THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND CGIAR SECRETARIAT REPORT OF THE THIRD EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN THE DRY AREAS (ICARDA) CGIAR SECRETARIAT World Bank May 1993 THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND CGIAR SECRETARIAT REPORT OF THE THIRD EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN THE DRY AREAS (ICARDA) CGIAR SECRETARIAT World Bank May 1993 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Mailing Address: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. Offke Location: 801 19th Street, N.W. Telephone (Area Code 202) 473-8951 Cable Address-INTBAFRAD Fax (Area Code 202) 334-8750 August 3, 1993 Dear Mr. Rajagopalan, We are pleasedto submit to you for the consideration of the CGIAR the report of the Third External Review of the International Center for Agricultural Researchin the Dry Areas (ICARDA). The review was conductedin April-May 1993 by a Panel chaired by Dr. Jock Anderson. The Panel’ s report and ICARDA’ s interim response were discussedby TAC at its 61st meeting in June 1993. TAC’ s Commentary on the review report, prepared with input from the CGIAR Secretariat, follows this letter. It is followed by ICARDA’ s response,and the Panel’ s report. The review report is a positive one overall. It judges the mandate, mission and goals of ICARDA to be relevant, the Center’ s strategic plan appropriate to the WANA region, its research programs of high standard and managementsystemsgenerally effective. As in all reviews, the Panel identifies a number of areas where improvements can be made. The Center has expressedits general agreement with the report, and the Board plans to devote due attention to the many issues and suggestions raised by the review. In addition to its assessmentof ICARDA, the Panel devoted a chapter of the report to the CGIAR’ s review processes. The Panel’ s experiencehere is most valuable to TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat, particularly as the process used in this review representeda departure from the norm -the review was conductedby a relatively small Panel and had a somewhat abbreviated main phase. TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat will give careful consideration to the lessons learned and issues raised by the Panel as we refine review processesand plan future reviews. ye also wish to draw your attention to the discussion in the report concerning the devolution of faba bean research from ICARDA to the NARSs (Box 2.3 in the report). As you are aware, a central precept upon which the CGIAR was founded is that as national research capabilities strengthen, research responsibilities should be devolved from the international to national institutions. Today, in a time of declining budgets and shifting research priorities, centers and the System as a whole will be under increasedpressure to consider devolution of responsibilities to NARSs. As the ICARDA experience shows, successful devolution is dependenton a host of factors and these may change over time. Centers and the System thus clearly need to pay critical attention to the factors that condition success,before such decisions are made, or we may jeopardize research activities and the long-run benefits of our investments. The Panel’ s report raises a number of other issues of System-level importance. In addition to those commented on above, others deserving further consideration include: 0 0 0 0 0 the role of the CGIAR in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (Box 3. l), the role of CGIAR centers in nationally important but neglected areas of research (section 3.3.1.2), the evolving nature of relations among centers with overlapping mandates, particularly in a time of declining budgets (section 3.3.3.4), the appropriate model for an.international center as an ccoregional entity (Box 2. l), and the development by centers of strategies to meet declining budgets (section 4.5.1.1). Our list is not exhaustive, but is merely intended to highlight important issues identified in relation to ICARDA that should generate thought and discussion at the System’ s level. In closing, we are pleased by the outcome of this review. ICARDA has an important but difficult mission to fulfil. So far, its efforts have yielded successful results, and the Center is well regarded in its region. We recommend continued support to ICARDA by the CGIAR. Sincerely yours, Alex McCalla Chair, TAC / Alexander von der Osten Executive Secretary, CGIAR 2 TAC COMMENTARY ON THE EXTERNAL REVIEW OF ICARDA TAC expresses its appreciation to Dr. Jock Anderson, Chair, and the members of the EPMR Panel for a comprehensiveand insightful assessment of ICARDA. management. Cognisant of the critical nature of the 1988 External Programme and Management Reviews of ICARDA, particularly in relation to Centre management, TAC is pleased to note that the major management problems evident at that time in general have been resolved. The Committee is also pleasedto note the Panel’ s conclusions that the raison d’ &e for ICARDA’ s existence is as valid today as it was twenty years ago when its establishment was frