositories for the findings of scientific research. The Panel stressesthe importance of learning from experience in the more effective managementand conduct of future research - a future which will include the demanding and challenging tasks of coordinating efforts, synthesizing data and planning mutually supporting research efforts in different locations, 3.4.2. Achievements, current focus and future plans The 1983 EPR made six principal recommendationsand various other suggestions towards improving the focus and the establishment of priorities in GLIP. These were superseded by the TAC-approved Strategic and Medium-Term Planning process. Nevertheless rapid progress was made in establishing the framework for more clearly targeted research including, for example, the instigation of collaborative links to address incalcitrant pest problems, the emphasis 25 given to work on Striga, and the formulation of the themes and structure for the research programme at Kano. Depredations by insects at flowering and thereafter continue to seriously constrain cowpea productivity in the field, and after harvest in store. GLIP entomologists have made important contributions to the ongoing battle against insects and have developed several varieties resistant to one or more of the most troublesome pests. Unfortunately, despite early optimism of the World Bank and other observers, those varieties, which require purchased inputs, have not yet made a significant impact on the majority of farmers in the IITA mandate regions. A small number of “progressive” farmers may well have benefitted from the cultivation of these varieties as sole crops with some pesticide inputs, and short-duration cowpeas developed at IITA can certainly fill an agronomic niche. These products have been vigorously promoted but, it seems, with minimal impact on the many millions of farmers who depend on photothenno-sensitive, longer duration, indeterminate varieties as components of their intercrop systems of production. A simple lesson is relearned: progress will depend far more on “demand pull” as opposed to “supply push”. The numbers of cowpea lines of IITA origin released to farmers through the NARS cannot form the basis of assessments concerning “impact”. No formal impact studies have yet been undertaken. The identification of gennplasm resistant to bruchid storage pests followed by the development of a range of resistant varieties is a major achievement. The Panel is also pleased to record the identification by CLIP collaborators of a Striga-resistantline from Botswana and which has been incorporated into the breeding programme. The Panel notes, however, that the durability of pest resistance in cowpea can be disappointingly ephemeral when pest pressuresare intensified, as was cautioned in a publication on bruchid resistancein 1986. Accordingly the Panel strongly endorsesthe emphasis of the MTP on refining and improving screening and breeding methods better able to identify and develop more durable resistanceto pests. It strongly supports too the de-emphasisof IITA research efforts on sole crop cowpeas and on the development of genotypes for vegetable pod production. In contrast, the Panel considers that some emphasis is justified for work on vegetatively vigorous materials as potential ground cover crops in more humid zones. Previous research on soybean at IITA has benefited by inputs from two post-doctoral fellows, a visiting scientist, three PhD and five MSc students. One soybean breeder now has the major responsibility of sustaining the Institute’ s efforts on the crop for the duration of the MTP. His work is supported by the pathologist and entomologist in GLIP, by an economist and an agronomist in each of the three CBSWG, and by a full-time food technologist funded by the JapaneseInternational Cooperation Agency (JICA). Given this resource base priorities will need to be sharply in focus and much of the research on soybean will rely heavily on collaboration within the Institute, and with the NARS and other research groups outside IITA. Breeding objectives will also need to be precise. The TAC (1987) Review of CGIAR Priorities and Future Strategies, advocated “a doubling of funding (to support research on soybean) under a no-growth situation, and an even larger increase if more funds became available to the System.” That recommendation was based on “the interest and apparently good potential of the crop in sub-SaharanAfrica and Asia and the good research progress (that had then been) made at IITA”. The Panel also records its admiration of the research done at IITA on promiscuous nodulation, improving seed viability, reducing shattering losses, and the collection and maintenance of tropic-adapted soybean germplasm. 26 3.4.3. Assessment Much of previous progress in crop protection work with cowpea has involved sole crops of more-or-less determinate germplasm selected at Ibadan (“determinate” in the botanical and/or physiological sense). There is now an urgent need to describe and quantify the patterns of intercropping and their pest problems in the savanna. To accomplish this task the Panel recommends the inputs of an entomologist and a pathologist at Kano as soon as possible. Cognizant of the MTP, the Panel believes that some reallocation of resources between Ibadan and Kano may well be feasible. There is also a need for a diagnostic survey of farmers’judgements and criteria for intercropping cowpea with one or more cereals. In advocating the need for research on socioeconomic factors, the Panel recognizes that the IITA geographical mandate does not extend into the dry savanna (see Section 3.4.1). Clearly, effective linkages and collaboration with ICRISAT and national programme personnel at IAR-Samaru will be necessaryin order to secure this important information. Then again, the ongoing and/or proposed collaboration between IITA scientists and the ICRISAT agronomist based at Kano, with IITA-ICRISAT Niamey, with IARSamaru, with local ADPs, and participation. in the SAFGRAD - cowpea network will certainly represent important aspects of Kano activities. The relative success and impact of the SubStation may well depend on the effective collaboration and durability of linkages with IAR and NARS (and see Section 5.2.3.). The Panel does not believe that research on “drought tolerance” at Kano is yet justified; it strongly concurs that a strategy to escape stress periods primarily by adjusting phenology is the most promising way to increase and stabilize yields, providing that there is no undue sacrifice of vegetative dry-matter production during the season - a desirable caveat in relation to symbiotic dinitrogen fixation and the perspectives of farmers in their uses of the crop. In cowpea cropping systems driven by water rather more than by light, little is known about how the uptake of water by roots depends on the rates at which root systems extend into moist soil (at depth or laterally). Even less is known about the ability of nodulated roots to fix dinitrogen or to absorb nutrients. Models which deal with and describe the interaction of water and nutrients are needed urgently; models dealing with depredationsby pests (e.g. the current emphasis of BCP in Cotonou) need then to be integrated with crop growth models. Given the important constraints to both cowpea and maize production by infestations with Striga (and the increasing threat to cowpea cropping posed by Alectra yogelii) the Panel recommends that efforts be made with renewed vigour to establish a Striga Research Group and to fill the Striga biologist position which has remained vacant since 1986. Cognizant of efforts towards this objective by the previous Director of MRP, and the specific recommendation attached to the importance of work on Striga by the 1983 EPR, the Panel records its disappointment in progress in this area. Anticipating improvements, the Panel suggeststhat interim collaborative surveys of pest problems of cowpea cropping systems should be contracted from Kano to NARS with mutual benefits. The survey work, it is envisaged, will require guidance and support from crop protection colleagues at Ibadan. The recent appointment of a pathol.ogistin GLIP is long overdue and much welcomed by the Panel, who also record their admiration of progress in re-establishing laboratories and support facilities for the discipline. This appointment, the Panel believes, presents a real opportunity to break the traditional “service role” not only of pathologists but also of entomologists and virologists at IITA to plant breeders (the “crop improvement” approach, focussed essentially on improving the genetic composition of plant germplasm through conventional breeding methods). The Panel supports a shift away from this traditional GLIP approach to a more balanced programme planned to include a wider research effort on plant 27 protection. The thrust should be concerned with the detailed understanding of pests so that adequate,timely and integrated managementactions can be taken. In this context (i.e. Integrated Pest Management; IPM) the Panel suggeststhe re-thinking and fresh articulation of the new project on cowpea IPM in order to base that researchon a more sound conceptual framework. Interactions with BCP will be an essential component of this exercise. The large collection of Vinna spp. and wild relatives maintained by GRU may prove particularly useful in the search for resistance to pre- and post-flowering pests (elsewhere, wild relatives of cultivated mungbean, Viana radiata are also being investigated as a source of resistance to weather damage of seed). Thedi;ficulties likely to be encountered in recovering rare but desirable recombinants in large segregatingprogenies must be recognized at the outset. Nevertheless, the Panel encouragescontinued work on interspecific hybridization, notably with V, vexillata, and more active collaboration between GLIP, GRU, and the Tissue Culture Laboratory. The Panel acknowledges the merits of contracting out to advanced institutions abroad research problems for which IITA does not have a comparative advantage. At the same time, the Panel encouragesGLIP scientists to thoroughly investigate all possibilities for in-house collaboration before contracting to others the more difficult but scientifically more challenging and interesting work to institutions elsewhere. If contracting-out of research is inevitable, then active collaboration becomes especially important (see Section 6.4.). The Panel regrets the termination in 1986 of the IITA breeding programme on soybean located in Brazil. Current (1989) soybean production in Nigeria is estimated to be close to 70,000 tons; production in each of the other countries of the region is well below 10,000 tons a-l. However, there are reports to suggest that soybean imports into West and Central Africa are increasing. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of reliable data on the status of soybean production, trade and utilization in the region The Panel suggeststhat breeding efforts in soybean should be concentrated on particular zones of adaptation compatible with the perceived potential of the crop for the foreseeablefuture (e.g., in West and Central Africa, within 12”of the equator). Experience in the USA and in Brazil illustrates just how inaccurately future events can be predicted by extrapolations from previous trends. Not until the early 1940s did the soybean area cropped for seed in the USA exceed that devoted to forage production, and the crop was insignificant in Brazil until the early 1960s. Within twenty years of these respective dates these two countries had become the world’ s largest producers and exporters of the crop. Much can be done at IITA with only limited resourcesto genetically characterize soybean phenology in different photothermal environments, chosen to select potential zones of production. Protocols for screening germplasm in the field are available, and are not demanding of land or technical support. The Panel suggeststhat IITA screen the collection of tropical soybean germplasm for flowering responsesto photoperiod and temperature as a basis for zonal and seasonaladaptation. The Panel suggestsclose collaboration with the GRU in this endeavour and the forging of collaborative links with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Cunningham Laboratory in Brisbane, Australia where research along these lines has been productive, not only in that Country but also for SE Asia. Knowing the limited core-funded resources available for soybean improvement, the Panel strongly encouragesinteraction with the GRU with respect to research on seed viability and storage. Seed deterioration starts on the plant and proceeds through maturation, harvesting, threshing, drying, storage and sowing. Many of these changes in viability can now be described by quantitative models. To begin to understand the physiological basis of “improved storability” identified amongst IITA germplasm, and to exploit knowledge and expertise elsewhere, the Panel 28 considers it highly desirable for the IITA soybean breeder to seek collaborative links with established seed science laboratories abroad.(e.g. in UK). The Panel suggeststhat IITA moniitorboth the production and imports of soybean in West and Central Africa. GLIP achievementsto date have given rise to technology which could be mobilized if demanded. Cognizant of the withdrawal of the International Soybean Programme (INTSOY) Varietal Testing Programme from Africa, the Panel suggeststhat IITA must sustain an ability to respond promptly to any reliably documented upward trend in national production within the region. In discussions with the Nigerian Ministry of Science and Technology it became evident to the Panel that there is an increasingly strong national commitment to strengthen the capacity of NARS to undertake work on the processing of both soybean and cassava. Private sector initiatives are also increasing. The Panel commends ongoing efforts by GLIP to understand the major constraints to production and utilization of the crop. It encouragescollaboration with NARS wherever possible, but cautions against any dilution of GLIP research activities on breeding for resistance to pod shattering and for better seed quality in terms of storability, viability and reduced lipoxygenase concentration and activity. 3.4.4. Conclusions and recommendations The Panel applauds recent developments at Kano and commends the staff based there on progress made during 1989 - both at the Sub-Station and on the farm at Minjibir. The Panel suggests as a prelude to field experimentation a thorough and systematic characterization of variability in soil at the farm site, and the formulation of relevant rotational practices for experimental blocks. It notes the awarenessof and careful thought being given to these matters. Given the need to experiment on mixtures of at least two and probably three crops, the selection of a cropping protocol for agronomic - crop physiological research will be a crucial decision. The Panel suggests’ that Kano scientists consult with statisticians at IITA and elsewhere in reaching their decision (and see Section 3.8.4.); genotype x genotype x environment interactions will need to be quantified and ,ultimately exploited. Developments at Kano, the Panel believes, have highlighted two important gaps in the scientific resource base at IITA, both of which impinge heavily on GLIP activities in particular. The Panel suggeststhat every effort should be made to strengthen the Institute’ s capabilities in the general field of simulation “crop modelling” and, more specifically, in soil microbiology (in so far as it emphasizesrhizobiology). Only modest advancesin understanding of rhizobiology and host-symbiont relations in the problem soils of the IITA target regions have accrued since 1983. Crop protectionists are a limited resource of IITA. Therefore, the Panel stressesthe need for greater internal collaboration within Ibadan-basedProgrammes, and between those Programmes and the BCP, than has been evident in the past in order to integrate the otherwise overlapping of scarce scientific resources. The Panel also emphasizesthe importance of dynamic professional interactions, leading to joint publications, and that in team work credit for success must always be seen to be appropriately apportioned. The Panel interprets the large number of experiments undertaken in GLIP subprogrammes involving cowpea and soybean improvement to reflect a lack of focus. This scale of experimentation is incompatible with the Programme’ s scientific resource base. The Panel also notes that few GLIP experiments involve designs agreed during the planning stage with colleagues in Biometrics (see Section 3.8.4.). 29 For some years, Directorship of GLIP has involved an increasingly demanding administrative role. As the Panel has stressedelsewhere (see Section 3.11.) the demands made on IITA Programme Directors are in urgent need of reappraisal by management. Recommendations The Panel recommends the inputs of an entomologist and a pathologist to the Grain Legume Improvement Programme at Kano as soon as possible. Given the widespread and increasing importance of Striga and other parasitic weeds to IITA mandate crops, the Panel recommends the appointment of a Striga biologist as soon as possible. 35. Maize Research Programme 35.1. Introduction Under the 1977 CGIAR mandate IITA was given responsibility for maize improvement in the humid and sub-humid regions of Africa cooperating in whatever ways may be appropriate with other relevant international institutes. The principal objectives of the IITA Maize Research Programme (MRP) are to make available to farmers, through the NARS, varieties with genetic resistance to major pests that have the potential for high yields and which are well adapted to particular agroecological zones and agronomic circumstances,including intercropping. The Programme is primarily oriented towards the needs of the smallholder or family farmer. Attention is also given to the development of open pollinated and hybrid varieties which respond well to inputs, e.g. fertilizers. 3.5.2. Achievements, current focus and future plans The improved IITA maize germplasm (populations, inbred lines and hybrids) have been requested for breeding purposes and testing by many countries in West, Central, East, Southern and North Africa, Asia, and Europe. The release and impact of a wide range of materials resistant to maize streak virus (MSV) and to other major diseases,including rust (Puccinia polvsora and P. sorghi), downy mildew (Peronosclerosporaspp.), and leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum and Bipolaris maydis; formerly Helminthosporium turcicum and H. mavdis), have been major achievementson which the Panel congratulates the Programme. The recent identification of moderate levels of tolerance to Striga (St&a hermonthica) and work on the development of better methods to screen for tolerance to the parasite augur well for a major impact on Striga control. Populations and inbred lines with moderate Striga tolerance are being developed and cooperation with advanced institutes is under way. The identification of heterotic groups and subsequentdevelopment of inbreds with good combining ability, together with inherent resistanceto several diseases,is an outstanding achievement. Collaborative work with the Nigerian government and with the private seed industry has stimulated the development and preliminary multiplication of open-pollinated and hybrid seed. With nitrogen fertilizer and good weed control, the hybrids significantly outyielded open pollinated varieties in the most (Guinea) savanna but their advantageis not consistent in the forest/transition agroecological zones. Attempts to determine whether hybrids exhibit yield 30 advantage compared to open pollinated varieties under stress, including poor management and drought, have had inconsistent results. The hybrid impact is reflected in the emergenceof several private seed companies in Nigeria. In 1985, hybrid maize was grown commercially on an estimated 6,000 ha in the country; by 1989 the area had increased several fold. If current momentum is maintained then more than 1 x 106 ha in Nigeria could be planted to hybrid maize by the end of the decade. It seems likely that the use of hybrids will spread in due course to other countries in West and Central Africa. With greater emphasis on understanding and breeding for drought tolerance, the impact of hybrids could also expand into the drier (Sudan) savanna. The MRP shows a realistic balance between population improvement and the development of inbred lines for hybrid or synthetic production with emphasis on stability, which is considered to depend largely on improved and durable pest resistance. While population improvement is given priority the search for inbred lines with superior combining ability is also an important objective. This work also involves conversion of outstanding temperate germplasm into tropical backgrounds with necessary resistancesto biotic factors. More than 100 MSVresistant varieties, which cover most ecological zones and farmer preferences in Africa, have been developed and some have been released. Researchon MSV includes routine screening of introduced materials and studies on vector biology and virus epidemiology. Programme emphasis is shifting to work on Striga. Moderately Striga-tolerant lines have been identified and methods of screening are being improved; the tolerance is being incorporated into desirable populations and inbreds. Studies are also being conducted on downy mildew (Peronosclerospora spp.) and on ear and stalk rots with emphasis on their epidemiology and on host-plant resistance. Stem borers (including Sesamia calamistis, Eldana saccharina and Busseola fusca) and the storage weevils (Sitophilus spp.) are also receiving attention. Abiotic stresses,drought tolerance and the efficiency of nitrogen use are given less priority, with only limited physiological input. The MRP is organized to satisfactorily addressthe priorities of the MTP. It is a wellbalanced programme in terms of logical approachesto priority research thrusts. Emphasis is given to detailed studies into the biology and epidemiology of pests (to better understand the ecology of target organisms), involving cooperation with several advanced institutions. Screening methods are being improved and resistant populations and inbreds are being developed for ultimate release to NARS and private companies. Much of the credit for these innovations reflects the scientific leadership of the previous Director of the MRP. 3.5.3. Assessment Despite the sensible balance within MRP between strategic and applied activities, the Programme suffers from imbalance in terms of disciplinary representation. Employment of a qualified pathologist is crucial in order to stimulate critical interactions not only within the programme but also with other IITA programmes, with the NARS, and with scientists in advanced laboratories. Based on a thorough understanding of the epidemiology of a spectrum of diseases,novel screening methods and other tactics for disease control should be developed - and without over-emphasis of the criteria require? by breeders. Cognizant of the number of potential troublesome diseases,the programme will need to concentrate activities and to restrict the number of problems tackled at any one time. The MRP entomologist should strengthen cooperation and interaction with BCP for work on stem borers, storage weevils and larger grain borer. In Striga research, cooperation and interaction with GLIP scientists at Kano should also be encouraged. There is an urgent need for employment of a Striga biologist or pathologist as a focal point for IITA research efforts on this increasingly important parasite. 31 The reluctance of the MRP to transfer MSV testing technology to NARS is regrettable. The national programmes in Cameroon and Ghana, for example, wish to establish their own MSV screening facilities, and should be encouragedand helped to do so. The Panel fail to understand the rationale of MRP reluctance and recommend the rethinking of attitudes on this issue. It is anticipated that maize production will increase most rapidly in the Guinea savanna. Emphasis should therefore be given to work on drought tolerance, including phenological adaptation to drought stress. This research will require close collaboration between plant physiologist and breeder in order to develop screening methods and populations tolerant of drought. The same approach will apply to breeding for the efficiency of nutrient utilization. With the breeding of Striga tolerance now underway and the prospects for biological control and biotechnology becoming more promising, it is likely that focus in the future will shift to these abiotic issues. Strategic research in these areas now deserves special consideration. Since perhaps as much as 95% of maize in West and Central Africa is grown in intercropping systems, then genotype x genotype x environment interactions need to be quantified and understood. Only then can breeding materials be identified which best fit these systems. This topic deserves emphasis in the breeding programme. MRP should also intensify collaboration with scientists off-station. It has become evident to the Panel that such linkages and joint research efforts (e.g. with the NCRE in Cameroon and with RAV in Zaire) have been neglected. The Panel struggled to find reliable information on the extent of adoption of IITA improved maize varieties by farmers in Central and West Africa. For example, there is considerable disparity in the figures cited for hybrid maize varieties in Nigeria. MPR scientists are encouraged to cooperate with IITA economists in an effort to monitor adoption of improved maize varieties for food (and other purposes) in the course of their survey work. Staff of the MRP are well qualified and strongly motivated but the Panel believes that the momentum of innovative research instigated during recent years can only be sustained with strong leadership. 3.5.4. Conclusions and recommendations Large numbers of improved breeding materials have been released by MRP. The Panel advises that MRP now devotes more resourcesto quantitative environmental and genetic analyses of the large data bases to hand; such analyses may well provide a scientific framework for breeding efforts in the future. In short, the Panel believes that a more quantitative understanding of genotype x environment effects in maize may help to rationalize the breeding strategy. Recommendation The Panel recommends in view of the important economic constraints caused by pathogens the input of a pathologist at the international scientists level to the Maize Research Programme. 32 3.6. Rice Research Programme 3.6.1. Introduction Research on rice began at IITA in 1976 as a small but active component of the Cereal Improvement Programme. From the outset, the major focus of the research was on varietal improvement. The development of greater yield potential and blast (Pvricularia orvzae) resistance in both upland and irrigated varieties for Africa have been significant achievements. This material is now making important contributions to rice breeding in many parts of the world, including Asia, where it has performed well under upland conditions. During the life of the programme at least 24 varieties have been distributed throughout the rice-growing regions of sub-SaharanWest and Central Africa. Other achievementsinclude the selection for resistanceto rice mottle virus @MV), the study and discovery of very effective endemic parasites of the rice gall midge (Orseolia orvsivora), improved plant types tolerant to iron toxicity and the training of more than 3,000 African rice production specialists. 3.6.2. The current programme As of 1 January 1989, the staff of the Rice Research Programme (RRP) at IITA comprised one senior scientist (breeder) and one post-doctoral fellow (entomologist) plus support staff. In addition, IITA is responsible for the Rice Research Unit in Cameroon. This Unit is a component of the National Cereals Research and Extension Project (NCRE), a joint venture with the Institute of Agronomic Research (IRA) in that country. It includes two resident scientists collaborating on rice breeding and agronom:y,with major emphasis on irrigated rice. One rice scientist supported by IRRI with logistical support from IITA is also stationed at IITA Ibadan coordinate the International Network for Genetic Enhancement of Rice (INGER). This Network services all rice-growing regions of Africa and provides rice researcherswith access not only to germplasm from all the major rice improvement programmes in Africa but also including the global genetic resources available at IRRI. 3.6.3. Transfer of the IITA Rice ResearchProgramme to WARDA The terms of the IITA/IRRI/WARD.A agreementprovides for the transfer of all rice breeding activities to WARDA by the end of 1990. At that time WARDA will assume full responsibility within the CGIAR System for rice improvement in West Africa, with a focus on three major ecological zones. Following the transfer of IITA breeding material to WARDA, it is proposed that: * The two Centres continue to collaborate on resource and crop management research in the hydromorphic inland valley ecosystemswhich represent WARDA’ s priority rice growing ecology. The rice germplasm collection now in store at IITA will be maintained there for the present and a duplicate set will be sent to IRRI for inclusion in their global rice germplasm collection. When seed storage facilities at WARDA are completed and have been commissioned, a further duplicate collection will be made available to the Association. At that time the question of retaining any rice collection at IITA should be reviewed. * 33 * The INGER programme currently being conducted by IRRI in collaboration with IITA should continue to operate out of West Africa. The two rice scientists working in the NCRE project in Cameroon shall continue to be the responsibility of IITA for the duration of phase 2 of the project. 3.6.4. Future Plans for rice research at IlTA * The principal objective of the RRP, following the decision to consolidate rice improvement at WARDA, has been to achieve the effective and secure transfer of the IITA rice breeding experience and material to that Association. The target date for this transfer was set for the end of 1990, but this may now be difficult to achieve because of slower than anticipated developments at WARDA. The Panel recommends in transferring the IITA Rice Research Programme to WARDA that (i) WARDA appoint and fully support a rice breeder to be based at IITA as of 1 January 1991 in order to complete the evaluation, documentation and successful transfer of rice germplasm to the Association, and that (ii) the INGER liaison scientist be transferred to WARDA as soon as office, laboratory and field facilities are available, in order to service African requirements as an IRRI/WARDA activity from the Association’ s headquartersin Cote d’ Ivoire. The full cost of the .INGER programme shall be the responsibility of WARDA and IRRI as of 1 January 1991. The Panel is pleased to note that the IITA paddy rice fields will continue to be available to WARDA for research on irrigated rice. 3.6.5. Issues and recommendations The decision by the CGIAR to transfer the responsibility for rice improvement in West Africa to WARDA highlights important but unresolved issues. 1. In the short-term, IITA will remain responsible for the two resident scientists working in the NCRE project in Cameroon. This responsibility will terminate at the end of 1990. It will then be difficult for the Institute to respond to requests for assistancefrom the region. The responsibility for rice research in Africa is now partitioned between three CGIAR Centres. Although present collaboration is productive, and the INGER network operates to coordinate the supply of rice germplasm, such divided responsibility, the Panel believes, is not in the best interests of rice improvement in Africa. Recommendation The Panel recommends in transferring the IITA Rice Research Programme to WARDA that (i) WARDA appoint and fully support a rice breeder to be based at IITA as of 1 January 1991 in order to complete the evaluation, documentation and successful transfer of rice germplasm to the Association, and that (ii) the INGER liaison scientist be transferred to WARDA as soon as office, laboratory and field facilities are available, in order to service African requirements as an IRRDWARDA activity from the Association’ s headquarters in Cote d’ Ivoire. The full cost of the INGER programme shall be the responsibility of WARDA and IRRI as of 1 January 1991. 2. 34 3.7. Biological Control Programme (BCP) 3.7.1. Introduction Biological constraints (fungi, bacteria, viruses, insects, mites, nematodes,parasitic and non-parasitic weeds; taken together, according to the FAO definition, as pests) are major threats to the yield and quality of all IITA mandate crops. From inception, IITA has given strong emphasis in its Commodity Improvement Programmes to host plant resistance and, since 1979, also to the classical biological control of two exotic pests of cassava which have been recently introduced into Africa, the cassavamealybug (CM, Phenacoccusmanihoti) and the cassava green spider mite (CGM, Mononvchellus tanaioa). Other pest control tactics have received little attention within IITA research programmes. Host plant resistance and biological control have much in common. Both tactics use the biological potential of nature to reduce the status of target pests to below economic thresholds. They also share ease of introduction of the technology, becausethey do not require knowledge or inputs by farmers. Host plant resistance ‘ goes with the seed’and biological control (at least in classical perspective) is introduced by regional or nationwide releasesof parasites or predators without the interference of farmers. This fact demonstratesthe potential of these two tactics not only for Africa but also for all developing and developed countries. Within the framework of the IITA Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy, the Institute should now build on these two successful tactics. 3.7.2. Achievements, current focus and future plans During the decade of its existence the Biological Control Programme (BCP) has evolved from a relatively small project to achieve full Programme status within IITA. There has been expansion of staff and facilities, culminating in 1988 in the relocation of BCP to the Cotonou Sub-Station. This expansion reflects the results achieved by BCP, both scientifically and practically, especially through the Africa-wide releasesof the CM-parasite Epidinocarsis lopezi. The impact of these releasesin terms of establishment and effectiveness have been carefully monitored and recorded and is also reflected by the successful establishment of the parasite in Cameroon, where there have been no targeted releases. This information was given to the Panel by Cameroonian IRA-representatives. As a result of collaboration between BCP and the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control (CIBC), release and establishment of a phytoseiid mite species predating the CGM has heen successful in Kenya. The success of BCP has been based on in-depth studies of the target pests, their host plants, their parasites and predators, using natural and laboratory environments and including the interactions between all these factors at four trophic levels using advanced scientific facilities and simulation models. These diverse research activities have been carefully and promptly recorded in a large number of publications in refereed journals, book-chapters, proceedings, newsletters and pamphlets. The number of papers published by the staff of BCP in refereed journals is compatible with the best international scientific standards. Moreover, many national technicians and scientists have been trained by the BCP, at levels ranging from technical knowledge and skills to M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Africa and overseas. Postgraduatestudents, visiting scientists and postdoctoral fellows have helped to strengthen the scientific reputation and capacity of BCP and the scientific and technical skills within NARS. 35 As CM and CGM are exotic pests accidentally introduced to Africa from Latin America, potential parasites and predators have been selected in that continent. The BCP has established good collaboration with CIAT and EMBRAPA and with several universities and advanced institutions in so-called third countries in order to meet necessary quarantine requirements. These achievementshave been extended to collaborative research beyond the quarantine requirements, and so further strengthening research capacity and quality. Good working relations have also been established with each of the relevant national quarantine services in order to meet their respective requirements before releasing the parasites. Now that releasesof E. lonezi in 21 African countries have culminated in a dramatic reduction of the pest status of CM, human and other resources of the BCP have been redirected. Based on existing knowledge of CGM-predators and the first control successesin Kenya, that project has been strengthened. Additional resources,mainly provided by external funding, are being used in several new projects. Active cooperation is now being sought with some scientists in other IITA programmes (MRP, GLIP, RCMP). As in the past, collaboration with universities and advanced institutions has or will be established. Most of the new projects are compatible with the mandate of IITA and with the trend to strengthen IPM strategies in all IITA mandate crops and farming systems. Examples include: (1) a better understanding of the biodynamics of cowpea pests in their key agroecological zone, the dry savanna; (2) the biological control of the larger grain borer (Prosthephanustruncatus) in maize; (3) the biological control of the banana weevil (Cosmopolites sordidus); and (4) the biological control of parasitic weeds. A proposed project on the development of biological pesticides for locust and grasshoppercontrol is clearly beyond the IITA mandate. However, the project will be entirely externally funded and gives IITA a unique opportunity to search the potential of and gain experience with pathogens (e.g. viruses, bacteria, fungi and nematodes) for the control of insects, mites, diseasesand weeds in all IITA mandate crops. These pathogenic organisms have undoubted potential for pest control. Worldwide interest in these organisms, whose effectiveness can be improved through genetic engineering, is increasing rapidly. The relocation of BCP to new facilities in Cotonou has dramatically improved the potential of the Programme. By any standardsthe buildings and facilities are well designed and constructed. The buildings are energy- and space-efficient and should prove inexpensive to maintain. The layout of offices and laboratories has been planned to foster interaction between the scientific staff and with their technical support staff. Together with the corporate spirit of the entire team this arrangementfavours scientific and social interchange, which is undoubtedly reflected in the achievementsof BCP. Criticism of and doubts about the achievementsof BCP are openly approachedby inviting the critics to Cotonou or a specific region for in-depth discussions and systematic analysis of perceived problems. On request of the Sponsoring Group of donors an Expert Advisory Committee (EAC) comprising a small number of scientist with international reputations in complementary aspects of biological control has been established. The annual meetings of EAC and BCP have contributed significantly to the quality of research. The EAC gives guidance on scientific focus, technical aspects (e.g. mass rearing and release), quarantine and financial issues involving the donors. These activities are reflected in the good balance of the Programme in terms of upstream (basic and strategic research) and downstream activities (adaptive research, training and releases). The EAC also assists the BCP in the ongoing process of upgrading and updating the Programme. This prevents inflexibility and scientific insularity. These diverse activities require dynamic leadership to maintain coherence of the Programme. It is evident that the achievementsof BCP arc to a large extent a reflection of outstanding leadership combined with scientific excellence. 36 3.7.3. Assessment Based on a critical analysis of the present status of the Programmes, the needs of the IITA mandate region, and developments of BCP and within IITA, the Panel suggest several thrusts for the future. 1. The BCP should reexamine its reluctance to support NARS in establishing their own rearing facilities and release operations. This is a logical consequenceof working effectively with the NARS through training and other forms of technology transfer. Wherever possible, NARS should be stimulated and supported in this direction, even with far less sophisticated facilities and release technologies than those available to BCP. The BCP should monitor progress and provide stimulus and guidance wherever possible. In this way, BCP will be better able to devote resources to focus on new problems that await in-depth research. Some donors have questioned the comparative advantage of the BCP in the rearing and release of parasites and predators. The development of biological control is very critical and needs careful guidance throughout the early stages of its implementation. This experience is worldwide and many failures have been due to lack of scientific guidance in this critical stage. The Panel considers that the BCP, by intimate collaboration with the NARS in many different ways, has in fact achieved a sensible balance between onand off-station activities. Wherever possible the NARS should take increasing responsibilities as indicated above. 2. A somewhat related topic is the question raised in the Mid-Term Review of May 1987: “to seek clarification of the extent to which IITA and other CGIAR centers might become involved in biological control in areas of work that are not directly related to their mandates. The extent to which the centres might become involved in the operational aspects of the work also should be clarified”. As far as the IITA mandate is related to crops, the locust and grasshopperbiological control project clearly indicates the potential benefit of such a venture for IITA. This project will give IITA a unique opportunity to gain understanding of the potential of entomopathogensfor the control of insects, diseasesand weeds. It is probable at the outset that such projects will be largely externally funded, but in view of the benefits for IITA, some core funding may eventually be justified. Such decisions require of course careful considerations by BCP and IITA management. The EAC can be expected to continue to provide IITA and potential donors with critical advice. The benefit in terms of credit to IITA has recently been demonstratedby the rapid and successful control of the mango mealybug (Rastrococcusinvadens) with the rastrococcus Indian parasite Gvranusoidea tebvni in some areas of release. As far as the question posed earlier is related to the regional mandate of IITA the answer seems straightforward by the very nature of biological control: parasites and predators do not recognize national ;horders. Therefore, the potential impact is, by definition, continent-wide. To what extent IITA should be involved in the actual release of parasites and predators depends on several factors. It is to be expected that the initiative lies with the country concerned, as has always been the case. This implies that the country concerned has the capacity to assist in the monitoring, release and evaluation of releases. In such cases, IITA should not preclude contracts for the production and eventual release of the parasites or predators. Again, if well considered by management beforehand, IITA can benefit from such contracts in different ways and should therefore positively consider such bilateral assistancebeyond its mandate region. 37 3. The projectsundertaken by the BCP are basedon a thoroughunderstanding of the biodynamics of the target pest in the field and laboratory environment, including the host plant, the parasites and predators and their interactions. This approach is the crucial scientific basis for any form of pest control, be it biological control, host plant resistance, cultural practices, pheromones,biopesticides, biotechnological pesticides and, where necessary, synthetic pesticides. Therefore, IITA should expect to benefit from intimate collaboration between all of its scientists involved in plant protection. This collaboration can be achieved through the establishment of a Thematic Working Group by extending the already existing and successful group of entomologists to include all plant protection scientists, and by expanding BCP into a Biological and Integrated Control Programme (BICP). In this way IITA would better use its limited scientific resources in plant protection, although there remains a strong need to expand staff s allocated for these crucial disciplines. The formation of a BICP is justified by IITA’ adoption of IPM as the principle means of effective pest control. The implementation of this principle and strategy demands a concerted effort in this critical area of research, for which the Thematic Working Group can be the catalyst. It would stimulate the development and implementation of tactics other than host plant resistance and classical biological control and the synthesis of other unquestionably valuable tactics in an IPM strategy for each of the IITA mandate crops and farming systems. The reluctance of BCP to understand and appreciate the potential of host plant resistance probably reflects the manner in which host plant resistance has hitherto often been approached in the IITA crop improvement programmes. On the other hand, entomologists and pathologists in these programmes have often expressedtheir appreciation of the approachesand respect for the achievementsof the BCP. 4. Regrettably, the relations between BCP and ICIPE arc less than satisfactory despite some common interest in research objectives. The mutual planning of research agendaswould benefit both IITA and ICIPE, especially if the BCP is integrated, as proposed, with all plant protection research of IITA. Both Institutes suffer from limited resources and both are dependent on the ‘ same donor community. The Panel is cognizant of differences in professional approach, programme focus and research priorities between IITA and ICIPE. Given present circumstances,the Panel is not optimistic that there can be fruitful collaboration between the two Institutes. 3.7.4. Conclusions and recommendations The BCP has evolved into a dynamic, productive, coherent and strong research programme. , In order to strengthen its potential further and to improve links with the Ibadan station, the Panel recommends that the BCP evolves into a Biological and Integrated Control Programme (BICP) and that a Thematic Working Group on Plant Protection is established, including all plant protectionists, no matter where they are located. The problems of dislocation can be resolved by appropriate managerial inputs. The potential of host plant resistance for IPM will bc recognized by the effort assigned to this tactic, in close collaboration with breeders. In order to achieve a coherent IITA programme on Biological and Integrated Control as soon as possible it is suggestedthat a workshop be organized in 1990, involving all relevant IITA staff and the EAC to reach mutual understanding and appreciation and to develop a workplan for the coming five years. The EAC will need to be supportive if this change is to be approved by the BCP donors. 38 Recommendation The Panel recommends that the Biological Control Programme evolves into a Biological and Integrated Control Programme (BICP) and that a Thematic Working Group on Plant Protection is established, including all plant protectionists, no matter where they are located. 3.8. Research Surmort Units 3.8.1. Genetic Resources Unit (GRU) Introduction Since the early 1970s the need for conservation of germplasm in order to ensure that the genetic diversity of crop species is safely preserved and made available for use in plant breeding for the long-term benefit of mankind has been well understood. Worldwide action has been undertaken and orchestratedthrough the concerted efforts of FAO and the CGIAR - particularly by the IBPGR. According to CGIAR policy on plant genetic resources, each CGIAR Centm has a responsibility to participate in the conservation of germplasm of its mandate crops. Responsibility for non-mandate crops is assignedby IBPGR to appropriate Centers within the CGIAR or elsewhere to prevent critical losses. Achievements and current focus The Germplasm Resources Unit (GRU) at IITA is concerned with germplasm of the Institute’ s mandate crops, with primary focus on cowpea, yam and rice (Orvza sativa and 0, glaberrima) and their wild relatives in sub-SaharanAfrica. According to rules and precise procedures set by IBPGR, these crops are collected, multiplied, characterized, evaluated, documented, distributed and preserved. Duplicates of the IITA collection of cowpea are shared with repositories in both the USA and Italy; that of rice is shared with IRRI. For yam, duplicate responsibility has yet to be agreeld. In addition IITA also maintains collections of other crop species: * Bambara groundnut (V&ma subterranea): a unique, well preserved and documented and therefore valuable collection of 2000 accessions. A duplicate collection will soon be sent to the Federal Republic of Germany. Although the collection has been maintained for several years supported by funds from GTZ, funding difficulties are now critical. Sweet potato (Inomoea batatas): the collection of 1,000 accessions,well preserved in tissue culture, is in the process of being transferred to CIP, which carries the IBPGR mandate. IITA will maintain a duplicate collection, as does AVRDC. The collection is not yet well documented and no longer is it the responsibility of GRU. Rice: all rice germplasm collections (of both African and Asian origin) are well maintained, documented and preserved by GRU. * * 39 * Maize: a collection of 500 samples of both local varieties and IITA breeding lines are maintained by GRU. Cassava: a collection of about 2,000 breeding lines and breeders’introductions, including 64 accessionsof 22 wild species are maintained by TRIPP. It has been agreed within CGIAR and with IBPGR that IITA will collect, preserve and document cassava germplasm from Africa. It is anticipated that responsibility for this germplasm within IITA will soon be transferred from TRIPP to GRU. Plantain: a collection of 350 accessionsmaintained in the field and in tissue culture at Onne Sub-Station. IITA holds a duplicate collection at Ibadan. There is active exchange of material with INIBAP. Soybean: a collection of more than 1,400 accessionsis documented and preserved by GRU. * * * Whenever germplasm collecting trips are undertaken, they are organized in close collaboration with and participation of NARS scientists. The germplasm collected is always shared freely with the country concerned. Largely as a result of funding by the government of Italy, the GRU facilities are of an internationally accepted standard. Personal interactions are good and the facilities are well maintained and regularly monitored so that any malfunctioning of the seed stores can be rectified promptly. In addition to the many activities directly related to the maintenance of those collections for which GRU is formally responsible, the Unit collaborates with other IITA programmes in cytogenetic and interspecific hybridization studies, mainly within the genus Vigna and Oryza, to clarify taxonomic relations and to widen the genepool of cowpea. Only recently have breeders in GLIP become involved in this work. In close cooperation with the Crop Improvement Programmes and VU the GRU serves a liaison role with the National Quarantine Service (NQS). IITA is in the process of implementing Institute-wide standardsin order to meet the requirements of the NQS. Plans to establish a Seed Health Laboratory, with a posted NQS- officer, will promote centralization of responsibilities. For the safe transfer of gennplasm world-wide IITA collaborates with several laboratories in so-called third countries. Assessments, conclusions and recommendations The Panel recognizes GRU to be a well-organized Unit maintaining the standards expected by IBPGR. The Panel supports the general priorities set by the Unit and encourages cooperation with breeders in undertaking interspecific crosses to better exploit the rich potential of wild species. The Panel recommends that IITA secures as soon as possible a location for conservation of its valuable yam collection, which is not yet duplicated and so at risk of being lost. The Panel recommends that IITA seeks funds to ensure the conservation of its unique bambara groundnut collection, because of its importance for Africa and mankind. IITA should 40 consider collaboration with SACCAR, which is establishing a regional Germplasm Bank to be located in Zambia. The Panel suggeststhat in order to safeguard the maintenance and documentation of all IITA collections, responsibility for conservation is centralized with GRU, no matter which research programme is primarily involved in the work. To meet this responsibility GRU should be given ultimate responsibility for all IITA collections. The Panel suggest that IITA clarify with CIAT the status of its cassava collection and that the rice collection is transferred to WARDA in due course (see also Sections 3.6. and 6.2.). Recommendations The Panel recommends that IITA secures as soon as possible a location for conservation of its valuable yam collection. The Panel recommends that IITA seeks funds to ensure the conservation of its unique bambara groundnut collection. 3.8.2. Virology Unit Introduction Since inception the Virology Unit (VU) has adopted two themes for research. The first is to gain a clear understanding of the etiology, geographical distribution, ecology and genetic variation of those viruses which infect IITA mandate crops. The second theme, integrated with the first, is the production of purified viruses and the development of advanced diagnostic techniques. Research goals have also been well-defined from the outset: the development of virusfree plant materials and, in close cooperation with the Commodity Improvement Programmes, breeding for resistant varieties. Achievements, current focus and future plans The Unit has achieved a thorough understandingof the etiology, serology and geographical distribution of viruses which c.hallengetarget crops; it remains alert for the occurrence of new virus problems. However, epidemiological studies, which should form the basis for the development of durable resistance,have not been given the attention they deserve. Through collaboration with breeders and entomologists several resistant materials have been developed and released, including maize streak virus-resistant maize and cassava mosaic virusresistant cassava. For most of the vegetatively propagated crops of concern to IITA (cassava, sweet potato, yam and cocoyam) indexing techniques have been developed for the viruses which occur in these crops within Nigeria. In conjunction with the application of me&tern tip and in-vitro culture techniques, virus-free materials have been produced which meet the quarantine requirements of recipient countries. Polyclonal antibodies have been developed for most viruses and the potential of some monoclonal antibodies is now being investigated through close collaboration with several advanced institutes. Within the proposed biotechnology thrust IITA intends to develop facilities for the production of monoclonal antibodies (see Section 3.8.3.). 41 These achievementshave involved collaboration with virologists in the NARS, officers of the national quarantine services and scientists in various advanced laboratories. NARS virologists have contributed to a better understanding of the spread of viruses; collaboration with advanced institutes has focussed on developing more advanced technologies. Progress has depended on support in quarantine matters, the exchange of antisera, participation of experts in technical courses on tissue culture, sabbatical opportunities for IITA staff, and the help of collaborators at IITA. Many of the findings of research have been published in refereed journals. The Unit has always been cautious not to dilute its limited resources over too many activities, a wise policy which has been reflected by achievement. Assessments, conclusions and recommendations From this brief assessmentthe Panel concludes that the VU has been and is wellfocussed, with the notable exception of epidemiological investigations. Research activities reflect an astute balance between strategic and applied priorities; the Unit has a good record of scientific and technical output. Based on the achievement of the VU to date the panel suggeststhe following changes in future plans. * Now that several virus-resistant varieties of different crops have been released, which are or may be come to be grown on a large scale, it is essential to monitor the consequencesof these releaseson yield stability with systematic analyses. This is the only way to ensure a timely insight into the genetic variation and eventual adaptation of the viruses concerned and consequently in the durability of the resistances. Essential and desirable journeys should be carefully assessed. Off-station travel reduces the scientific resourcesnecessary for research of the type mentioned above. The Panel believes that NARS should gradually take over responsibility for virus surveys and so come to rely less heavily on IITA. The Panel is concerned to note the difficulties of hiring and retaining qualified technical staff, who arc essential in this type of research. 3.8.3. Biotechnology Unit * * Introduction Scientists world-wide are intensively investigating the potential of new and powerful biotechnology tools to solve problems which could not be tackled with conventional techniques, or to improve the efficiency of existing scientific tools and technologies. The importance and potential impact of biotechnology is world-wide and not restricted to developed countries. However, the larger developed countries have made and continue to make the most rapid progress in this multidisciplinary field; it is they who have the necessary capacity within universities, research institutes and the private sector. Developing countries (and the smaller developed countries) should improve their capability to utilize appropriate biotechnology and integrate it with their existing researchprogrammes. IITA has a comparative advantage to assessand introduce biotechnology appropriate to its mandate crops into Africa. 42 Achievements, current focus and future plans Based on research undertaken by the Virology Unit (as has often been the case elsewhere around the world), some ‘ conventional’ biotechnologies have already shown potential for IITA. Large numbers of clones of cassava,sweet potato, yam, cocoyam, plantain and banana germplasm are now available as virus-free material from tissue culture. The tissue culture technique is also used for the rapid multiplication of planting materials of plantain and cooking banana. With expertise of visiting scientists and postdoctoral fellows IITA has only recently begun to develop its capacity in cytogenetics. As outlined in the 1988/1989 Annual Report, IITA intends to increase its effort in biotechnology in close cooperation with various advanced laboratories and institutions. Various projects, ranging from in-tissue conservation and multiplication to molecular biology of IITA mandate crops, are envisaged. An external Biotechnology Advisory Committee will be formed to help IITA focus activities and to strengthen collaboration with advanced laboratories and institutions. In order to improve understandingof this rapidly developing technology within the Institute, and to bc aware of and compliant with safety and environmental risks and regulations, IITA has also established an Internal Biotechnology Committee and will establish an Internal Bio-safety Committee. Biotechnology demands well equipped laboratories with high standards of sophistication and bio-safety. In order to meet these requirements one IITA building has been reconstructed and will soon be available. The Panel regrets that it was not possible to provide these facilities in Building 400 close to the existing pathology, microbiology, entomology and nematology laboratories. Physical separation will reduce the efficiency of operating the Biotechnology Laboratory and will also restrict the badly needed interaction between biotechnologists and other scientists, with whom they are expected and need to collaborate. IITA will need facilities of the highest standard and to offer attractive terms and conditions of service to recruit and retain qualified scientists, either for its own staff Ior those who may come to the Institute for sabbatical periods. Assessments, conclusions and recommendations The Panel welcomes developments in biotechnology at IITA. However, in order to achieve ambitious goals sooner rather than later the Panel advises IITA to make a clear distinction between cellular and molecular biotechnology. The Panel considers that the Biotechnology Plan as outlined in the 1988/89 Annual Report is overambitious, because of present lack of expertise, scientific resources and adequate facilities, despite the changes indicated in tlhe Medium Term Plan. The Panel recommends that IITA defers activities in molecular biotechnology at Ibadan and concentrateson cellular biotechnology, including tissue culture manipulations such as embryo rescue and regeneration from plant parts, callus or cells, cytogenetics and modem serology. Before entering into molecular biotechnology the Institute should carefully assessits scientific capabilities and facilities including those of the Commodity Programmes since biotechnology needs to be integrated with crop improvement research. The EAC should play a major role in this assessment. 43 In the meantime IITA should identify opportunities for collaboration with advanced institutions and other CGIAR Centers, where specific needs of particular programmes can be met. These opportunities include the development and use of RF’ LP probes for gene-mapping (maize, cowpea and cassava),the development and utilization of the virus coat protein technique (maize, cassava, yam, cowpea) and may well include the use of transgeneric bacterial endophytes for the control of stemborers. IITA should develop close working relations with these advanced institutions, based on agreementswhich provide for the sharing of potential credits with the Institute, in order to upgrade IITA capacity in this field. Recommendation The Panel recommends that IITA defers activities in molecular biotechnology at Ibadan and concentrates on cellular biotechnology, cytogenetics and modern serology. 3.8.4. Biometrics Achievements and assessments The Biometrics Unit (BU) has a small staff willing and competent not only to provide scientists with guidance and advice on statistical packages but also to undertake in-house courses on experimental design and data analysis. Participation in previous courses has been disappointing. The Panel suggeststhat there exists a programme-wide need for BU to organize an in-house workshop on the analysis of genotype (g) x environment (e) interactions, including (g) x (g> x @I. The BU also provides assistanceto off-station scientists, the University of Ibadan and to NARS. The effort is demanding but, at the same time, very rewarding in terms of improvement of the statistical skills of scientists related to IITA. There are limited possibilities in Africa for national scientists to consult -Girith qualified statisticians. The Unit lacks, however, sufficient human resources to adequately cater to these urgent and increasing demands. The standard statistical package installed and used in IITA is CRISP. This package was developed by ICRISAT but there and elsewhere it has now been largely replaced by more sophisticated packages such as GENSTAT (developed at Rothamsted Experiment Station) and SAS (developed at North Carolina State University). Nevertheless, the CRISP package seems well suited to cope with IITA needs. The Panel has been concerned, both “on-tour” and at Ibadan, about the ways in which several experiments have been designed, analyzed and reported. In many experiments, the Panel believes, it will not be possible to draw rigorous conclusions. Shaky arguments can be based on selected numbers, but those arguments are usually difficult to sustain. The Panel was dismayed to learn that only about one-third of IITA staff (on- and offstation), and then predominantly junior staff, regularly consult colleagues in the BU for statistical advice on experimental design and data analyses before embarking on their seasonalprogramme of experiments. Conclusions and recommendations The Panel suggeststhat all experiments conducted by IITA staff are vetted and approved by the BU as a prerequisite to planting. To meet this increased workload and the evident need 44 for statistical guidance to off-station IITA scientists and national scientists, the Panel recommends that IITA appoint a second biometrician or statistician, who will spend 50% of his time off-station serving as a so-called liaison statistician. Recommendation The Panel recommends that IITA appoints a second statistician. 3.9. Information Services It was evident to the Panel that Information Services (IS), have long been treated as a ‘ residual activity’ at the Institute. It is equally clear, both to the Panel and to the staff of IS, that recent changes in managementhave with justification enhanced the status of the information function. Unfortunate budget limitations have prevented this being translated into improved facilities for IS. The Panel endorsesthe importance of timely and credible information. IITA scientists have an urgent need for ongoing, reliable accessto world scientific literature. The Institute itself is heavily dependent on accurate and appropriate information on its activities reaching three crucial constituencies; the NARS (as immediate clients), the donors (as providers of resources) and the world scientific community in which IITA seeks recognition as a peer. The Panel found a dedicated and enthusiastic team of staff in IS which it commends for their innovation and performance despite severe constraints in the working environment. Changes which stem from management’ srenewed concern are continuing. The range of IITA publications is being revised and more carefully targeted to the three key constituencies. The introduction of an IITA Research Quarterly for a scientific audience, in parallel with the recently established Publications Review Panel, together with increased exposure to external peer review should stimulate scientific productivity and improve research quality. The Panel commends these changes. As highlighted by the 1983 EPR the overriding constraint for all units within IS is shortage of space. In the Publications Unit some relief could be gained by a tighter policy on holding materials in stock but the Unit urgently needs a larger area for collation and for storage. In the main library shelving is far too close for effective lighting and the number of working places (about 35) is very small in relation to the size of the collection and the demands made on it. The provision of workplaces is well below international targets set for libraries. The Library has earned an excellent reputation with universities in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa for its collection and journal accessions. The facilities offered to outside faculty and post graduate students have undoubtedly enhancedthe reputation of the Institute. Two years ago the library was forced to give priority to shelf space and so, reluctantly, now has had to refuse visitor facilities to undergraduates. This decision was reasonablein these circumstances but to carry the restrictions further would, in the view of the Panel, damage IITA’ s reputation, particularly in Nigeria. The panel commends the scheme to establish an in-house data base capacity through CDROM technology. This initiative will help by-pass the completely unreliable and expensive access by telephone. There are plans to bring the IITA sub-stations and other sites outside Ibadan into the scheme as it matures; the potential also exists for a strong benefit to the national 45 systems and agricultural universities. Again, a lack of space inhibits the development of the scheme. Controlled access to the CD-ROM unit is difficult and them is insufficient space to allow the training of people to operate the system. The Interpretation and Translation Unit is commended for its productivity, despite working with two translators in each of three small offices. Because of the heavy demands for interpretation, particularly in training, the resources available for translation are limited. Cognizant of the increasingly urgent need for IITA to reach its French speaking clients in their language the Panel suggests an increased input into French translation. Comparisons of the remuneration of interpreters and translators at IITA with other CGIAR and non-associatedcentres suggeststhat this may need re-consideration if IITA is to attract the professional skills it increasingly needs. The Panel urges management,despite the current budgetary difficulties, to anticipate future trends and so to allocate expected vacant space to IS as a priority objective. 3.10. Research Services 3.10.1. Research Farm Management (RFM) The Panel were impressed with operations undertaken under the umbrella of RPM. Management needs of the Ibadan station were clearly articulated and translated into practice. The Farm Workshops, for example, were impeccable. The community activities undertaken by the RFM team are of obvious value in attracting staff to join and settle at the Institute. Such ‘ hands on’ teams reflect the meshing of personalities and experience and can be difficult to remold; the effectiveness of their supportive, service role is vital to the Institute’ s research effort. The RFM team currently faces formidable challenges in ensuring the successful decentralization of IITA research activities to an increasing number of sub-stations and other research sites. The Panel is confident that the experience and cohesion of the present RFM team can meet these challenges. 3.10.2. Analytical Services Laboratory (ASL) Introduction The Analytical Services Laboratory (ASL) was established in 1973 and became a fully independent entity in 1976. Administratively under TRIPP management,the Laboratory reports to the DDG(R) on policy. It serves the needs of both IITA and collaborating NARS in the mandate region. The Laboratory has a routine reference samples programme with the ISRIC Laboratory in Holland and the National Bureau of Standardsin USA, for monitoring the accuracy of analytical methods. Current focus, achievements and future plans The Laboratory now has an annual combined throughput of 40,000 soil, plant and water samples which originate from IITA research ptogrammes (90%) and collaborating NARS (10%). The number of samples in all categories and from all research programmes has doubled during the last two years, with RCMP accounting for the larger proportion of the increase in demand. 46 Despite this dramatic increase, the Laboratory has been able to meet its targets to the satisfaction of research programmes and without any increase in numbers of staff. As well as providing analytical services to IITA research programmes and NARS, the Laboratory has the objective of strengthening NARS by providing regular base and advanced courses in soil and plant analysis for laboratory technicians and laboratory directors, respectively. Although both courses have been popular and have improved the analytical capacity and quality of several NARS laboratories, the former course has been discontinued in favour of the latter, which now aims to train the trainers of NARS laboratory technicians. The Laboratory is currently coordinating, along with several NARS, the formation of the Soil and Plant Analytical Laboratories Network for Africa (SPALNA). The proposal has been well accepted by NARS to the extent that they are prepared to organize the network and should be strongly encouraged and supported by IITA. The recent employment of a research associatehas lessenedthe burden on the head of Laboratory, who can now devote more time to develop analytical methods in collaboration with IITA researchprogrammes. Similarly, the purchase of a High Pressure Liquid Chromatograph (HPLC) will extend the capacity of the Laboratory to undertake biochemical analysis. Assessment The doubling of samples for analysis during the past two years has stretched the capacity of ASL personnel. If this trend continues, as seems likely, it will be essential to recruit more and better trained support staff. The arrival of the electronics engineer has reduced the burden of equipment repair and maintenance from the head of ASL. Nevertheless, frequent failure of the national grid, expense, scarcity and delays in delivery of spare parts, render equipment maintenance and repairs very difficult. Although ASL has been operational for several years, it is difficult to obtain an objective assessmentof future demands from the various IITA research programmes. This can lead to unnecessarycommitment of staff and overstocking of some chemicals and reagents. Conclusions The fact that the Laboratory is well. organized with state-of-the-art instrumentation and analytical methods is a reflection on the skill, dedication, and enthusiasm of the leadership and staff commitment. The ASL provides an excellent range of services not only for IITA but also in Africa. It deserves support in attempting to acquire up-to-date equipment and better trained technicians. The SPALNA network will have a major impact on improving the capacity and quality of NARS laboratories; the network should be welcomed and encouraged. To control the flow of samples for analysis the Panel suggeststhat an increase in charges levied by the Laboratory. 3.10.3. Controlled Environment Growth Cabinets and Glasshouses The Panel was impressed with the operation, routine management and reliable upkeep of the controlled environments in GRU, Virology Unit, Tissue Culture Laboratory, and Insect Rearing Rooms. The structure and maintenance of screenhouses(with and without rain protection) are also adequatein relation to research priorities. 47 The growth cabinets and glasshousesat IITA are a legacy to current management. The question is “Are these facilities a useful adjunct to field plots in ongoing or future research at the Institute?” The special strength of growth rooms and glasshousesdepends on being able to carry out multifactorial experiments in which several environmental factors can be examined at several levels simultaneously. The facilities at IITA are not used, nor are they capable of being used, in this way. For economic, reliable and reproducible researchundertaken in these facilities, disproportionately large service and technical inputs arc essential relative to that devoted to the support of experiments in the field. Those inputs are not provided for at IITA. The Panel was impressed by the efforts and dedication of technical staff associatedwith the growth cabinets, and commends these efforts in difficult circumstances. Routine servicing and preventative maintenance of the growth cabinets are almost non-existent; trouble-shooting maintenance by skilled engineers from PPS can be delayed and then hastily and inadequately tested, and management attention is sporadic. The glasshousesneed regular cleaning and repair; temperatures commonly exceed 40°C. The Panel suggests de-emphasisof research in growth cabinets and glasshousespending: (a) a critical in-house review of IITA’ s comparative advantageto undertake controlled environment research given the probable necessity for significant capital and recurrent expenditure in order to guarantee standards accepted as minimal requirements elsewhere; and (b) subsequentarticulation of managementpolicy on these matters. The Institute is encouraged to consider the participation of expertise from elsewhere in the review proposed in (a) above. 3.11. Junior and Visiting Scientists Many visiting scientists and postgraduatestudents contribute significantly to the scientific capacity and performance of the Institute. This contribution, for example, is evident in the list of IITA publications in refereed journals (Section 3.12.). By way of group interviews the Panel has reviewed the perspectives of these temporary appointees at IITA. 3.11.1. Post-Doctoral Research Fellows (PDRF) - Visiting Scientists 0%) The Panel held group interviews with 14 PDRF and with five VS. Experiences and perspectives of the PDRF differed appreciably, depending variously upon: (a) method of recruitment; (b) previous experience in Nigeria, at IITA or in the tropics; (c) relative precision of the general area or theme for research; (d) perspective and attitude of research team leaders; (e) opportunities and encouragementto publish the findings of research; (f) availability of ‘ key’ equipment and office space; (g) contacts and interaction with research colleagues; (h) administrative load and involvement in IITA training activities; (i) preferences for accommodation (on- or off-station); and (i) marital status. The PDRF lack a vehicle through which collective and individual viewpoints can be articulated with management; the Panel suggeststhat managementconsider implementing an appropriate mechanism to foster regular dialogue. If on-site interviewing of applicants is not feasible, the Panel urges IITA staff to be precise in their guidance to applicants; expectations which cannot later be satisfied then lead to discontent. 48 The Panel suggeststhe instigation of a PDRF Seminar Series to complement the Institute’ s Monthly Seminar programme. It is pleased to record the positive commitment of PDRF to IITA mandate objectives during this formative and important stage of their research careers. All VS expressedoverall satisfaction with their experiences at IITA. They were pleased to have had an opportunity to interact with IITA scientists and to participate in IITA research programmes. All have specific research goals, plan to publish the findings of their research, and were very explicit in articulating the benefits of their stay at IITA to their respective NARS (in terms of transfer of knowledge and skills and by way of further improving IITA relations with the NARS). The Panel was disappointed to learn that frustrating delays in receipt of equipment can seriously constrain the research plans of VS. The Panel urges IITA to anticipate these requirements well in advance to mitigate these difficulties in the future. 3.11.2. Research Fellows The Research Fellows interviewed were recipients of IITA Research Fellowships (4) or postgraduate students supported by other donor agencies (e.g. NORAD, Ford Foundation) (3). Most students are able to secure financial support for only two years in the first instance. The problems of Research Fellows, it became evident, relate to two principal issues: * The need to extend their Fellowship in order to complete the thesis project and to writeup. No clear policy guidelines have been made widely available by IITA with respect to the management of Fellowship programmes. Complaints included lack of uniformity in Fellowship stipends, in the subsidies provided, access to campus accommodation, lack of transport when living off-campus and especially when returning late in the evenings. The Panel suggests that IITA management consider alternative options to address these academic, administrative, and real-life difficulties. * The Fellows were articulate and were pleased to have had an opportunity to work at IITA. They appreciated the supervision and facilities, especially the Library (which they described as the best in Nigeria for agricultural science). Choice of research project presented some problems. Projects must complement ,the research programmes at IITA and at the same time be acceptable to government employers, and university supervisors. Some longer-term, multi-site field experiments have proved to be unsuitable as PhD research topics. 3.12. Scientific Issues 3.12.1. Scientific publications From inception, the CGIAR System has concentrated efforts on applied research but has also been sensitive, on the one hand, to the needs for adaptive research (e.g. when the capacities of NARS have been weak) and, on the other, for strategic (“upstream”) research when gaps in knowledge have been critical constraints to progress. The continued evolution of NARS, and so their competence to undertake applied and adaptive research, will enable the CGIAR System to concentrate increasingly on basic/strategic research. To do this effectively, scientific endeavour within the CGIAR must be fully exposed to professional peer review processesthrough the 49 prompt publication of the findings of research in refereed journals of high international reputation. Concerns about the maintenance of scientific excellence at the CGIAR Centres have been expressed in several different connections, including recent references to the problem among Boards of Trustees. There is a feeling that pressuresof work can militate a creative scientific environment. One important measure of scientific endeavour, achievement and advance is the publication of the findings of research in peer-reviewed, international journals. Publication in the so-called “grey literature” is a distinctly different professional undertaking in the dissemination of information to different target audiences. The Panel has reviewed the publication lists of IITA staff members for the period 19851989, using consistent and objective criteria in order to apportion what has been published into one of two categories: “refereed” (international, peer-reviewed, scientific journals of strong repute) and “grey” (e.g. chapters in many-authored books or conference proceedings, abstracts, IITA in-house literature, journalese and so on). The outcome of this undertaking is summarized in Annex VII-A. Without clear guidance from senior managementand often lacking stimulation and encouragementfrom Programme Directors, the publication emphasis of IITA researchershas drifted to the “grey” literature: 65% of the scientific output of the Institute during the past five years has not involved the process of rigorous, peer review. On average (1985-89), each IITA programme scientist has achieved just 0.83 publications in the “refereed” literature per annum. Two Research Support Units and especially the BCP are clearly exceptional in this context. The Panel urges managementto take action to redress these trends in order to better ensure the exposure and international credibility of IITA scientific research. The Panel also stressesthe distinction between “raw” scientific data and “information”, and urges IITA scientists to scrutinize and synthesize research data in their fields of expertise and to publish critical reviews of progress at timely intervals. The Panel believes the recent proposal to establish an operating mechanism for the Publications Review Panel is an important step in this direction. 3.12.2. Scientific leadership and off-station travel Multidisciplinary, team research (where complementary scientific expertise is brought to focus on specific objectives) is increasingly recognized not only to represent a powerful problemsolving research strategy but also the means whereby individual scientists can expect to gain enhanced professional satisfaction. Experience everywhere shows that the relative success of the team approach to challenging research problems depends heavily on team leadership. Diverse and demanding expectations are made of Research Leaders at IITA. The Panel has reviewed the off-station travels of three current Programme Directors during the period 1986-89. It is clear from Annex VII-B that in meeting their responsibilities during the sample time-span they have spent significant proportions of the working year away from Ibadan. It would have been arrogant in the short time available for the Panel to have attempted to evaluate the principal objectives of travel from Ibadan (e.g. for primarily representationalor primarily scientific reasons). That is not the intention here. Rather, the Panel seeks to highlight the need to distinguish between essential and desirable travel, especially 50 in the context of the progressive decentralization of IITA research activities and of widening and more dynamic professional interactions with colleagues in the NARS. On average (1986-89), Programme Directors spent 80 days (range 74-84 d) away from Ibadan (i.e. 37% of working days) each year - exclusive of home-leave (and 43% of working days off-station if home-leave is taken into1account). The Panel recommends that wherever possible, Research Leaders be relieved of undertaking travel for other than primarily scientific purposes. 3.12.3. Scientific Advice: External Advisory Committees (EACZ As a possible extension of the Internal Review Process the Panel suggeststhat IITA managementconsider appointing an EAC for each of the three Institute research programmes (see Section 4.5.). Each EAC might consist of three scientists of international reputation who should be selected by the DDG(R). They might meet as needed between successive quinquennial reviews and would report to the Director General. The EAC meetings could serve as peer reviews summarized in written reports. In preparation for the EAC reviews all Programmes would produce five-year workplans which could be updated biennially. Recommendation The Panel recommends that IITA management encourage the publication of the findings of IITA research in peer-reviewed, international scientific journals. The Panel recommends that wherever possible, Research Leaders be relieved of undertaking travel for other than primarily scientific purposes. CHAPTER 4 - RESEARCH MANAGEMENT lJ 4.1. Organization and Methods The managementstructure for IITA’ s research operations is set out in Figure 4.1. Three Programmes are devoted to research with the objective of improving several separatecrops (MRP, TRIPP and GLIP). These are the so-called commodity programmes. The principal outcome of this work is the provision of improved genotypes of crops which have enhanced yield potential and better resistanceto pests or to adverse environmental factors such as high temperature or toxic soils. Their work may also lead to the production of genotypes with different crop durations. The Resource and Crop Management Programme (RCMP) has two parts: Resource Management Research (RMR) and Crop Management Research (CMR). The RMR group takes a systems based approach in understanding the soil, water and nutrient processesand the principles for their amendment in order to control degradation and achieve sustainable production. This includes an understanding of economic and cultural factors which will weight the application of the emerging principles. The CMR Working Groups play an integrative role, and have an important function to provide feed-back to programme scientists from on-farm research. Their understanding of the target farming systems of the region allows the synthesis of innovative components from the Crop Improvement Programmes and managementprinciples from the RMR into new technologies attractive to target-group farmers. In farmers’ fields, by diagnosis and experimentation, these are adapted to the particular physical, biological and economic circumstances which local farmers have to manage. The Biological Control Programme (BCP) is located at Cotonou in Benin and until recently its research turned on the possibility of classical biological control of insects and mites of crops by the use of parasites and predators. The outcome of its research is knowledge of whether and how such controls may be achieved and the introduction of them into national systems. The DDG(R) is also responsible for the work of Research Units involved in Biometry, Virology, Genetic Resources and Biotechnology. Each Unit reports to him through an appropriate Director. An Analytical Services Unit also reports to the DDG(R). 4.2. Sub-Stations IITA has adopted a policy of decentralization and is establishing substations to enable it more readily to undertake research in environments different from that at its main station at Ibadan. Research relevant to other agro-ecological environments will in this way become a part of the essential or core programme of the Institute. Sub-stations are already being constructed and staffed at Onne, Nigeria; Kano, Nigeria; and Mbalmayo, Cameroon. One is planned in Cote d’ Ivoire at a site yet to be determined. In addition the substation dealing with biological control is already operating full steam ahead at lJ This Chapter was written jointly by the EMR and EPR Panels DDG(R) RESOURCE AND MANAGEMENT u-t N *..-.....-... J -...-..-.-.,, . . . . ..-....... J .m-..*mw...., ,....-....... . . ..-“..--.’ 2 Visiting Sci. :--....-....-........---... i : : 4 Int. Sci. 4 Post Dot. 1 Visiting Sci. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-....-----~ i i : : : 6 Int. Sci. 3Post Dot. 3Visiting Sci. 2Liaison Sci -.......--------....-----~ : i : : : 6 fnt. Sci. * 2PostDoc. i 1 RAPS Sci. i 2 Visiting Sci. i : .-..................-----~ i : : 3 Int. Sci. 1 Post Dot. i i 1 Visiting Sci. ; 2 Special Project Sci. : i : 2Assoc. Experts i _2?G?!e!?!~~~~l Research Units covering: Biometrics (1 Int. S-5.) Virology (1 Int. Sci.) Genetic Resources (2 Int. Sci.) TRIPP Biotechnofcgy (1 Int. Sci.) Each reports to the appropriate Program Director Int. Sci. = Inlem~ional Scientist Post Does. = Post Moral Scientists Visiting Sci. = Visiting Scientist RAPS = Research and Professional Staff Liison Sci = CIAT I CIP 53 Cotonou, Benin. Each station will have one of the scientists with a full commitment to research, designated as Officer-in-Charge. He/she will have responsibility for all sub-station activities, and will report directly or indirectly to the DDG(R). For this system to work each sub-station must have adequatesupport in the form of an Administrative Officer who must have appropriate support staff. IITA’ s initiative in decentralizing some of its activities to substations is applauded as is its proposal that a scientist engaged in active research at each substation should be designated Officer-in-Charpe with full responsibility for all the scientific and technical matters. However, the officer in charge will need the support of an Administrative Officer and a Farm Manager with appropriate support staff to deal with budgeting, finance and procurement and the administration of local staff, buildings, security and farm management. Despite these arrangementsthe responsibility for the managementof five substations is a heavy addition to the load on the DDG(R). 43. Problems of Present Research Management The two panels have identified the following problems in research managementthat need resolution. * The overload on the DDG(R) resulting from all five Directors reporting to him, the managementof five substations, his responsibilities as a contributor to the top managementof IITA, his role in representing an overview of WA’ s research to members of the international community including donors, agricultural scientists, the CGIAR and allied IARCs and finally his responsibility for linking IITA research with that of advanced laboratories elsewhere in the world. He is responsible for the work of about half the international staff of the Institute. The difficulty in integrating the crop-based systems working groups into the mainstream of IITA’ s research activity becauseof the reluctance of some in the commodity programmes to participate. This reluctance must be overcome. This may in part arise from two objectives in the Medium-Term Plan which are “(a) to develop. systems for the managementand conservation of natural resourcesfor sustainable agriculture ..‘ I and “(b) to increase the performance of selected food crops that can be integrated into improved and sustainableproduction systems”. Although these two objectives are given equal weight in the Plan, in the operation of the Institute the former has one Director and 18 international scientists, the latter has three Directors and 26 international scientists. The Medium-Term Plan provides for an increase in staffing of RCMP relative to the commodity research programmes. Anxiety of the panels about the quality and scale of the research output which may arise becausethere is little leadership from scientists with current hands-on experience. Directors of commodity programmes see the representing of IITA to other countries as a major responsibility but the creation of three posts for international liaison scientists in the International Cooperation Programme may replace the need for this. * * * 54 * The need to improve the capacity of the research programmes to provide scientific backstopping, when IITA scientists working on special projects outside Nigeria are faced with technical and scientific problems. From these symptoms the clear diagnosis is that there are problems with the organization of research management at IITA but that appropriate remedies are available. 4.4. Remedial Actions The principal changes in research managementmust reduce the load on the DDG(R), incorporate Crop-Based Systems Working Groups into the overall research structure and provide research leadership that is close to the working scientists. Suggestionsfor the better incorporation of the Working Groups are made in the EPR report (Section 3.2). When capacity for adaptive research becomes adequatein the NARS, IITA will devolve the function while retaining field sites for research on the principles of resource management. What will then be needed are collaborative projects in which scientists from RCMP and the commodity programmes work together at the applied level of research, to solve farmers’ problems. Such projects should not be confined within a single programme but should often be multi-disciplinary and cross programme boundaries. Each should have a defined duration and have mileposts for the assessmentof progress. On the due date for each project, it should be terminated becauseit has either failed or succeeded,or given extended life becausethe possibility of success remains. The judgement on which these decisions are based should be ruthless. To achieve these desiderata there must be change in the managementof research and we will explore what may be the initial steps Itowardschange and what could be its longer-term target. 4.5. Revised Management of Research The present structure is disaggregatedand the aim should be to consolidate and unify the system. The following changes would approach this objective and solve the issues identified in 4.3 above: * Make the heads of MRP, TRIPP and GLIP Research Leaders with their principal responsibilities to lead research working closely in a “hands-on”mode with their scientists and with the minimal commitment to travel as representativesfor the activities that they lead. They should spend a large part of their time on their own research projects. Designate a ResearchLeader for Resource Management and a Research Leader for Crop Management and Systems Project Groups (SPG) again with a principal responsibility to lead research working with their scientists in a “hands-on”mode. The Research Leader Crop Management will lead research on crop management principles and coordinate the work of the three SPGs. The Research Leader for Resource Management will lead researchon the understanding of the principles of soil degradation and the manipulation of soils for sustainable use. All of these Research Leaders will have as a major objective the quality and the volume of the research output of their teams. * * * 55 * The Director of Resource and Crop Management will have responsibility for the direction of the work of the Resource Management and Crop Management Research Leaders and their teams. He will also direct Biometrics and the Analytical Services Units, which work across many research areas. A Director of Crop Improvement (CI) should be designatedto have responsibility for the direction of the work of the MRP, TRIPP and GLIP Research Leaders and that of their teams. This will consolidate the work of the three groups, remove barriers and enable the more flexible use of the staff, equipment and space. He will also direct the Genetic Resources Unit, which is concerned with many crop species and wild relatives. Virologists and future “biotechnologists” will work in the CI area; assigned to any crop according to the Director’ s priorities. A Director should be designated with responsibility for Biological and Integrated Control (BIC) in order to integrate activities which have the purpose of producing knowledge about and technologies for crop protection. A Research Leader for Biological and Integrated Control will lead the work of BIC scientists as an active research worker. The Directors of RCM, CI and BIC will be jointly responsible for ensuring that the scientists whose work they direct collaborate together on joint interdisciplinary projects for part or all of their time. These projects will be undertaken by scientists from RCM, CI and BIC. * * Projects will have well-defined objectives, be of fixed duration and undergo regular progress evaluation. They will cease when their objectives have been attained or when it is recognized that they are unattainable. If, on reaching their date for termination, it still seems that their objectives can be achieved and remain valid, the project can be renewed. Each project wilI have a leader drawn from any part of the collaborating team. Projects will have a budget and appropriate allocations of resources and facilities. Some projects will be entirely within the area of responsibility of RCM, CI and BIC. However, the prime purpose of the suggestedrestructuring is to achieve close and vigorous joint research between parts of IITA that currently are concerned to protect their turf. The consequenceof these changes would be that the DDG(R) would have three Director (RCM, CI and BIC) reporting to him, thus allowing him to delegate some of the detail that he now deals with, so he can addressthe broader strategic issues which should be his major concern. Each sub-station will have a scientist involved in research projects as the Ofticer-inCharge. The Officer-m-Charge will report to the DDG(R) who may delegate responsibility for oversight of the substation to a nominee. The Administrative Officer at each sub-station will report to the Officer-in-charge. The experimental farm, whether in Ibadan or at a sub-station, is the most important research tool available to the scientists. Experimental farm management should be * * * * * * 56 responsible to the research arm of the Institute, that is to the DDG(R). Since only the managers of experimental farm units can appreciate the need for farm equipment and the overwhelming importance that it must be available on time and repaired quickly, the control of farm machinery maintenancemust lie with the Farm Manager. The nature of these changes are illustrated diagrammatically in Figure 4.2. In the light of this discussion the Panels recommend that: research management at IITA should be reorganized to bring the crop-based working groups fully into the research structure to enable collaborative research projects based on cropping systems to involve scientists from Resource and Crop Management (RCM), Crop Improvement (0) and Biological and Integrated Control (BIC). * Research projects should have a leader drawn from any part of the collaborating team, whether from RCM, CI or BIC, and that projects should be of fixed duration with evaluation points and a budget: the portfolio of projects should be dynamic with continual turnover. Research Leaders who are close to the working scientists should be responsible for the research groups working on resource management and crop management, crop improvement and biological and integrated control: they will ensure that research quality and output are high. There should be three Directors respectively for Resource and Crop Management, Crop Improvement and Biological and Integrated Control: this will reduce the heavy load presently borne by the DDG(R) and enable him to delegate and to concentrate to a greater extent on broad strategic issues. The Institute confirms its intenti0.n to have each sub-station under the control of an active scientist designated as Officer-in-Charge who should report to the DDG(R). The Farm Unit, as the principal research tool of the Institute, should report to the DDG(R). Evolution of Research Management * * * * 4.6. If the structure and processesdescribed in 4.5 arc implemented, one of the principal objectives, namely the integration of research on crop and resource management,crop improvement and biological and integrated control, will have brought the scientists involved into closer understanding of each others’ objectives, methodologies and language. Following this, the Institute should keep the managementof research under continual review. Such review will have the purpose of assessingthe overall effectiveness of these arrangementsand whether revisions are necessary. There are two other matters that need attention. One is the uncertainty of the lines of responsibilities for Resident Scientists on Special Projects outside Nigeria. They are managed by the Deputy Director General (International Cooperation); but because they are researchersthey also need links to the DDG(R). This question is addressedby the EMR and EPR panels in Chapter 5. Figure 4.2 Reorganization of Research Management {DDG(R)} I 1 r BlOLOGlCAL AND INTEGRATED CONTROL --I I SaVanM Leader Crop Managament ReseEr& ReSearch Leader Maize Research Leader GLIP r-l Research Leader BK; SPG I : Inland Va#eys SPG i Research pmjects in which scientists from any of the above programs,cofaborate to j aohiive objedivss relevant to one or mora agro-eco@ii zones. t ProjeUs may also be ganaratad within a single progmm. :.....................,........................-..-.---.--... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-.......-. ! : : I BIOMETRY ANALMEAL SERVICES * RESOURCES Officers in Charge Lme of raped SUB-STATlONS t ,,,,,,,,-,,,-,,,,,,-,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,,,,,----------------------------J 58 Secondly, there should be some means at IITA to bring together scientists with similar interests but who may rarely meet during the normal course of their work. They may be modelers or geneticists or crop projectionists or several others, such as the recommended Thematic Working Group on Plant Protection (see Section 3.7, EPR Report). Both panels suggest that the DDG(R) should encouragethe formation of such groups, at which from time to time all the modelers or whatever can meet together informally to exchange views and up-date each other. By the time the adaptive research activities of the Systems Project Groups in the respective agro-ecological zones are handed over to the NARS, the Institute could consider placing the crop management research within the crop improvement programmes. Recommendation In the light of this discussion the Panels recommend that: research management at IITA should be reorganized to bring the crop-based working groups fully into the research structure to enable collaborative research projects based on cropping systems to involve scientists from Resource and Crop Management (RCM), Crop Improvement (CI) and Biological and Integrated Control (BIC). * Research projects should have a leader drawn from any part of the collaborating team, whetber from RCM, CI or BIC, and that projects should be of fixed duration with evaluation points and a budget: the portfolio of projects should be dynamic with continual turnover. Research Leaders who are close to the working scientists should be responsible for the research groups working on resource management and crop management, crop improvement and biological and integrated control: they will ensure that research quality and output are high. There should be three Directors respectively for Resource and Crop Management, Crop Improvement and Biological and Integrated Control: this will reduce the heavy load presently borne by the DDG(R) and enable him to delegate and to concentrate to a greater extent on broad strategic issues. The Institute confirms its intention to have each sub-station under the control of an active scientist designated as Officer-in-Charge who should report to the DDG(R). The Farm Unit, as the principal research tool of the Institute, should report to the DDG(R). * * * * CHAPTER 5 - INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 5.1. Introduction The NARS are the clients of IARCs. IITA serves NARS in 24 countries of West and Central Africa and has interactions with other NARS of sub-SaharanAfrica regarding specific mandate crops and training. The NARS in the region are at various stages of development. Most of them, and especially those from the smaller countries, are at an early stage of development. They undertake multi-locational testing of IITA varieties, are engaged in constraints analysis, and seek to strengthen capacity through training of selected technicians and graduates. The NARS in a small number of larger countries are at a medium stage of development. They are engaged in nation-wide variety development and testing and they carry out research on component technologies in the national agroecological zones. It is at this stage that IITA-NARS collaboration can be most productive. Very few countries of the region (e.g. Nigeria and Cameroon) can be considered as mature NARS, i.e. having a critical mass of PhD scientists engaged in technology-generationthrough applied and adaptive research complementary to that undertaken by IITA. The small number and the financial constraints of mature NARS have until now prevented IITA from engaging more in collaborative longer-term strategic and basic research on crops and on resource managementproblems. IITA has a special position with the NARS of the region heavily dependent on the Institute for applied and adaptive research and for training. The diversity of the NARS in terms of human and support resources and stage of institutional maturity implies that partnerships involving IITA and its clients will need to be developed in a stepwise manner. This is well recognized in the MTP which has, as one of its major goals, the strengthening of the capability of NARS to generate technology which meets national needs. International Cooperation activities have been developed in close consultation with NARS. The MTP suggestsspecific mechanisms for consolidating this collaboration and these are reviewed below. TAC assessedthe effectiveness and utility of the collaborative activities between IITA and the NARS of the region by way of a postal survey conducted during 1989. The main thrust of the responseswas that NARS wished to intensify collaboration with the Institute. Training is most appreciated, the type of training desired depending very much on the stage of development of the NARS. IITA is the major source of germplasm in the region. Researchnetworks are perceived as an important vehicle for collaboration between NARS and the IARC System, but the lack of operating funds constrains most NARS and prevents them from benefitting more fully from the collaborative effort. Information Services from IITA reach the NARS. The Institute’ s Annual Report is said to lack technical information of benefit to NARS. In general, they see many IITA publications as “too synthetic”. Some respondentshighlighted the lack of feedback from varietal trials emanating from IITA and conducted in the NARS. 53. Mechanisms for Interactions with NARS 52.1. Resident Scientists Programme At present IITA operates six projects with a total of 38 Resident Scientists posted in the NARS. These Scientists are employed on short-term (up to five years) assignmentswith special project funding. They are concentrated primarily in two large institution-building projects, each financed by the USAID; one in Cameroon the other in Zaire. Because the large number of Resident Scientists places a heavy demand on core scientists at Ibadan, the MTP provides for the 60 phasing down of these IITA commitments, replacing them with smaller groups of experienced scientists. The objectives are to develop national capacities for adaptive research, to produce improved technologies, and to ensure a valuable feed-back of scientific data to the core research programmes. The Plan provides for up to 14 Resident Scientists in 1993. TAC classified this category of scientists as “desirable”; for implementation, then, IITA will depend on the availability of special project funding. The Panel has carefully examined the Resident Scientist scheme as proposed by IITA and concurs with its general conception and objectives. The following observations are made: * According to the MTP, Resident Scientist teams collaborate with NARS in the early stage of development with the intention of a phased withdrawal during the subsequent medium-maturity stage. However, the most productive collaboration will involve NARS in the medium and mature stage categories, as is evident in Cameroon. For many NARS at an early stage of development, Resident Scientists will not be effective as there is frequently little national commitment nor effective infrastructure or equipment to work with. The best that can be achieved in these circumstances is the training of relatively few technicians and researchers. Hitherto, Resident Scientists have not been part of the IITA core staff. Instead, they are hired for a fixed-term appointment in collaboration with a NARS and, in general, many of them have only limited institutional allegiance to or experience of IITA. They feel that they do not really “belong” to IITA; that they contribute relatively little to its core activities and that they are often given only poor scientific support. The Panel recommends that future Resident Scientists are appointed as IITA core staff and wherever possible am drawn from existing personnel. For new appointees, a familiarization period of at least one month at IITA would be highly desirable. As much smaller numbers will be involved compared to those in the past, this arrangementshould not put undue strains on the remaining core staff at Ibadan. Evidence from Cameroon and Zaire suggeststhat despite recent improvements, scientific support from Ibadan (backstopping) for Resident Scientists leaves much to be desired. Such support should be a mutually rewarding professional experience which produces synergistic benefits for all parties. It is especially important in this context for Resident Scientists to be seen and acknowledged as full members of the core research programme at Ibadan. The Resident Scientists scheme should be linked to IITA Sub-Stations wherever possible. Such linkages hold many advantages,as reflected in the experience of the Technology Transfer Unit (TTU) at Cotonou, Benin. Sub-Stations have the potential to become focal points for interaction with and strengthening of the NARS of the region, in true partnerships. At the same time, each partner can easily preserve their own identity, priorities and modes of operation. The Kano Sub-Station is located in a NARS and is already evolving along these lines. * * * The Panel suggeststhat IITA in posting its Resident Scientist teams examines the advantagesof linkages with its Sub-Stations and, wherever possible, operates from those SubStations in order to reinforce relations with core programme scientists while at the same time more effectively serving the NARS of the countries in the region. IITA cannot possibly post Resident Scientist teams in all of the NARS of the mandate region. A careful selection will need to be made based on national commitment to agricultural research, the potential support in each country in terms of human and financial resources, and 61 the possibility of spill-over effects to those neighbouring countries where NARS are relatively weak. 5.2.2. ResearchLiaison Scientists The MTP provides for three ResearchLiaison Scientists (RLS) to study in the 24 NARS of the IITA mandate region: (1) the constraints to increased agricultural production; (2) the requirements of individual national systems; and (3) linkages with IITA and other external sources of technology. This scheme is seen by IITA as the most appropriate and reliable mechanism to gain a deeper understandingof the NARS of the region and to encourageeffective partnerships with them. Each of the three ResearchLiaison Scientists will be penanent members of IITA scientific staff and will be assigned responsibility for seven or eight countries grouped on the basis of linguistic, ecological and geographic considerations. Two positions have recently been filled and the third one is being recruited. Restricted core funding to support the initiative for two years has been received from the European Communities (EC), through an on-farm adaptive research project. The Panel appreciatesthat IITA gives priority to understandingthe needs of NARS of all sizes and at all stages of development. The goals articulated in the MTP (to strengthen the capability of NARS to use and generate agricultural technology to satisfy national needs and to engage in genuine collaboration) are timely and commendable. However, there is a real danger that ResearchLiaison Scientists will assume an essentially representationalrole. If so, this would detract from the principal scientific endeavour of IITA and so may not be desirable. The Panel is concerned that activities of ResearchLiaison Scientists may raise expectations in the NARS that cannot be fulfilled by IITA. They are unlikely to have sufficient expertise or resourcesat their immediate disposal to resolve problems raised by the NARS. The Panel suggeststhat ResearchLiaison Scientists are selected from readily transferable disciplines. Those chosen need sufficient competenceto offer an on-the-spot problem-solving “service” in the course of their liaison work. Examples of such disciplines would be plant protection, biometrics, on-farm researchmethods, agricultural economics and plant breeding. The Panel has only muted enthusiasm for the prospects of ResearchLiaison Scientists serving an effective role for NARS collaboration. The Panel believes that Resident Scientists, regional networks and training, and interactions through the appropriate SWG, working together under the umbrella of a coherent strategy for NARS collaboration and capacity building, may prove to be adequatelinkage devices for the Institute. The Panel understandsthat IITA is anxious to instigate the RLS scheme. The Panel recommendsthat the scheme be reviewed and rejustified after two years of operation Feedback from the NARS involved should determine subsequentpriorities. 5.2.3. Sub-Stations Ahhough IITA Sub-Stationshave been established primarily to conduct research in each . major agmecological zone, they have considerablepotential to foster active collaboration with NARS. Since 1976, IITA has operated out of the Onne Sub-Station (Onne) near Port Harcourt in Nigeria in the perhumid forest and coastal zone; a region where plantains are a major food staple. The Kano Sub-Station (Kano) located in north of Nigeria in the Sudan savanna is being established within the premises of the Institute of AgriculturaI Research (IAR) which is 62 headquarteredat Samaru. Three IITA staff have already been posted to Kano and will focus their work on cowpea-cerealintercrops. An agreementhas also been reached (and a site of 1,000 ha made available) with the Cameroon Government to establish a Sub-Station in the humid forest zone at Mbalmayo, some 40 km south of Yaounde. This will be a principal location for resource managementresearch and for work on cassava(and perhaps other crops) on acid soils. Construction will start soon. Negotiations continue with the Government of Cote d’ Ivoire on the possible location of a Sub-Station in the moist savanna. A Sub-Station is also planned for the mid-altitudes of East and South Africa, in collaboration with the Southern African Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Research (SACCAR). This Sub-Station will also focus on cassava research. The decentralization of the IITA researcheffort representsa logical progression in the evolution of the Institute. The infrastructure which is planned for the Sub-Stations is modest. The Panel believes that Sub-Stationscan be cost-effective. as experience at Onne confirms. Moreover, a Sub-Station should lead naturally to more interaction with NARS and with agricultural development projects (ADPs) in the region. They will act as satellites of IITA from where joint research activities with NARS can be undertaken, particularly as they relate to the Systems Working Groups and to on-farm research activities. The Panel urgesthat IITA capitalize on its current and planned investment in Sub-Stations in terms of developing partnerships with the NARS and in carrying out joint research projects on topics of mutual interest. 5.2.4. Crop-Based Systems Working Groups (CBSWG) The SWG are discussed in detail in Section 3.2. One of their roles is to collaborate with the NARS. This links IITA with the adaptive research capacity in the region which will eventually become the “eyes and ears” of the Institute. These linkages, particularly through WAFSRN and the collaborative group in each of maize and cassava,allows the SWG to monitor the strengths of adaptive research in the region. The Panel commends the progress in establishing these linkages. It considers them to be one valuable source of information to develop a better articulated strategy for selectively building NARS capacity in adaptive research (e.g. through hands-on collaboration and targeted training efforts). The Panel suggeststhat targeting those NARS of the mandate region which are seen to be con&ted to adaptive research,will hasten the devolution of this function from IITA and will also improve the coverage by the Institute of its target populations. 52.5. Visiting Scientists There are now four resident Visiting Scientists who have come to IITA from NARS of the region. They are members of the appropriate IITA researchprogranune for periods of up to one year, and they subsequentlyreturn to their national research systems. The MTP provides for a minimum of two essential and three desirable Visiting Scientist positions per annum. The Visiting Scientists programme strengthensIITA research and helps to build strong linkages with the NARS. It is particularly meaningful for those stronger NARS engaged in applied, technology-generatingresearch. 63 5.2.6. Post-Doctoral Fellows The number of Post-Doctoral Fellows acceptedby IITA is planned to increase from 12 to 24 over the period covered by the MTP. The Fellows are members of IITA research programmes for between one and two years. More than one-half of the Post-Doctoral Fellows now at IITA are from NARS within the region. This programme, then, provides an invaluable foundation for future collaboration with NARS. 5.2.7. Networking IITA is actively engaged in four collaborative research networks, namely: * * * * Eastern and Southern African Root Crops ResearchNetwork (ESARRN) - establishedin 1987 SAFGRAD Cowpea ResearchNetwork (RENACO) - est. 1987 SAFGRAD Maize ResearchNetwork (WECAMAN) - est. 1987 Alley Fanning Network for Tropical Africa (AFNETA) - est. 1989. IITA coordinates the four networks and provides a staff member to each one, supported by special projects funds. The networks emphasizeinformation exchange, technical collaboration, and training. They are of particular significance to NARS of small countries through which the networks are able to borrow technology from IITA and from the more developed NARS. The intention of IITA is to devolve the responsibility for managing networks to the NARS as soon as they are able to assumethat role. The lack of a formal regional research organization in West and Central Africa (similar to SACCAR in Southern Africa) complicates the process. The experience of the RRPMC demonstratedthat NARS-driven initiatives can provide such a regional interface. In 1980, IITA initiated and has since continued to collaborate actively with the West African Farming Systems ResearchNetwork (WAFSRN) which has its headquartersin SAFGRAD (at Ouagadougou)and is financed jointly by IDRC and the Ford Foundation. Two sub-groups of the Network have recently been launched - the Collaborative Maize-Based Systems Group (COMBS) and the Collaborative Group in Cassava-Based Cropping Systems Research. The RCMP organizes annual meetings for the Network and publishes the proceedings. Through these sub-groups, collaborative researchprojects with NARS are undertaken and research methods are discussed. As the capacity to undertake adaptive research increasesin NARS, IITA will progressively devolve more adaptive researchto them. The proliferation of networks in the region can be confusing to the NARS. The networks operated by IITA focus on adaptive researchwhile the CORAF networks of the Francophone countries are more concerned with applied and strategic research. It is suggested that IITA continues to study the possibility of harmonizing and/or rationalizing present networks across linguistic boundaries, particularly as they often relate to the same commodities in the same or overlapping agroecological zones, and recognizing that simplification is a genuine need of the NAILS concerned. Attempts in this direction have already been made within the . framework of the CGIAR Task Force on sub-SaharanAfrica. 64 5.2.8. The Regional ResearchProgramme for Maize and Cassava (RRPMC) The RRPMC is one initiative taken by the CGIAR Task Force on sub-SaharanAfrica (another initiative dealt with the maize-basedcropping systems in the SADCC region). The principal objectives of the RRPMC are to strengthen (in a cost-effective way) the NARS of the region and their capacity to collaborate with each other and with the IARCs, notably IITA. RRPMC deals with maize and cassavaresearchin eleven coastal West and Central African countries. The French Ministry of Cooperation provided funds and leadership for the development of the first two phases of the initiative, while IITA assumed responsibility for the third phase and for follow-up activities. The Plan of Action involves an investment of close to US$ 13 million over a five-year period. Operating funds are the major budget item followed by training, equipment, IITA Resident Scientists and IITA short-term missions. Only urgent and essential needs for adaptive research are retained in the Plan. An important budget item (US$ 500,000) is an investment in the University Centre of Dschang, Cameroon, to enable the University in collaboration with IITA to offer bilingual training courses for research technicians. A Steering Committee has been formed and a trust fund established. To date, only the Government of France has indicated a willingness to contribute to the necessary funding. This initiative, which was instigated by the donors, has raised great expectations among the NARS involved. IITA considers it a vital element for strengthening the capabilities of NARS and for the implementation of the Institute’ s MTP. Successwould greatly improve existing mechanisms for collaboration with NARS. The scheme commits financial, equipment and training resourcesto their needs. RRPMC representsa “bottom-up” approach with origins in the NARS. It will have a far greater impact on national agricultural researchthan a piecemeal, country-by-country approach. The NARS have made strong commitments to at least maintain their present undertakings in terms of personnel, infrastructure, equipment and operating funds. Once funded, IITA and to a lesser extent other IARCs (e.g. ILCA, ISNAR and IFPRI) will be actively involved. If the RRPMC is funded it is likely to become a major vehicle to harmonize and rationalize existing collaborative researchnetworks (IITA, SAFGRAD, CORAF) across linguistic boundaries. The NARS have already expresseda desire to work collaboratively towards the harmony within the Task Force initiative. 5.2.9. Conclusions and recommendations Following the MTP, the Institute is strengthening collaboration with the NARS of the region. Several mechanisms are being implemented for that purpose. The decentralization of IHTA activities to Sub-Stations will foster the development of productive partnerships with NARS. IITA currently coordinates four collaborative researchnetworks but intends to devolve responsibilities for them as soon as the NARS are able to assume that role. The RRPMC representsa “bottom-up” approach of the NARS. It has raised expectations within the NARS and the donor organization (i.e. SPAAR) which launched the initiative, now needs to re-examine its position. The RRPMC has the potential to become a major vehicle for improved collaboration between the IARCs (and IITA in particular:) and the NARS. It can also be expected to harmonize existing collaborative researchnetworks. 65 Recommendations The Panel recommends that future Resident Scientists are appointed as IITA core staff and wherever possible drawn from existing personnel. The Panel recommends that the Research Liaison Scientists scheme be reviewed and rejustified after two years of operation. 5.3. Training Training may well prove to be the most enduring contribution of IITA to the solution of Africa’ s food problems. From 1972 to 1989, IITA trained more than 6,000 research and extension staff. Training is seen as an integral and important part of IITA activities and to be intimately linked with efforts in research. Training is given priority in the MTP as it is seen as a cornerstone in the building of stronger NARS. The challenges which face the IITA training programme are formidable. With the population of West and Central Africa likely to double in less than 25 years, and in the light of daunting constraints in secondary and higher education in many countries, IITA is seen by many countries as filling part of the large gap in investment in human capital. In most NARS of the region, attrition rates of well- trained staff are acute because of inadequate salaries and poor working conditions. These trends culminate in a brain-drain of experienced, well-trained researchersto the private sector, to administrative and political positions in government, and to international careers. The most affected NARS of the region are in Zaire and Ghana; the least affected are in Nigeria and Cameroon. 5.3.1. Training programmes In 1986, IITA undertook a strategic review of training. Five priorities for increasing the quality and relevance of training activities emerged. In essence,the review concluded that the comparative advantageof IITA lies in “training the trainers”. IITA core funding for training more than tripled between 1984 and 1988 and so the current. training agenda is less influenced by the interest of particular bilateral donors. For example, IITA now offers fewer “production-oriented” courses and concentratesinstead on “research-oriented”training. When the MTP ends in 1993, the core budget allocation to training will represent 6.8% of total budget allocations. IITA policy is to increasingly decentralize group training to national institutions, an inevitable consequenceof limited capacity on the Ibadan campus and in response to requests from the NARS. This will reduce the unit cost of training and so will enable more people to be trained. Within RRPMC, for example, it is planned that technician training will take place at the University Centre of Dschang in Cameroon; the Centre is bilingual and located in a strong NARS. IITA supports “in-country” training and serves to stimulate national efforts in this direction. For example, Nigerian training personnel and Associate Training Officers (ATO) have been employed by the Institute and training materials are being developed at IITA for use within the countries. Local funding to support “in-country” training remains a constraint. Close to 40 courses were held in 18 different countries between 1984 and 1989. Networks are becoming an important vehicle for organizing regional training. 66 Experience elsewhere shows that the AT0 position has been used by other IARCs with success; it is therefore a commendable innovation in IITA. Experience elsewhere has also shown that the position requires a range of skills. Masters graduates located in the Training Programme are attached to each of the research programmes. Responsibilities include negotiating with scientists to collaborate in training programmes, managing training programmes (including the laying out and managementof any experiments needed), and negotiating and managing training courses in the countries of the region. Given these wide ranging and demanding responsibilities it is difficult to understand the decision taken by IITA to grade the AT0 positions as RASS. The increasing number of in-country courses emphasizesthe important role of much of the AT0 work. All NARS need an adaptive research capacity. Four courses on these topics have been organized to date and more are planned. The Panel believes that training should increasingly emphasize adaptive research methods. More emphasis is now given to individual research training, especially of African postgraduates to MSc and PhD level. IITA operates a competitive programme of Research Fellowships for outstanding African students working on MSc and PhD degrees at universities anywhere in the world. The target number of fellowships is 70 per year, being the maximum number that the Institute can accommodate. Less than one-half of the Fellowships will be funded by IITA, the remaining are supported by external funds from various sources. A total of 38 PhD fellows and 16 MSc fellows are now at IITA, of which 12 are women. During the period 1984-1989, 78 PhD and 110 MSc graduate students either successfully completed or are engaged in ongoing research at IITA. In addition, a total of 231 non-degree trainees and 3,231 participants in group training came to the Institute. Many of those students who successfully completed their graduate studies under IITA sponsorship are now employed in the NARS or at national universities of the region. Many are now collaborating in one way or another with IITA scientists. A roster of IITA graduate students is being prepared and questionnaireshave been distributed to update the data base. Recruitment of outstanding students is constrained by the lowering of standards in many faculties across Africa. Moreover, more attractive fellowships in overseasuniversities appeal to many of the more academically able students. In selecting graduate students for its Fellowship programme, IITA gives preference to candidates from the NARS, which can compromise academic standards. However, the overriding need is to train researchersfrom the NARS. A Training Materials Specialist is now on the IITA staff to strengthen these aspects of training and to develop reference manuals from which the training materials will be developed. One such manual “Cassava in Tropical Africa: A Reference Manual” is being published in English, French and Portuguese;other manuals will follow. Records over the past four years shlow that only 6.8% of African trainees at IITA were women. Given the important role played by women in African agriculture, this participation is obviously inadequate. IITA is now developing an affirmative action programme to identify and encourage women to apply for training opportunities at the Institute. In 1989, 22% of the PhD and 23% of the MSc graduate students were women, while in group courses the women represented 12% of the total participants. In 1985, IITA received a grant from the Ford Foundation to cover the expenses for five female MSc students and 34 women on short training courses. A second proposal seeking financial support for ten female agricultural professionals (MSc and PhD) has just been approved for funding. The IITA objective is to have women fill at least 30% of the openings in education and training at IITA. Despite substantial improvements since 1986 that target remains elusive, and will remain so unless financial support for the young dependentsof female students is provided. 67 IITA policy is to conduct group training courses in English and French with simultaneous translation. In fact IITA does not have the capacity to conduct courses in French except within the BCP at Cotonou. The balance between courses given in English and French needs to be redressed. Students from Francophone countries are less inclined to apply for the graduate Research Fellowship programme becauseof national differences in educational systems. Only three Francophone students have received Fellowships out of the 15 awarded to date. Monitoring and evaluation of IITA efforts in training is weak. All courses are systematically evaluated when they end, but there is no follow-on evaluation some years later when real and sustained impact would be measured. Later evaluations would also reveal the need for refresher courses or for a regional workshop. The Panel understandsthe matter to be under review, 5.3.2. Conclusions IITA needs to train more people not only to disseminate the many useful findings of past research but also to contribute to the current research capacity of NARS. Training others is one aspect of the work of a professional scientist and should continue to be recognized as a visible function of researchersat IITA. A commitment to training is paramount, the AT0 scheme is an innovation designed to lighten the demands on research scientists. Group training is de-emphasizedat Ibadan as in-country training and individual participant training assume greater emphasis. IITA has a comparative advantage to train the trainers. Through in-country training and with the help of AT0 staff, IITA can increase its training contribution without over-straining resourcesat Ibadan. A Training Material Specialist is now employed at Ibadan to develop reference manuals and visual aids. Training of individual researchersto MSc or PhD level is now a major thrust at IITA. The Institute is also working to ensure that women will soon fill at least 30% of training opportunities. The balance between courses given in English and French needs to be changed to cater for Francophone participants. 5.4. Strategies and Future Issues Although IITA research efforts relate to each of the NARS of West and Central Africa and even beyond, collaboration with NARS, to be effective, needs to be selective and modulated according to their degree of institutional maturity. Two groups of NARS can be distinguished. The first comprises those NARS at a medium to mature stage of development. They are actively engaged in applied and adaptive research and generate new technologies for their target farmers. The second group comprises NARS in an early to medium stage of evolution. This second group is typically located in those smaller countries which cannot yet afford a fullyfledged NARS; they mainly borrow technologies from other NARS and IARCs and adapt them to local needs. By concentrating small groups of resident scientists within the first category, IITA anticipates that the Systems Working Groups, networking and other mechanisms will enable the second group of NARS to borrow technology more effectively from IITA and from the first group. It is not coincidental that IITA is locating its Sub-Stations within the medium to mature stage grouping. 68 The Panel suggests a more deliberate, clearly articulated strategy to selectively develop NARS which have the commitment and capacity to collaborate effectively with the Institute. The strategy should drive collaborative research,pinpoint the location of Resident Scientists and sharpen focus of intensive training efforts. IITA should continue to offer a range of more modest services to other NARS. Much can be achieved through effective networking, through the Information Services and through regionally targeted short training courses. A selective strategy will need to be flexible as targets of opportunity can change unpredictably. Nevertheless, concentrating IITA efforts on building national capacity will hasten progress towards self-sufficiency in a small number of NARS in the region. The selection of the group of NARS for intensive interaction would usefully be guided by analyses of priorities among IITA target populations from the planning framework proposed. The production of improved technologies by IITA should be “demand pulled”, the clients being the NARS and ultimately the farmers of the region. Thus, IITA needs ongoing monitoring of demand for technology. Such demands will be influenced primarily by the general macroeconomic environment, by the resource endowments of the farming community, and by the capacity of the NARS to respond to fanners’ needs. The capacity of the NARS will depend primarily upon the commitment of individual sovereign governments to invest in food production and rural development (rural infrastructure), on the policies pursued, and on their perception of research as an “engine” for agricultural growth and development. There is evidence within the region that such commitments are indeed increasing, that policy frameworks are being rectified, and that agricultural research leading to improved technologies are increasingly seen as the driving force for accelerating food production relative to population growth. Moreover, there is now widespread acceptancethat the smallholder sector holds the key to sustained agricultural growth. Collaboration in the form of a mature partnership requires involvement of a viable and committed partner, endowed with a critical mass of trained people and supportive institutional capacity. Few such partners exist within the IITA mandate region; the task of sustaining these as well as building up less developed NAR.S is daunting. IITA cannot undertake the task alone. Success in this demanding undertaking is a fundamental and long-term proposition which will require the concerted and sustained efforts Iof African governments, IARCs and enlightened donors. CHAPTER 6 - INTERACTION OF HTA WITH INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTRES 6.1. Introduction The increased demands on the CGIAR System to generate new technologies and to move into new areas of science has put pressure on the Centres to rationalize their efforts and resource allocation and to share responsibilities wherever possible. This trend has become even more urgent now that the donors increasingly scrutinize their support for the System. To maintain effectiveness, the Centres need to become leaner and more efficient, and must target priority activities. The allocation of commodity and regional mandates to particular Centres, intended to assist in the division of responsibilities within the CGIAR System, has been misinterpreted by some Centres to imply “ownership”. Professional and regional competition between Centres, pressuresto secure scientific credit for new technologies and achievements (“breakthroughs”), and a general reluctance to share research responsibilities as full and equal partners, have combined to reduce the potential impact of many research programmes. This same institutional rivalry has also sometimes frustrated the NARS. In this period of increasingly scarce resources,the failure of the CGIAR System to centralize the development of expensive facilities (such as those required to access the products of the new biotechnologies) which could provide a service for several Centres with common interests, further illustrates the lack of System-wide planning and a no genuine sense of corporate identity and culture. Despite these shortcomings, there are many examples of effective collaboration between Centres. The Panel is pleased to report that IITA has a good overall record in this respect as indicated by the following comments on the Institute’ s linkages with several CGIAR and other international agricultural research institutes. 6.2. CGIAR Centres CIAT (International Centre for Tropical Agriculture) Current relations with CIAT are strong. One CIAT scientist is now posted at IITA to assist in the reciprocal exchange of relevant cassavagermplasm between matched environments in Africa and Latin America. Both Centres have much to gain from close collaboration in plant physiology (where the CIAT programme is strong) and in the use of polyploids in cassava breeding in which both research programmes have an interest. Short exchange visits by research staff will foster collaboration. CIMMYT (International Centre for the Improvement of Maize and Wheat) The association of CIMMYT with IITA dates back to the inception of the Institute through a common interest in maize for lowland tropical environments. Many of the varieties releasedby IITA during the early years of the programme were derived from crosses between local African maize varieties with advanced CIMMYT germplasm. In general, personal relations have been good but those between the two Centres have been characterized by competition for “territory” because of overlapping (world and regional) mandates. Concern for credit for the development of successful germplasm has led to standardsof behaviour generally unbecoming of 70 mature, successful Centres with a common objective of serving the needs for more food in West and Central Africa. An agreement whereby IITA assumesleadership for maize gennplasm development for West and Central Africa, and for the two Institutes to exchange germplasm after transferring MSV-resistance into CIMMYT germplasm, has been articulated in the IITA MTP and approved by TAC. In consequence,IITA has withdrawn from the CIMMYT/‘ Zimbabwe Cooperative Maize Programme for Southern Africa. A second outcome is evident in the advanced planning for an IITA Sub-Station in the moist savannaof Cote d’ Ivoire. Facilities will be shared by an adjunct CIMMYT breeder working to transfer MSV-resistance into CIMMYT breeding material. Delays in acquiring a suitable site for the IITA Sub-Station in Cote d’ Ivoire, the plans of CIMMYT to use that Station for breeding and adaptation studies in West Africa, and the continued presence of CIMMYT in Ghana [(asa consequenceof accepting a contract for the third phase of an extra-core project on maize research and development) are again beginning to threaten the prospects for effective collaboration between the two Institutes. The Panel is dismayed by this continuing and destructive saga, at a time when the CGIAR System and national governments in West Africa are calling for increased collaboration and a more united effort to accelerate maize production in the continent. The Panel recommendsthat unless the existing and sound agreementbetween IITA and CIMMYT for maize research in Africa can be operated productively in 1990, TAC advise the System and the donors that the two Institutes have failed to resolve their differences. CIP (International Potato Centre) With the transfer of the mandate for sweet potato improvement from IITA to CIP, there has been increased collaboration between the two Centres. It is appropriate that IITA linkages with AVRDC on this crop have been allowed to lapse. CIP has based a scientist at IITA headquartersto ensure the safe transfer of lITA’ s valuable sweet potato germplasm to Lima and to recently established programmes in Africa. This exchange is progressing smoothly and the entire hand-over process has been accomplished with cooperation and goodwill. The pioneering work of IITA on the improvement of sweet potato in West Africa has been very successful. There is evidence (although difficult to document formally) of widespread adoption, that the varieties are popular and that yields and resistanceto root parasites have been improved significantly. It is hoped that in developing its programme in Africa, CIP will continue to collaborate closely with TRIPP at IITA; much of the available technology is relevant to the efforts of both programmes. ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics) Linkages between IITA and ICRISAT focus on the dry savanna where the environment and crop mandates of the two Centres overlap. To bridge this important interface, IITA has stationed a cowpea breeder at the ICRISAT Sahelian Centre in Niamey, Niger, to link the cowpea work based at the IITA Sub-Station at Kano in northern Nigeria with ICRISAT’ s work on sorghum. Cropping systems research w,as to be undertaken as a joint activity with ICRISAT staff based at Kano, but this has not yet materialized. ICRISAT has no socioeconomist at their Kano Station and the programme focus is largely on sorghum improvement. Indications of good and potentially fruitful collaboration are developing between the ICRISAT agronomist and IITA crop physiologist but little other effective clollaboration was evident. The Panel believes that one field station and a single office complex could have served both Institutes thereby saving 71 CGIAR funds and enhancing inter-Institute collaboration. It regrets the duplication of resources at Kano. IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) and WARDA (West Africa Rice Development Association) IITA has an association with IRRI spanning 20 years, a time during which both Institutes had a common interest in rice improvement. Relations will inevitably change with the transfer of all rice improvement activities from IITA to WARDA (see Section 3.6.3.) The focus of IITA rice research will shift from crop improvement to managementof rice cropping systems of the inland hydromorphic valley systems in West and Central Africa. Wherever possible, IITA will collaborate with WARDA and so will also maintain links with IRRI in research on rice production. Relations between the two Centres have been constructive. IITA will continue to assist WARDA in building capacity to service the rice production environments of West Africa. Coordination of international research on rice in Africa is in need of urgent attention. 6.3. Non-Associated International Centres ICRAF (International Centre for Research on Agro-Forestry) Research by IITA over many years on systems of alley cropping has led to valuable collaboration with ICRAF on various activities associatedwith agroforestry. This linkage is both direct and also via the Alley Farming Network for Tropical Africa (AFNETA) which is coordinated by IITA under the sponsorship of three Centnx (ICRAF, ILCA and IITA). Collaboration with ICRAF provides IITA with access to advice on species and systems of agroforestry which will help to broaden the Institute’ s approach to the use of woody perennials as components of farming systems in the readily degradablesoils of the lowland tropics of West and Central Africa. IFDC (Regional Office Lome) (International Fertilizer Development Centre) There has been limited formal interaction between IITA and IFDC to date, but the Centres are in regular contact and share a willingness to collaborate as and when opportunities arise. A contributory reason for the reluctance of IFDC to invest in closer relations with IITA has been the apparent but unwarranted perception that the Institute’ s focus is restricted to the needs of resource-poor farmers in the less-endowedregions who use few purchased inputs and sustain low levels of crop production. As the scale-neutral nature of IITA technology and the Institute’ s concern for a balanced approach to subsistenceand input-responsive small-holders become better and more widely appreciated,closer linkages with IFDC Regional Office should develop. IMBAP (International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain) Close contact is maintained with INIBAP through the IITA plantain improvement programrne based at Onne in southeasternNigeria. The programme focus is on plantain but some research involves other starchy bananas. Funds from the Belgium Government pass through INIBAP and are then used to support an IITA research scientist who operates the Tissue Culture Laboratory at Onne. The station also 72 hosts the INIBAP West and Central Regional Coordinator who is given the task of facilitating germplasm collection and exchange and to assist in the coordination of research and dissemination of information dissemination in the region. IITA should maintain close working relations with INIBAP and associatednetworks in order to establish linkages with other banarna/plantain research world-wide, and to acquire and evaluate a broader range of useful germplasm. In turn, INIBAP has much to gain from the innovative hybridization work being undertaken at Onne, which is making excellent progress in transferring black Sigatoka resistanceinto plantain varieties from wild diploid relatives. The environment of Onne appearsconducive to enhanced seed formation (normally a rare event) in several varieties of banana and plantain. With the embryo-culture and rapid multiplication techniques now available in the Tissue Culture Laboratory, the group is in a strong position to supply the INIBAP network with a unique range of banana and plantain germplasm. Problems noted by the Panel include territorial disputes in relation to competition for donor funds to support research on bananalplantainin West Africa despite clear delineation of responsibilities in the Joint Memorandum of Understanding. This antagonism has influenced the free flow of information on funding proposals and the movements of germplasm. Indeed, it may underlie the suggestionsof the INIBAP coordinator that it would be advantageousfor him to move to another location in the region. The Panel urges IITA to resolve these differences with INIBAP, to accept invitations to attend INIBAP Board Meetings when possible, and to preserve and build on the close personal and working relations between scientists from both Institutes based at Onne, which have proved to be an extremely productive partnership. ICIPE (International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology) (See Section 3.7.3.) 6.4. Other Contacts with CGIAR Centres and Non-Associated IARCs IITA interacts with most of the CGIAR and non-associatedCentres. Interactions not mentioned above are listed below along witb the area or discipline of common interest (expansions of acronyms arc given in Annex VIII): * * * * * * ISNAR IFPRI ILCA IBPGR AVRDC IBSRAM NARS research management micro- and macro-economics forage multipurpose trees; crop residues for feed genetic resources soybean acid soil networks functional in Africa 73 6.5. Research Partnerships with Public and Private Advanced Research Institutes During their Review of IITA activities at Ibadan and elsewhere, the Panel has become increasingly aware of the small total number of core scientists and consequently of a lack of critical mass in many of the Institute’ s research programmes. The Panel also notes that IITA research staff can have difficulties in keeping abreast with the latest trends in fields of science where progress is rapid, e.g. in biotechnology. In consequence,external inputs contribute significantly to scientific awarenesswithin the Institute. The Panel recognizes the many “linkages” already established with advanced institutes involve research of direct relevance to IITA objectives. This form of “contract research”enables IITA staff to exploit scientific skills and resourceselsewhere. Unfortunately, the Panel notes that direction and research agenda of linkage arrangementsare seldom controlled by IITA. In these circumstances,the Institute derives little scientific credit. The Panel advises the Institute to: 1. Seek scientific partnerships rather than linkages (paid contracts) with public and private advanced research institutes, and to focus on relatively few strategic research priorities that are central to the research programmes of the Institute. Partnerships in this context imply mutual interest, benefits and credits. The partnerships should be set out as research proposals and specified in detailed workplans, that are time-bound and outputoriented. IITA should expect to play the lead role in seeking and developing such projects, In order to increase the experience and expertise of IITA scientific staff, the Panel encouragesthe exchange of scientists between the partner institutes, for which a line item should be included in project budgets. It is essential that the partners agree beforehand on matters as critical as co-authorship of publications, intellectual property and ownership of research products. IITA and its partners should seek external funding to develop desirable projects. If these funds do not materialize and if the projects ate of central importance to the research thrust, then IITA should consider supporting them from the core budget. IITA should also consider collaboration with the private sector which is emerging as a relatively new and important partner in agricultural development in the more advanced developing countries. In negotiating with the private sector, IITA should use similar criteria as those outlined above; the benefits to the partners however, will be different. IITA may well receive scientific credibility and potential scientific benefits, whereas the private contractor would benefit from any commercialization of the technology emerging from the research project. The Panel suggeststhat IITA and its Board of Trustees carefully consider collaboration with the private sector in Africa and overseas and develop an explicit policy and strategy on this matter. It also urges IITA to formulate an Institute-wide policy and strategy with respect to collaboration with the international scientific community. 2. CHAPTER 7 - VISION OF THE FUTURE 7.1. Achievements and Impact Sub-SaharanAfrica is the only region in the world where per capita food production has declined during the past two decades. In many African countries calorie intake is close to or even below the minimum (WHO) recommendednutritional standard. Many observers now compare Africa’ s food situation to that of Asia twenty-five years ago. At that time Africa had no general food problems. However, the complexity of African farming systems, a very different natural resource base, weak institutions, poor infrastructure and distorted policies make a simple comparison over time uninformative or even misleading. Even then, population growth rates were signalling future pressureson resources and food supplies. The IITA Strategic Plan recognizes the challenge faced by the Institute to orient its research strategy against this background. The impact of IITA research on crop yields in Africa have not been spectacular and too much should not be expected over the next decade. Strong achievementshave been recorded in the body of the Report: resistance to MSV and biological control of CM are prominent amongst them; rice varieties in Nigeria and cassava and sweet potato varieties more widely, have been taken up by farmers; cowpea varieties have been adopted by commercial farmers in Nigeria. In the near future hybrid maize varieties look poised to have a sweeping impact on Nigerian agriculture. Key policy and institutional reforms have opened the door to increased private sector involvement in maize and the technology is available. From Nigeria such varieties could well spread to other countries in the region. Cameroon, Ghana and Zaire are already importing hybrid maize seed from southern Africa. There are several reasonsto hold out modest expectations for the next decade. Many countries of the region still have abundant land and in such circumstances farmers’ demands for yield raising innovations are limited. Stability of yields through combinations of varietal resistance, tolerance to stresses,crop husbandry techniques which improve stability, an acknowledged role of intercropping, and classical biological control which can be provided independent of farmers’ demands have been the most effective outputs from IITA and its NARS partners. Many intensifying technologies have to wait until farmers’ demands become effective as the pressuresof population, or the pull of markets, create the incentive to adopt. To catalyze adoption the Panel has emphasized the importance for IITA to seek out those location where such pressures and pulls are already manifest. In many parts of West and Central Africa land is increasingly scarce; southern and eastern Nigeria, the north-west of Cameroon, much of the coastal belt of West Africa, the Kivu region of Zaire and Rwanda and Burundi are clear examples. Even in many of these places widespread adoption is hampered by poor infrastructure and delivery systems and by the weakness of the extension services. Agricultural research is a necessarybut not a sufficient condition for successful development. A final factor is time. Researchis not an overnight business. Maize research in Zimbabwe began in 1932; in 1952 the cross was made which resulted in SR52, the famous hybrid of African origin. It reached farmers fields in 1960. As a single cross hybrid the seed was expensive and it was not until inorganic fertilizer became commercially readily available to Zimbabwe farmers in the mid-1950’ s that SR52 was able to express its remarkable potential. It took over 25 years from the initiation of research to mass adoption by some of the most sophisticated commercial scale farmers in the world. Donors impatient for final impact in the field and particularly from endeavoursthey each support, need greater awarenessof context and of the time horizons of research. Meanwhile there are also successesat intermediate levels, before farmers fields, and IITA has solid achievements 75 in this area. There are significant scientific contributions in both crop improvement and in the understanding of soil processes. IITA training has had a major impact on building professional strength in the NARS. The twenty-year history of farming systems research has been a learning process which observers have often criticized. It is worth a comment. In 1967, IITA was given a fanning systems mandate by the donors when ‘ farming systems’was a terminology without substance. Identifying a range of roles for farming systems research and establishing methods appropriate to each role has been a twenty-year endeavour. IITA has played a major role in this ‘ research on research’and has helped crystallize an approach now seen as vital to technology adaptation and to feedback to applied research in many NARS. The experience of operating the Working Group concept will provide valuable help for NARS who seek to organize a similar synthesis at the national level. In retreating from farmers’ fields as the sole criteria for evaluating IITA research performance the Panel is not offering an apologia for the Institute. The Panel see the complexity of the mandate, the convoluted path towards a focus on priorities, and the circumstances in many countries of the region as reasons for modest impact. Accumulating experience, strategic planning, and recent measurestaken by management,including the new emphasis on collaboration with the NARS, have placed IITA in a stronger position for innovative science, effective technology development and transfer. 72. The Evolution of IITA’ s Role 7.2.1. Introduction As IITA contemplates the 1990s and beyond the Institute must visualize its future role in the context of a rapidly changing African scene. By the year 2000, sub-SaharanAfrica, it is projected, will have a population of close to 700 million inhabitants, of which Nigeria alone will account for close to 160 million (World Bank projections, 1989). It is debatable whether the current negative trend in per capita food production will continue or will, in fact, be reversed and so break the hunger cycle. 7.2.2. Economic and Policy Framework The continuing and rapid urbanization of sub-SaharanAfrica, it is projected, will result in about 30 cities each with more than one million inhabitants by the year 2020 (World Bank projections, 1989). Urbanization is and will remain a major driving force in the way food is produced and moved from producers to consumers. One consequenceof the population drift to cities is evident in the rapidly growing peri-urban food production systems around major cities, an obvious target for crop intensification. IITA needs to understand and appreciate the broad macroeconomic and policy changes which are underway in sub-SaharanAfrica. It is important to link the microeconomic and technology generation research undertaken at IITA to the changing macroeconomic environment. The sort of technologies needed and their probability of adoption will be closely related to the external economic context in which farmers are forced to operate. This context varies between countries and even from year to year, depending on changes in world economy and on the macroeconomic and policy situation in individual countries. The agricultural economy of West and Central Africa induces changes in farmer demand for technology which need to be anticipated by IITA programme strategy and research focus; 76 soybean production and trade are pertinent examples (see Section 3.4.3.). Market research, which can feed back to IITA programmes by identifying those problems and bottlenecks which might be researchableissues (the demand perspective), is desirable. IITA has no special comparative advantagein this area but can work with universities and institutions in the region or overseas to begin to deal with these complex issues. Market constraints and inefficient marketing systems, and lack of purchasing power in particular, remain major obstacles to increased food production in the poorer countries of the region. A related and further important factor in the evolution of the role played by IITA is the development of private sector supply services for seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and farm implements. These services are an increasing reality in Nigeria, stimulated by the nation’ s structural adjustment programme which includes the devolution of government services to the private sector in agriculture. That sector Alls the gaps in the state’ s distribution and marketing systems, and improved pricing policies provide farmers incentives to adopt new technologies. IITA can then be increasingly assured of receptive clients. 7.2.3. Collaboration with NARS To date, IITA research on mandate crops has been mainly applied and adaptive in focus. The Institute has also emphasizedthe importance of technology transfer to the NARS. Emphasis on urgent problems in food crop production and on the dissemination of knowledge has restricted efforts devoted to basic and strategic research. As the NARS achieve a critical mass of research scientists, augmenting their institutional capacity, they will take over more of the adaptive research needed within the IITA mandate region. This trend will release resources at IITA which can then be invested in basic and strategic research. The traditional role of IITA in the mandate region is therefore expected to change. As the comparative advantage of IITA evolves to more strategic research,the Institute will seek close collaboration with advanced institutions and laboratories overseas (including other CGIAR Centers) to investigate the potential of new research tools. IITA clearly has a comparative advantage to assessthe potential of innovative approachesto the improvement of its mandate crops in Africa and elsewhere. A key element in the future role of IITA will be the relative strength of African NARS within the mandate region. The majority of NARS are not yet able to mobilize a critical mass of scientists. Many function under very difficult circumstances, constrained by a lack of operating funds. The building of strong NARS is a slow, evolutionary, incremental process which must be seen in terms of decadesrather than years. The Institute is emphasizing in its training activities the “training of trainers” and incountry group courses. The demand for training is expected to double over the next twenty years. Training will therefore remain a prominent activity within IITA. The devolving of group courses to the NARS would lessen the pressureson training facilities at Ibadan but would not necessarily imply reduced financial commitments on the pan of IITA. The same caveat applies in relation to the organization and managementof collaborative research networks. IITA is keen to devolve responsibility for networks to the NARS but a consensuswill need to emerge on their location and mode of operation. It is unlikely that networks could operate successfully without donor support at least throughout the next decade. Institutional mechanisms which link NARS in a regional framework have yet to be developed. This contrasts to Southern Africa where SACCAR assumesthis role. Linguistic boundaries frustrate cooperation within the IITA mandate region. 77 7.2.4. The Development of Prototvpe Systems The development of prototype systems for managing soil fertility is an important and sound research approach. It is, however, only one stage of a two-stage process. The evolutionary process of attracting farmers to abandon their existing shifting fallow systems in favour of improved systems is the second, equally crucial stage. There is overwhelming evidence that farmers move from their traditional systems by incremental steps. The size of those steps is dictated by several circumstances: the resources farmers have available to invest in the change proposed; the risks they are prepared to face in changing from a system which supports them and gives them the foods they prefer; and their managementcapabilities. The millions of smallholders are limited in the degree of change they will absorb at any one time. Innovations are tried, often one by one, and initially usually on a small scale. Given this well known evolutionary process, once effective prototype systems for sustainable production are identified and understood, there is then a need to disaggregatethem into components which farmers can then absorb in incremental steps. Sequencing the introduction of the components of disaggregatedsystems depends on the particular situation in each local farming system. The sequencefor introducing prototype components must be tailored to those systems by adaptive research. This is mainly a task for the NARS. Anticipating the development of sustainable alternatives to shifting cultivation, efforts are needed now to build NARS capacity to work with local farming systems. Those efforts will aim to identify sequencesof components of sustainable systems attractive to the farmers who must operate them. 7.2.5. Bridging Gaps Any institution has difficulty in reacting to the uncoordinated demands of its clients. Each of the 24 countries of the IITA mandate area, and each of those 45 countries of subSaharan Africa, has particular needs. Against this backcloth, a regional grouping of NARS, which agrees priorities common to their region, representsa much more powerful and coordinated demand to drive research programmes at IITA. International Cooperation at the Institute should take the initiative in working towards regional groupings of countries, seeking to create an effective interface between the NARS and IITA for deciding research priorities. This will be neither a rapid nor an easy development; it is, nevertheless, an important one for both partners. One of the fundamental challenges to IITA is to maintain the balance between, on the one hand, improving the yield potential and stability of mandate crops and, on the other, improving the managementof resourcesto realize that potential whilst maintaining and sustaining the soil resource base as usage of land intensifies. The bridging of the current yield gap between, on the one hand, on-station research plots and, on the other, farmers’ fields is a formidable challenge to all those concerned with increasing agricultural productivity and food production. 73. The Future Scale of IITA’ s Activities One of the most difficult problems which faces the CGIAR and the Centres is how to the define and quantify the scale of priority research activities. What are the critical investments in human and physical resourcesnecessary to undertake a given research activity, and how do 78 these quantities relate to the complexity of problems, the time required to solve them, and the probability of success? Integrated across priority activities, together with the cost of necessary support staff and facilities, these investments show the scale of commitments estimated for the research efforts and the duration of those commitments. The Panel has been asked with respect to IITA “What is the appropriate scale for the Institute’ s activities, both at headquartersand in its collaborative programmes? What level of funding is necessaryto support those activities which the Institute considers “essential”? These questions will need to be addressedby all Centres within CGIAR. They stem from concern for the slackening in support for agricultural research, in both the developed and developing world, coupled with increasing demands on the resourcesof the CGIAR System and on the services of the Centres themselves. The question of scale relates to the returns to investment in research activities, the critical mass of scientists required, together with equipment and support staff necessaryto undertake priority tasks. Other factors include marginal efficiency criteria which relate to the additional returns to incremental investment, and factors such as spillover that provide benefits tc other clients located in agroecological zones similar to that where the research was done, and even beyond. The objective is to specify research,activities that are appropriate for a particular region and commodity and to assesslikely productivity gains from changes in research resource allocations. The Centres need to adopt a more quantitative approach to the setting of research priorities for individual commodities and natural resourcesissues. These priorities should be specified for agroclimatic zones and major research domains. They should capture the equity or distributive effects between producers and consumers and any growth-equity trade-offs as may be achieved by changing priorities. Congruencemodels are available, but the more quantitative approach of Davis et al. (Davis, J.S., Oram, P.A. and Ryan, J.G. - Assessmentof Agricultural Research Priorities.ACIAR-IFPRI, 1987), which is now being evaluated by TAC, appears to be more informative and applicable to the range of CGIAR commodities and some resource issues. Information is needed to help Centres within CGIAR focus on the most important research objectives and to be aware of the consequencesof those decisions. There are numerous problems to address. Centres must be selective. They must do fewer things, for which they have comparative advantage,but do them well. The focus of IITA research has narrowed dramatically over the last twenty years, supporting this view. The Panel believes that within the IITA current research programmes, there remains room for further focus leading to critical massesof scientists working on top priority objectives. Aggregating these projects and programmes selectively to constitute what is known within CGIAR as the “essential” budget presents a further dilemma for Centres. The essential (core) budget is the minimum input necessaryto carry out the most important tasks of a mandate. It is defined in programmatic tems, but allocated as a budget. It is needed in order to project a realistic growth profile for the collective budgets of the CGIAR Centres as expressed in their respective MTP. It is also needed so that donors may appreciate future commitments, and provides a more equitable and transparent basis for adjusting the budgets of Centres when faced with problems of underfunding. Furthermore, it represents a necessaryprecondition to enable Centres to grow by adding activities that are both dependent on, contingent with and complementary to the existing programme. 79 The Panelhas no intentionof defining essentialcore budgetfor IITA. It is confounded by the expense of maintainingthe facilities and operations at Ibadanand it is a task that only IITA can undertake. The Panelsuggests that IITA shouldincreaseits in-housecapacityto undertake planningand priority settingto enhance the decision-making processin the Institute. 80 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Chairman and Members of the Panel greatly appreciate the very willing cooperation they received from IITA staff members at Ibadan and elsewhere, and from collaborating scientists in Cameroon, Nigeria, Benin and Ghana. Our discussions were always open and sometimes they were heated, but were conducted in the best of spirits at all times. The Panel is grateful to the Director General and to managementas a whole, for their willingness to accommodate our requests for informal discussion and for meetings. The logistics of the country travel, often requiring adjustment at the last minute, were handled admirably. We had little time for social activities but thoroughly enjoyed the hospitality offered to us whenever the opportunity arose. We thank the manager and staff of International House for looking after us so well. We are especially thankful to Ms. Adriana Pierconti and Ms. Marioara Lantini for their willing and efficient assistanceat all stages in the preparation of the Report. 81 EXTERNAL MANAGEMENT SUMMARY: REVIEW OF IITA AN OVERVIEW EXECUTIVE 83 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: AN OVERVIEW IITA is to be congratulated for the resolution with which it has faced many management problems over the six years since the EMR panel reported in 1983. A new Director General came into office to be challenged by imperative needs to resolve serious financial difficulties, to institute new financial processesand to lower costs in part by reductions in the number of international staff. Cost savings on staffing both international and national have pushed human resource and financial issues up the agenda. All of this has meant that the revision of the nature and quality of the research program has not quite been at the center of the stage as had been intended. Nevertheless a valuable strategic plan has been produced which evaluates the ways in which IITA can contribute to the improvement of tropical agriculture in Africa over the decade of the 1990s. From this an action plan, the IITA Medium-Term Plan 1989-93, has been derived. An Institute that can succeed in all of this in half a decade must be in good shape, so that any anxieties that emerge from the EMR study must be seen against a background of major achievement. The Board members have learnt to work well together and with the DG over the last five years. There are all the necessaryBoard processesand organization in place, including an effective Audit Committee as recommendedin the last EMR report. However, we have suggestedthe Board should consider a realignment of the responsibilities of the Audit and Executive Committees. The Audit Committee should be essentially looking at the past and present in the form of audit, investment and financial statements while the Executive Committee should be looking forward at the Budget and Financial Policies. In other matters there would be benefit to the Institution if Board members are able to interact more frequently on a one to one basis with scientists. In top management,Dr. Stifel has set in place a team of three Deputy Directors General and a Director of Human Resources who report to him. The occupants of these posts have all been appointed in the last three years as has the Director of Budget and Finance. They are all talented individuals whose benefits to the Institute are already being felt. However, there is some anxiety that managementmay be excessively “top down” and some move to draw creative ideas from the many able young people elsewhere in the Institute would be good for both the top and the bottom of the pyramid. The EMR and the EPR panels together studied the managementof research. It is proposed that a move should be made more closely to integrate research activities that are at present more or less isolated. The managementconsequenceof the change proposed would bring research leadership closer to the active scientists and establish a system of project managementin which the collaborative participants in a project may be drawn from any part of the research organization. Projects would be dynamic, have limited duration and evaluation points. They would be budgeted as now but at present each project has only one scientist who works within the framework of a single program. A process of budget formulation would need to be developed, if this recommendation is effected, which will enable budgets to be produced between activities which had previously been organizationally separated. A Further benefit from this proposal would be greatly to reduce the load on the Deputy Director General for Research, removing from him administrative minutiae to free him for more strategic thinking and planning. The panel was impressed by the way that IITA relates to a range of agencies, governmental, administrative and scientific. It is well set and appreciated in Nigeria and has excellent relations with the Federal Military Government of Nigeria with which it has recently negotiated a headquartersagreement. When gazetted this will accord diplomatic privileges to IITA. IITA’ s links are good with the NARS of the sub-region of Africa which it principally exists to serve. However, we believe that the managementof IITA’ s International Cooperation 84 Program should be reviewed to assessits efficiency so that improvements can be made if needed. IITA appears to have no difficulty in working with other IARCs but joint work with ICIPE has not been successful Human resource managementhas made great strides forward since 1987 setting in motion assessments of staff to which rewards are linked. The regulations have been codified that apply to employment as an international staff member. A major move was the identification of the categories of professional staff who could be recruited in Nigeria on naira salaries and the establishment of compensation packages that would enable high calibre people to be attracted. The panel considers that the systematic evaluation of scientific staff should be given priority by management,science leaders and the Human Resources Department. It recognizes the difficulties of this task but is aware that such difficulties have been overcome in many science-basedindustrial corporations where there is often not even the evidence that can be drawn from the quality and quantity of scientific papers published in refereed journals. To improve the managementof science as well as management itself, scientists and managers need to be educated in managementmethods to a greater extent. Although the residence time of international staff in IITA is quite low at present (66% have been on the staff for only five years or less) the EMR panel is concerned that this might change and that systems should be in place to encourage staff renewal. Therefore it advocates the use of fixed term contracts. Great efforts have been made by IITA to develop a Financial Information System (FIS) which will be associatedwith budget formulation and program management. Now that FIS is in place and it is associatedwith payroll, internal auditing and inventories, attention must be paid to improving the process of information gathering by streamlining procedures and paring down so that only those details are accessedthat are relevant to management and to decision making. The analysis of the information must be organized to report information that is helpful to management at all levels and so that the Board can be kept in touch. For this whole process must be accelerated as much as possible. Management Services are responsible, among many others, for an activity on which the IITA research base and the IITA township depends. These are marshalled under a directorate called Physical Plant Services: the Director reports to the DDG(M). There are eight service managers covering work as different as thait concerned with servicing the car fleet or that of monitoring the high voltage supply and its step-down transformation as well as the generators that regularly provide a total standby coverage. Changes in the managementof this service are being considered and may well be necessary. We believe in contemplating any change, however, the overriding need is the continuing and efficient provision of essential services. The Deputy Director General (Management) also has responsibility for Communication Services and many readers of this report wii have experienced the difficulty of easily making contact with people in Ibadan. The purchase of a satellite dish is proposed and this panel considers that this is so important that it shlould be done urgently. The Information function is rather 11ow key in IITA. As the managementis aware policies for Library Services and for Publications are necessary. When they have been framed it will be possible to assesswhether the cramped space now used should be extended. If this were to be so we believe it could be provided by rational reallocations of space in buildings the functions of which will have changed if there are revisions of other responsibilities as advocated in this and the EPR Reports. The responsibility of IITA’ s managementis to produce good results from research. If such results are achieved it would not be possible to argue that the management was inadequate 85 although it might be argued that it was too costly. The reader is directed to the EPR Report for an assessmentof science; EMR Report Table 7.4 shows that General Administration cost $3.9 million in 1985, $3.1 million in 1988 and an estimated $4.0 million in 1989. Table 7.3 records that research,training and information took 60% of funds in 1985, 55% in 1988 and an estimated 69% in 1989. If the final figure is confirmed it will be a welcome resurgencein what is the true operational output of the Institute. We conclude that the managementof IITA is still undergoing change and improvement and that the CGIAR should encouragethe continuation of this process. No major anxiety about the managementhas been raised in our minds during the course of this review. If the recommendationsmade in this report are brought into effect there would be 3 fewer Directors at IITA than now. We have made no recommendationsfor major capital equipment or buildings. These recommendationsshould strengthen the direction IITA has taken so far in improving the cost-efficiency of the Institution. This will provide the new Director General a good base to undertake the next real challenge of improving the science. ANNEX I COMPOSITION OF THE EXTERNAL REVIEW PANELS A. External Programme Review Panel Chairman Dr. James R. McWiIliam c/o Commonwealth Scientfic and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Box 225 - Dickson Canberra A.C.T. 2602 Australia Members Dr. Ir. Orlando M.B. de Ponti Director Research Institute for Plant Protection (IPO) P.O. Box 9060, Binnenhaven 12 6700 GW Wageningen, Netherlands Dr. Samuel C. Muchena Deputy Secretary Professional & Technical Services Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement Harare, Zimbabwe Dr. Henry K. Mwandemere Soil Science Department North Carolina State University P.O. Box 7619 Raleigh, NC 276957619 USA CGIAR Secretariat Dr. Michael P. Collinson Scientific Advisor CGIAR Secretariat World Bank - 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 USA Dr. Rodney J. Summerfield University of Reading Department of Agriculture Plant Environment Laboratory Shinfield Grange, Cutbush Lane Reading, Berkshire RG29AD, UK Dr. Eric Tollens Faculty of Agricultural Sciences Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Kardinaal Mercierlaan 92 B-3030 Leuven, Belgium Annex 1 - Page 2 B. External Management Review Panel Chairman Sir Ralph Riley 16 Gog Magog Way Stapleford, Cambridge CB2 5BQ United Kingdom Members Dr. Raymond J. Audet Vice-President International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Box 8500 Ottawa, Canada KlG 3H9 Dr. Paramjit S. Sachdeva Consultant Population and Health Division World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 USA CGIAR Secretariat Mr. Ravindra Tadvalkar Senior Financial Officer CGIAR Secretariat World Bank, 1818 H Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 USA ANNEX H TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR EXTERNAL PROGRAMME REVIEW PANELS 1. BACKGROUND The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has charged its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) with the responsibility of conducting External Programme Reviews (EPRs) of those International Agricultural Research Centres (Centres) that it supports financially. Through its support of these Centres, the CGIAR seeks to contribute to increasing sustainable food production in developing countries in ways that improve the nutritional level and general economic well-being of low-income people. The purpose of external programme reviews is to ensure the continued relevance of the Centre’ s programmes and strategies to the goals of the CGIAR, and the quality and cost-effectiveness of the work in order to reinforce accountability. EPRs are also essential components in the CGIAR’ s integrated planning process. The context in which EPRs are undertaken is to be found in the document “Review Processes in the CGIAR”. TAC normally discharges its responsibility for EPRs by commissioning a panel to conduct the review and to submit a report for consideration and comment by TAC before it is transmitted to the CGIAR. TAC does not delegate its responsibility for reviews to the panel, but employs a pane1 to facilitate the review process. While TAC and the CGIAR normally endorse the panel’ s main recommendations, such endorsement should not be presumed by either the panel or the Centre under review. 2. THE REVIEW Against this background, the- panel is requested to make a thorough and independent appraisal of the Centre and all its activities, following the broad topics below and the appended list of questions. (a) Mandate The continuing appropriateness of the Centre’ s operational mandate in relation to the goal and objectives of the CGIAR. (b) Strategv and Programmes The policies and strategies of the Centre, their coherence with CGIAR strategies, and the mechanisms used for monitoring and revising them. The extent to which the Centre’ s strategy has been successfully implemented in its current programmes; the rationale for any proposed changes and their implications for future activities. Annex II - Page 2 Programme Organization and Management (EPR and EMR) The mechanisms in place at the Centre to ensure the excellence of the programmes and the cost-effective use of resources. The adequacy of the organizational structure, and the mechanisms in use by the Centre to manage and coordinate its research programmes and related activities. Resources and Facilities The level of resources available to the Centre in relation to its present and future programmes. The land, laboratories and services available for supporting the programmes. Relationships with Other Institutions The Centre’ s relationships with national agricultural research systems in developing countries. Collaboration with advanced institutions in research and training, in both the public and private sectors. Collaboration with other CGIAR Centres, and undesirable overlap of activities. Impact The Centre’ s contributions to the goal and objectives of the CGIAR and methods of assessing them. Recent achievements of the Centre in research and training and their potential for future impact. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS The panel is requested to prepare a succinct report in plain language (to facilitate its understanding by non-technical readers), in which factual material is kept to the minimum necessary to set the conclusions in context. The report should include clear endorsements of the Centre’ s activities where appropriate, as well as recommendations and suggestions for changes. The recommendations should be justified by the analysis, agreed upon by the panel and the text of the whole report completed before the panel disperses. Recommendations for increases in staff or activities should be accompanied by an analysis of their resource implications. The report should be formally transmitted to the Chairman of TAC by the chairman of the panel. Annex II - Page 3 QUESTIONS 1. Questions Am&able to All or Most Centres 1.1. Previous review . To what extent has the Centre responded to the ultimate outcome of the previous external review? 1.2. Stratenv and programmes . Within the context of the CGIAR, does the strategic plan provide a sound basis for defining the Centre’ s research priorities? Are the national authorities satisfied with the Centre’ s strategy and did they have adequate opportunity to contribute to its formulation? Does the Centre’ s strategy take sufficiently into account the determinants of sustainable food production and the alleviation of poverty? What mechanisms does the Centre have to ensure equal recognition of the role of men and women in agricultural research and access to its products? To what extent does the need to demonstrate impact distort the Centre’ s strategy and its research priorities? What consideration has the Centre given to the future nature and scale of its activities in relation to the growing strengths of national research systems? In relation to the efficient use of national and international resources, does the Centre give appropriate attention to post-harvest losses and effective utilization of its mandated commodities? Has the Centre made adequate provisions from its core funds for work on genetic resources? How effectively is this work exploited for the benefit of developing countries? w . . . . . M 1.3. Programme organization and management (EPR and EMRl . . Is there a need for greater decentralization of the research programmes? How effective has the Centre been in exploiting the concept of “critical mass”, both at headquarters and in the regions? Is the balance of capabilities appropriate for the aims of the research? Has the Centre developed an organizational structure suited to good programme performance ? What coordination mechanisms are in place? B . Annex II - Page 4 Are these effective? Are there alternative structures that could serve the Centre better in future in the light of the Centre’ s programme strategy? How are the regional programme staff linked to the headquarters? m How effective is the strategic planning process used by the Centre? What processes does the Centre have in place to ensure that feedback from research in the region(s) influences the formulation of its central programmes? How effective is operational planning ? How well is programme planning linked to budgeting? What monitoring and review systems are in place? Are these effective? To what extent is the peer review mechanism used by the Centre? Do the qualifications of the international research staff match those expected for staff at this level ? To what extent have the research staff published in refereed journals during the last five years? What are the panels’ views on the effectiveness of the management of individual programmes and the needs for improvement? B - B m - - 1.4. Resources and facilities - Are the overall resources available to the Centre generally appropriate? Is there a case for increasing them ? Could they be reduced without seriously affecting the Centre’ s potential for impact? If the Centre had to face budgetary constraints resulting in no further growth for the next five years, what activities should be accorded highest priority? Does the proportion of the Centre’ s budget received as restricted funding distort the priorities accorded to its various activities? - w 1.5. Relationships with other institutions - How successful is the Centre’ s lstrategy for collaboration with national research systems, especially in relation to their different sizes and stages of development? Has the Centre an active policy of sharing international responsibilities with them? How does the Centre ensure that collaborative activities with its host country remain in balance with other demands on its resources? Does the Centre have adequate strategies for keeping abreast of new opportunities in research, arising from the advancing frontiers of science and technology? - m Annex II - Page 5 1.6. Impact s What benefits have developing countries derived from the Centre’ s research programmes during the period under review? What potential benefits are in the pipeline? How successful has the Centre’ s training programme been in responding to the needs of the countries it serves? Do the Centre’ s information services adequately fulfill the most important needs of national agricultural research systems with respect to both content and language? List of Questions Specific to IITA How effective are the relations with CIAT on cassava, CIP on sweet potato, and IRRBWARDA on rice? What is the status of banana and plantain research at IITA? actual and perceived role of INIBAP? What is the m m 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. IIow effective has been the IITA resident scientists programme? How many staff have been involved and where are they posted? IITA has significantly narrowed its commodity and agroecological focus. Has this substantially increased its effectiveness and potential impact? What would be the future of the biological control facility in Benin in the event that the CGIAR were to be expanded to include ICIPE? How many of the results obtained by IITA have been actually incorporated into the farmers’ activities? How good is the transfer of technology developed by IITA to farmers? How efficient has been the production of improved genetic material (seeds and clones), to be available to farmers? Could the Review look at the actual mechanisms and output of IITA linkages on collaborative research with higher scientific institutions in developing and developed countries? Please ask the Review to assess and give a view on why the programme currently being conducted by IITA has needed, even with Africa’ s high profile in donor agencies to attract between 20% and 25% (1988) World Bank contribution - the highest in the System. Would the Review please consider (1) the propriety and (2) the costs administratively of IITA becoming involved in handling donor monies for Task Force activities (or for that matter in being a useful donor handler of biocontrol funds at little cost to donors). 10. 11. Annex II - Page 6 12. The savannah of West Africa is becoming an increasingly important ecology for food production and will likely be the bread basket for many of the countries in the region for maize and legumes. We know that IITA breeders are actively working in the savannah ecologies but to what degree is IITA addressing the crop management issues related to sustainability of production in the region ? There are few if any agronomists in the commodity improvement programmes; agronomists are located in the Resource and Crop Management Programme (RCMP) and intended to interface with the commodity research teams. To what degree is this mechanism working ? And why should there not be agronomists in the crop improvement research teams? Are the commodity research programmes adequately staffed to meet the objectives? Numerous posts, many for economists have been established in the RCMP. How does the expected output from the economic studies compare with the opportunity costs of strengthening the applied crop research programs.3 Is the balance between economists and scientists in other disciplines correct to maximize the impact of IITA on crop production? The biological control research facility is situated in Benin and it has four biocontrol entomologists. Expansion is planned to cover other crops with more entomologists and even with plant pathologists. Since these disciplines are inadequately covered in IITA’ s Ibadan based interdisciplinary crop research programmes, should not consideration be given to strengthening those teams first ? Creating basic entomology and plant pathology research separated geographically and administratively from the Ibadan based multidisciplinary crop research/improvement programmes would seem to be counter productive. To what degree and how will these new staff members be linked to the commodity improvement programmes? Evaluate the current working relationship between IITA and CIMMYT, make specific reference to the status of collaboration in Zimbabwe, and in Cote d’ Ivoire as well as at IITA itself. How will research on commodlities like cocoyam, taro, cowpea, soybean, etc. be maintained, when IITA narrows its focus, concentration on other commodities? Are tuber crops in general given sufficient importance in view of their basic role in food production systems of the humid tropics? Is the possible role of soybean;in African cropping systems sufficiently taken into account in the research programme? What has been the result of tlhe transfer of responsibility for rice in West Africa to WARDA? Is the transfer and integration proceeding as planned? Will WARDA be alble to make effective use of IITA’ s existing rice research facilities in developing its programme? Is IITA giving enough attention to the measurement of impact on sustainability in developing its resource management programme? How does HTA measure the impact of its research work? Are cost-benefit analysis on a macro- or micra+economic level being executed? 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Annex II - Page 7 20. On the regional liaison scientists: What steps are envisaged to ensure their close links to the headquarters research programmes? What will be the interface between the DDG for International Cooperation and the research programmes? Evaluate IITA’ s networking role in the region and its interactions with CORAF and SAFGRAD also heavily involved in networks. Can the Panel evaluate whether the Resource Management Research Programme is strong enough in soil science to make an impression on the sustainability issue in the mandate area? Can the Panel assess whether alley cropping is being evaluated at enough sites and data is being systematically collected and collated and analyzed to allow the effective transfer of alley cropping techniques to a wide range of farm situations. Is sufficient attention being paid to research on sustainability using nonwoody legumes? Sweet potato: How are the relations to AVRDC? How can duplication of research at IITA and CIP be avoided, e.g. on crop diseases like sweet potato weevil? Will the regional mandate for sweet potato remain with IITA? What will happen to the sweet potato germplasm collection at IITA? mva: How do IITA’ s regional mandate and CIAT’ s global mandate on cassava complement one another? Alley cropping: It has been seen that one of the bottlenecks for alley farming is seed production of the tree species How will IITA and ICRAF collaborate on this issues? Banana/plantain: In which way does IITA collaborate with CATIE’ s banana/plantain research programme? What future collaboration is intended? Does the relative role of banana/plantain research at IITA reflect its real importance as subsistence food crop? Is the emphasis on hybrid maize compatible with the revised focus of IITA’ s strategy? How effectively will IITA maintain its cropping systems research focus while reducing the number of mandate crops? Are there any impacts of the cropping systems based working groups on breeding strategies? How do the achievements of the cropping systems based working groups compare to their strategies and concepts? How is the collaboration with NARS in cropping systems research? How successful have new genotypes of IITA’ s mandate crops been in other parts of the world? How will IITA be able to safeguard the genetic resources of its mandate crops? What are the mechanisms for the exchange of genetic resources of 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Annex II - Page 8 IITA’ s mandate crops and other tropical tuber crops? To which extent does exchange of genetic material with other institutions take place? 34. How can characterization and evaluation of germplasm be improved for crops which do not belong to IITA’ s mandate? What is the specific demand for germplasm of these crops? How is the establishment of new research stations (Cameroon, Northern Nigeria, Ivory Coast) embedded into the concept of strengthening NARS? What is the strategic role of these stations in the research plans of scientists and programmes? Which parts of IITA’ s research programme can be transferred to NARS in the future? Which mechanisms are envisaged for such transfer? How is the acceptance of new ,varieties in the diet of IITA’ s target group? Does IITA have a strategy for improving the nutrition of its target group? How does IITA take changes in its socio-economic environment into account, e.g. the growing percentage of urban population or the growing number of Nigerian great land owners? How does it define its target groups/beneficiaries in view of these changes? 35. 36. 37. 38. ANNEX III DOCUMENTATION FOR REVIEW PANEL k m Documentation Provided by TAC Secretariat CGIAR Priorities and Future Strategies, 1987 Terms of Reference for External Programme Review Panels Guidelines for External Programme Review Panels List of Specific Questions related to DTA Report of the Second External Programme Review of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Extracts from the Reports of the 44th, 45th, 46th, 47th and 48th Meetings of TAC Review Processes in the CGIAR System. August 1988 Support by the CGIAR for Work on Plant Genetic Resources: Operational and Technical Issues and Their Policy Implications (AGWTAC:IAR/88/4 Sup.l), 1988 m B e m m s m The Role of Biotechnology in the CGIAR (AGR/TAC:IAR/88/19 1988 CGIAR Policy on Plant Genetic Resources, 1989 Sustainable Agricultural Production: Agricultural Research, 1989 Rev.l), s m Implications for International B. Documentation Provided by IITA (1) s Reports of Meetings CGIAR Task Force on sub-Saharan Africa: Research Needs for Maize and Cassava in Coastal West and Central Africa. Ibadan, September 1988 CGIAR Task Force on sub-Saharan Africa: Strengthening Maize and Cassava Research in Eleven Countries of Coastal West and Central Africa. Action Plan. Minutes of a Meeting of National Agricultural Research Systems Directors to Consider the Modalities for the Implementation of the Plan of Action. Ibadan, June 1989 CORAF - IITA - SAFGRAD Harmonization Meeting on Maize and Cassava Networks in West and Central Africa. Ibadan, June 1988 s w Annex III - Page 2 I Proceedings of the Workshop on the Establishment of the SAFGRAD Cowpea Research Network in Centrai and Western Africa. Ouagadougou, March 1987 Proceedings of the Workshop on the Establishment of the SAFGRAD Maize Research Network in Centrai and Western Africa. Ouagadougou, March 1987 Report of the Meeting of Senior Officers Responsible for Agricultural Research in West and Central Africa. Ibadan, January 1988 Meeting of the Directors of Nigerian Agricultural Research Institutes with IITA. Ibadan, June 1988 Summary Report of the Inaugural Conference of the Alley Farming Network for Tropical Africa (AFNETA), 1-3 August, 1989. Ibadan, 1989 Report of a Meeting of African Research Institutions on the Use of Biotechnology for the Improvement of Cassava, Yams and Plantain in Africa. Ibadan, August 1988 Report of the HTMCRISAT/IDRC Workshop Entitled “Combating Striga in Africa: Opportunities for Research Collaboration”. Ibadan, August 1988 Recommendations of the 1988 Ibadan and Nairobi Workshops on African Plant Genetic Resources. Ibadan, 1989 Draft Report of the First HTA Strategic Study Meeting on Post-Harvest Research, June 1989. Ibadan, 1989 Planning and Coordination Meeting for Biological Control of the Larger Grain Borer, Prostephanus truncatus. Cotonou, June 1989 m - - - * - - B m (2) - Reviews Report of the Internal Review of the Grain Legumes Improvement Program. Ibadan, August 1988 Report of the Internal Review of the Roots, Tubers and Plantains Program. Ibadan, August 1988 w Report of the Internal Review of the Maize Research Program. Ibadan, August 1989 Report of the Internal Review of the Resource and Crop Management Program. Ibadan, August 1989 Mid-Term Review of the Africa-wide Biological Control Program. Ibadan, May 1987 m e Annex HI - Page 3 (3) v Consultants’ Reports Training at HTA: An Analysis of Issues and Possible Actions. Consultant’ s report. Ibadan, October 1987 Report of the Expert Advisory Committee to the Sponsoring Group for the Africa-wide Project for Biological Control of Cassava Pests. Ibadan, July 1987 Report of the Expert Advisory Committee on Biological Control, Cotonou, December 1988 Impressions of the Cameroon National Root Crops Improvement Program. A.H. Bunting. Ngaoundere, September 1989 (4) m s m m AnnuaJ Reports Annual Report of the Grain Legumes Improvement Program, 1987. Ibadan, 1989 Annual Report of the Resource and Crop Management Program, 1987. Ibadan, 1989 Annual Report of the Rice Research Programme, 1986. Ibadan, 1988 Annual Report of the Maize Research Program, 1986. Ibadan, 1988 w m .. Annual Report of the Root and Tuber Improvement Program, 1986. Ibadan, 1988 Annual Report of the Biological Control Program, 1986. Ibadan, 1988 Annual Report of the Virology Unit, 1986. Ibadan, 1988 Annuai Report of the Genetic Resources Unit, 1987. Ibadan, 1989 Annual Report of the International Cooperation and Training Program, 1987. Ibadan, 1989 s m . s Q m s w . s Other Documents HTA Strategic Plan 1989-2000. Ibadan, 1988 HTA Medium-Term Plan 1989-1993. Ibadan, Revised 1989 HTA Annual Report and Research Highlights, 1987188. Ibadan, 1988 HTA Annual Report and Research Highlights, 1988/89. IBadan, 1989 HTA Responses to the Recommendations of the 1983 External Program Review. IBadan, November 1989 Annex ID - Page 4 v Evolution of the Mandate and Program of IITA from the 1960 to 1990. With appendices. Ibadan, November 1989 IITA’ s Funding Proposal 1990. Presented to the CGIAR Ibadan, October 1989 in October 1989. - IITA’ s Research Goals and Achievements: A Case Study in the Transition Zone. Ibadan, December 1989 Analysis of the Main Achievements and Impact of International Cooperation and Training, 1984-1989. Ibadan, December 1989 IITA’ s Agreements with Other Centers and Institutions on Cooperative Activities. Ibadan, November 1989 The International Cooperation and Training Program: Projects (Special Projects). Ibadan, November 1989 List of Extra-Core m s w m International Cooperation and Training Program: The Medium-Term Plan and its Present Stage of Implementation. Ibadan, November 1989 Background Paper Prepared for the Strategic Review of the Training Program at IITA. Ibadan, 1986 Biological Control Program. Description and Budget for the Five Years 19881992. Ibadan, Revised August 1989 ANNEX IV PROGRAMME OF EPR PANEL COUNTRY VISITS AND PEOPLE MET IITA Headquarters, Ibadan, 4-8 December 1989 Drs. J.R. McWilliam, O.M.B. de Ponti, S.C. Muchena, H.K. Mwandemere, E. Tollens and M. Collinson attend the Meetings of Board of Trustees, and Executive, Audit and Programme Committees Panel meets with IITA Director-General, Management, Board of Trustees, Regional Staff, Department Heads, Representatives of National Research Systems w Joint meetings EPR and EMR Panels Cameroon. 22 - 25 January 1990 (Drs. McWilliam, De Ponti, Muchena, Mwandemere, Summerfield, & Tollens) B. Mondav, 22 January P.M. All Panel Members arrive in Douala - IITA: J.P. Eckebil - National Cereals Research and Extension Praiect (NCRE): E. Atayi, Chief of Party; T. Stilwell, Deputy Chief of Party; S. Almy, SocioEcon.; D. Baker, Agric. Econ.; V. Balasubramanian, Maize Agronomist; J. Cross, Admin. Officer; L. Everett, Maize Breeder; M.P. Jones, Rice Breeder; J. Kikafunda-Twine, Maize Agronomist; D. McHugh, Agricultural Economist; Dr. John Poku, Extension Agronomist; A. Roy, Rice Agronomist; T. Woldetatios, Extension Agronomist National Counterparts: Asanga, Entomologist; J.A. Ayuk-Takem, Maize Breeder; M. Besong, Agric. Economist; J. Fokou, Rice Agronomist; F. Jeutong, Rice Breeder; - Roots and Tubers: J. Abaka-Whyte, Breeder/Project Leader; M. Akoroda, Agronomist; B. Ambe, IRA Tuesdav, 23 January A.M. Visit of the Rice Research Unit of IRA/NCRB at Santchou-Mbo Plain and a rice development project (SODERIM) Meeting with J.B. Yonke, Director General and staff Annex IV - Page 2 Tuesdav, 23 Januarv (c0nt.d) P.M. Visit of IRA Station at Njombe Meeting with IRA/CNR CIP staff (root and tuber crops and IITA trainees) Visit to a farmer’ s field and research plots Wednesdav, 24 January A.M. Courtesy call on the Governor of Southwest Province at Buea Visit of IRA Station at Ekona and TLU Meeting with staff of NCRE/TLU team and IITA trainees Meeting of ROTREP project (Chairpersons only) S. Lyonga, Director IRA Roots & Tubers; A. Tumante, Chief, Food Crops P.M. Travel by car to Yaounde via Douala Thursdas, 25 January A.M. Meeting with IITA Director, IITA Researchers, their national counterparts and IITA trainees Courtesy call on Minister of MESIRES and Minister of Agriculture (Chairpersons only) P.M. Continuation - visit of IRA ffacilities at N’ kolbisson Courtesy call on USAID Mission Director (Chairpersons only) Friday, 26 January A.M. P.M. Meeting with IITA Researchers and their national counterparts continue All Panel Members depart for Kano, Nigeria by chartered plane Nigeria, 27 - 30 January 1990 Saturday, 27 January IITA: A.M. KS. Fisher and S.R. Singh Meeting with IITA Kano sub-station staff; visit of IITA and IAR offices and lab facilities - P.Q. Craufurd, W.C. Mayaki, B.R. Ntare, B.B. Singh Visit to IITA research facilities at Minjibir Annex IV - Page 3 Saturdas, 27 Januarv (cont.dl P.M. Discussion with the Managing Director, KNARDA, and other senior officers Discussion with the Commissioner of Agriculture and other senior officers of Ministry of Agriculture Sundav, 28 Januarv Visit of ICRISAT Officer at Kano, lab ,and field facilities at Kadawa, and Baguada - Discussions with scientists Mondav, 29 January A.M. Institute for Agricultural Research, Samaru, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria Discussions with: Dr. J. Yayock, Director, Prof. Olugbemi, Deputy Director, Dr. J.O. Olukosi, and Prof. A. Emechebe Panel travels by car from Kano to HTA Ibadan P.M. Tuesdav, 30 JanuaryPanel travels from Ihadan to Cotonou, Benin by car Benin, 30 Januarv - 1 February 1990 Tuesdav, 30 Januarv A.M. P.M. Arrival EPR Team Visit to IITA-Benin Station Hans Herren, Director, HTA Biocontrol Programme Marc Versteeg, Head, Transfer of Technology (TTU) Unit Wednesdav, 31 January A.M. Meeting with Marc Bernard, University of Hohenheim Meeting with Biocontrol Programme Staff People met: P. Neuenschwander, Research/Mealybug Unit Coordinator J.S. Yaninek, Mite Unit Coordinator W.N.O. Hammond, Regional NBCP and Research Coordinator F. Schulthess, Ecologist/Systems Analyst R. H. Markham, Visiting Scientist T.H. Haug, and B. Megevand, Mass-Rearing Tech. Dev. & Mass Rearing; J. Quaye, Station Officer-in Charge, Research Support and Administration P.M. Continuation Biocontrol Meeting Annex IV - Page 4 Thursday, 1 Februarv A.M. P.M. Meeting with Coordination Committee (Benin) and National Research Personnel Panel divides and departs for Ghana and Nigeria Ghana, 2 - 3 Februarv 1990 (Drs. De Ponti, Muchena, Mwandemere and Collinson) Fridas, 2 February S.R. Singh, Director, GLIP/IITA and M.A. Hossain & 0. Okoli, IITA/Ghana Dr. J.P. Eckebil, Deputy. DirGen., IC/IITA K.E. Dashiell, Soybean Breeder, GLIP/IITA W.N.O. Hammond, Entomologist, BCP, IITA/Ghana Baffour Badu-Apraku, Visiting Scientist, IITA A.M. Meeting with Ministry Officials/National Programme Leaders Commodore S. Obimpeh, (retired) PNDC Secretary of Agriculture; Mr. Commey, Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Science & Technology; Dr. Ha&l, Dean of School of Agric., and Dr. Paddy Tetteh, Lecturer, Cape Coast University; Ministrv of Agriculture, Accra: Mr. Mr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Mr. K. Amoako, Director, Extension Services; Dixon, Head, Seed Inspection and Regulatory Services; Ocran, Plant Breeder; Alhassan, Lecturer, University of Ghana, Accra; Quarshie-Sam, Lecturer, USTIKumasi; Asante-Kwatia, Dean, Faculty of Agric., UST/Kumasi; GGDPIKumasi: Dr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Dr. Mr. Twumasi-Afriyie & Dr. Roberto Arias, Joint Coordinators; J.N. Asafu-Agyei, Agronomist; Atnahene-Amankwah, Legume Breeder; Jakpasu, Entomologist; K.A. Marfo, Economist; M. Owusu-Akyaw, Entomologist Asiedu, Seed Technologist, GGDP, Kumasi; CRUKUMASI Mr. E.A. Addison, Director Mr. J. Kissiedu, Joint Coordinator, Root and Tuber Project Dr. J.K. Twumasi, Pathologist Annex IV - Page 5 Friday, 2 February (c0nt.d) GLDP/KUMASI Dr. Ofosu, Executive Director Mr. Koampah, Deputy Executive Director Saturdas, 3 Februarv A.M. Drs. De Ponti, Muchena, Mwandemere and Collinson depart for IITA, Ibadan Onne Station, Nigeria, l-3 Februarv 1990 (Drs. McWilliam, Summerfield and Tollens) Fridav, 2 February A.M. Meeting with IITA/Onne Team and Representatives of National Programmes Dr. Mr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Mr. Dr. P.M. R. Swennen, O.i.C., Onne Station D. Vuylsteke, Tissue Culturist/Tripp M. Gichuru, Soil Scientist, RCMP P. Austin, Farm and Phisical Plant Manager G. Sery, INIBAP Coordinator for West and Central Africa 0.8. Arene, Director, National R&T Crops Research Institute, Umudike C. Ohuegbe, Dpty. Project Manager, IMO ADP N. Ndegwe, Act. Director, Rivers State Inst. of Agric. Research & Training Visit of Onne Sub-Station and discussion Saturdav, 3 February A.M. Discussion with IITA-Onne staff Drs. McWilliam, Summerfield and Tollens depart for IITA, Ibadan by IITA plane ANNEX MAIN PHASE OF THE EPR 15-23 Februarv 1990) A. PROGRAMME V 5 February 1990 A.M. 14:00 16:30 Maize Research Programme Rice Research Programme Discussions with individual scientists Panel Meeting 6 February 1990 08:30 14:00 16:30 Root, Tuber and Plantain Improvement Programme Virology/Genetic Resources Unit - Discussions with individual scientists Panel Meeting 7 Februarv 1990 08:30 14:OO 16:30 Grain Legume Improvement Programme BiometricslAnalyticai Services/Library - Discussions with individual scientists Panel Meeting 8 Februarv 1990 08:30 11:OO 14:00 16:30 Resource and Crop Management Programme Crop Management Research Resource Management Research - Discussions with individual scientists Panel Meeting Annex V - Page 2 9 February 1990 A.M. 14:oo 16:30 International Cooperation Training m Discussions with individual scientists Panel Meeting 10 Februarv 1990 A.M. 13:00 P.M. Meeting with Dr. K. Fisher, Deputy Director General, Research EPR Chairman, lunch with Dr. L. Stifel and Senior IITA Management Staff Panel Meeting Report writing 11 Februarv 1990 A.M. and P.M. Report writing 12 February 1990 * A.M. 14:00 16:00 Report writing Meeting with Post-Doctoral Fellows Meeting with Technical Staff Meeting with Visiting Scientists Meeting with Research Fellows 13 February 1990 Visit of Chairmen of EPR and EMR to Lagos lo:oo Also met with: Prof. Okon, Director General of Agriculture Prof. Emovan, Former Minister for Science and Technology. Report writing Visit to The Hon. Prof. G.O. Ezekwe, Minister of Science and Technology Annex V - Page 3 14 Februarv I990 A.M. 14:oo 16:00 18:00 Report writing Panel Meeting Visit to Ibadan experimental Fields and Farm Workshops Joint meeting with EMR Panel 15 Februarv 1990 A.M. 13:w Report writing EPR Chairman Lunch with Ibadan Resident Agricultural Research Leaders: - Dr. Lekan Are, Agric. Consultant (formerly Deputy Executive Secretary, WARDA) - Prof. Ayo Banjo, Vice Chancellor, University of Ibadan - Prof. A.O. Falusi, Director, Fed. Agric. Coordinating Unit, Bodija, Ibadan - Dr. A. Joshua, Director, National Seed Service, Ibadan - Prof. B.K. Ogunmodede, Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ibadan - Prof. R.A. Sobulo, Director, IAR&T, Moor Plantation, Ibadan P.M. 17:oo Report writing Panel Meeting 16 Februarv 1990 A.M. P.M. 18,:OO Report .writing Panel Meeting Report writing Panel Meeting EPR Cocktail: Post-Dots, Visiting Scientists, Research Fellows Parts of draft report sent to Centre Annex V - Page 4 17 to 20 Februarv 1990 A.M. P.M. Panel Meeting Report writing Panel Meeting Meeting with EMR Panel Report writing Final parts of draft report sent to Centre 21 Februarv 1990 Printing of report 22 February 1990 Distribution of report to Board of Trustees 23 February 1990 09:00, 14:oo Presentation of report to HTA’ s Board of Trustees Presentation of report to IITA’ s staff B. IITA STAFF MET BY PANE& Senior Management L.W. Stifel, Director-General K.S. Fischer, Deputy Director-General, Research J.P. Eckebil, Deputy Director-General, International Cooperation Root, Tuber, and Plantain Improvement Programme (TRIPP) S.K. Hahn, Director; R. Asiedu, Breeder (Cassava); Y.W. Jeon, Post-harvest Technologist; I.G. Mok, Liaison Scientist, CIP; S.Y. Ng, Research Specialist, Tissue Culture; D. Osiru, Physiologist; J. Otoo, Agronomist/breeder; M. Porto, Liaison Scientist, CLAT; R. Swennen, Breeder (Plantain) Grain Legume Improvement Programme (GLIP) S.R. Singh, Director; K. Cardwell, Pathologist; P. Craufurd, Physiologist; K. Dashiell, Soybean Breeder; L. Jackai, Entomologist; B.B. Singh, Cowpea Breeder Annex V - Page 5 Maize Research Proeramme M.D. Winslow, Research Leader; N. Bosque-Perez, Entomologist; S.K. Kim, Breeder; J. Mareck, Breeder; G. Weber, AgronJRegional Coordinator Rice Research Programme K. Alluri, Agronomist/Breeder, IRRI; T. Masajo, Breeder Resource and Crop Management Programme (RCMP) D.S.C. Spencer, Director; M. Swift, Leader, RMR; K. Dvorak, Resource Economist; C. Ezumah, Agronomist, CMR; C. Gillman, Soil Scientist; A.M. Izac, Economist, CMR; B.T. Kang, Agronomist; K. Mulongoy, Microbiologist; H. Mutsaers, Agronomist, CMR; F. Nweke, COSCA Co-ord.; S. Romanov, Consultant, COSCA; J. Smith, Economist, CMR; Biolopical Control Programme (BCP) R. Herren, Director; Entomologist Training H. Gasser, Director; J. Gulley, In-Country Training Co-Ord. W. Hammond, Reg. Co-ord.; P. Neuenschwander, Research Support Units D.C. Couper, Farm Manager; Q. Ng, Geneticist, GRU; S. Padulosi, Plant .Explorer, GRU; J. Pleysier, Biochemist, Analytical Services; H. Rossel, Virologist, VU; G. Thottappilly, VirologistiBiotec, VU; P. Walker, Statistician, Biometrics Post-Doctoral Fellows Chrys Akem, GLIP; Mpoko Bokanga, TRIPP; Robert Carsky, RCMP; A.G.O. Dixon, TRIPP; Gillian Eggleston, TRIPP; S. Ehui, RCMP; Gordon Fairchils, RCMP; R.C. Joshi, RRP; J.G. Kling, MRP; Theodros Me&n, VirologyMRP; Gerald 0. Myers, GLIP; M.O. Olanya, MRP; Rudy Polson, RCMP; Edwin Tucker, RCMP ANNEXVI IITA PROGRAMME OBJRCTIVRS (a) To develop systems for the management and conservation of natural resources for sustainable agriculture in the humid and subhumid s rapidly growing tropical zones. There is global concern that Africa’ population is placing increasing pressure on basic natural resources and threatening the viability of traditional farming systems. To increase the performance of selected food crops that can be integrated into improved and sustainable production systems. This is the central thrust of the CGIAR system, the approach that initiated the “green revolution” in rice and wheat, and it remains valid for tropical Africa, although the problems are more complex and the rate of achievement not as spectacular. IITA is currently conducting varietal improvement research on three primary and three secondary food crops. To strengthen national agricultural research capacities in developing countries in order to accelerate the generation and utilization of improved technologies by means of training, information and other outreach activities. The objective is to enable IITA’ s partners in national systems increasingly to meet their own technology requirement. To improve quality characteristics and postharvest technologies in order to realize the more complete utilization of food crops with lITA’ s mandate. For a number of IITA commodities, particularly roots and tubers, the lack of efficient technology for storage, processing, and conversion to commercial products is a serious barrier to their increased use as both food and feed. @I (4 Cd) PUBLICATION OUTPUT OF IITA STAFF, 1985-89.195 Programme/Unit2 Number of oublications in Many-authored International, peer-refereed books and conference Mproceedings 16 Abstracts MisceIlaneous Total MRP TRIPP GLIP RCMP BCP GRU As Virology Biometrics (5) t:; (7) (16) (7) (21 8 24 30 63 (38)3 55 2 6 14 32 14 47 30 47 17 12 0 22 2 3 0 0 0 ifi 6 12 47 26 22 8 18 0 76 36 124 95 135 (97) 80 32 6 41 6 (1) (2) ( 1I 2 13 3 7 0 7 1 Programme/Unit Ratio of Grey : Refereed4 uortion t%1 Refereed Q=Y per scientist No. refereed publkations per annum MRP 0.40 TRIPP 4.2:1 iii:: 19.4 0.53 GLIP 2.2: 1 31.6 0.86 RCMP3 1.2 (2.6): 1 53.3 (71.9) 46.7 (28.1) 0.98 (0.63) BCP 0.51 31.2 66.8 1.57 -__-_-_--_-__-__-_-_-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GRU 15:l 93.7 6.3 0.20 As 0:6 0.0 100 1.20 Virology 1.91 65.9 34.1 1.40 Biometrics 2.O:l 66.7 33.3 0.40 3.8: 1 3.5:1 78.9 77.8 21.1 22.2 0.64 1 &I pubkations of Post-Doctoral staff have been M but these staff have been excluded from the .staff numbers shown in parentheses (col. 1) 2 For expIanations of acronyms see Annex VIII. 3 Figures in parentheses within body of table exclude the publications of R. LaI. 4 For explanation of “Grey” and “Refereed” pubhcations see text. 5 All data for RCMP are for 198588, inclusive. ANNEX VII-B OFF-STATION TRAVEL OF IITA PROGRAMME DIRECTORS, 1986-89l Item 2 1986 1987 1988 1989 EZlrampZe 1. Days off-station Proportion work days (%) of 34 (42) 18 (27) 44 (51) 55 (60) 75 (10513 38 (68) 97 (127) 120 (150) Example 2. 46 (46) 21 (18) 3. Days off-station Proportion work days Emmple 116 (154) 53 (62) 95 (115) 45 (46) 77 (93) 35 (37) (o/o) of Days off-station Proportion work days (%) of 62 (92) 28 (37) 70 (102) 32 (41) 80 (110) 37 (44) 84 (114) 38 (46) 1. Necessary travel in discharging duties and responsibilities of Programme Director, for primarily scientific purposes or otherwise (see text). Number of work days per annum = 365-(52x2) = 261, less public holidays (i.e. 261-12 = 249). less home-leave (i.e. 249-30) = 219d. Figures in parentheses within body of table include 30 d home-leave. 2. 3. ANNEX VIII GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ADPS Agricultural Development Projects Alley Farming Network for Tropical Africa Analytical Services Laboratory Associate Training Officer Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre Biological Control Programme Crop Based Systems Working Groups Controlled Environments Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research International Centre for Tropical Agriculture International Centre for the Improvement of Maize and Wheat International Potato Centre AFNETA ASL AT0 AVRDC BCP CBSWG CE CGIAR CIAT CIMMYT CMR COMBS CORAF COSCA CSIRO EEC EMR EPR ESARRN FAO ESP GIS GLIP Crop Management Research Collaborative Maize-Based Systems Group Conference des resposables de la recherche agricole africains et francais Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization European Economic Community External Management Review External Programme Review East and Southern African Root Crops Research Network Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Farming Systems Programme Geographic Information System Grain Legume Improvement Programme Annex VIII - Page 2 GRU GTZ HPLC IAR IARCs IBPGR IBSRAM ICIPE ICRAF ICRISAT IDRC IFDC IFPRI IITA ILCA Genetic Resources Unit Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (FRG) High Pressure Liquid Chromatograph Institute for Agricultural Research, Samaru, Zaria International Agricultural Research Centres International Board :for Plant Genetic Resources International Board on Soils Research and Management International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology International Centre for Research on Agro-Forestry International Crops IResearch Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics International Development Research Centre International Fertilizer Development Centre International Food Policy Research Institute International Institute of Tropical Agriculture International Livestock Centre for Africa Integrated Pest Manalgement IMF INGER INIBAP IRA IRRI ISNAR KSS MBSWG MI% International Monetary Fund International Network for Genetic Enhancement on Rice International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain Institute of Agronomic Research International Rice Research Institute International Service for National Agricultural Research Kano Sub-Station Maize Based Systems Working Group Minimum Data Sets Maize Improvement Programme Maize Research Programme Annex VIII - Page 3 MSS WV Mbalmayo Sub-Station Maize Streak Virus Medium-Term Plan NARS NCRE National Agricultural Research Systems National Cereals Research and Extension Project, Cameroon National Quarantine Service, Nigeria On-Farm Client Oriented Research On-Farm Research Onne Sub-Station Post-Doctoral Research Fellow Physical Plant Services Research and Professional Staff RASS RAV RBCSWG RCMP RENACO Research and Administrative Support Staff Applied Agricultural Research and Extension Project, Zaire Rice-Based Cropping Systems Working Group Resource and Crop Management Programme SAFGRAD Cowpea Research Network Research Farm Management Rice Improvement Programma Research Liaison Scientist Resource Management Research Rice Research Programme RRPMC SACCAR smc SAFGRAD SPAAR SPALNA Regional Research Programme for Maize and Cassava Southern African Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Southern Africa Development Coordination Conference Semi-Arid Food Grains Development Project Special Programme for African Agricultural Research Soil and Plant Analytical Laboratories Network for Africa Research NQS OFCOR OFR oss PDRF PPS Annex VIII - Page 4 SWG TAC TARC TRIPP TTU USAID vs vu WAFSRN WARDA WECAMAN Systems Working Groups Technical Advisory Committee Tropical Agricultural Research Centre, Japan Root, Tuber, and Plantain Improvement Programme Technology Transfer Unit United States Agency for International Development Visiting Scientist Virology Unit West Africa Farming Systems Research Network West Africa Rice Development Association SAFGRAD Maize Research Network M/U201OE/l/12.90/400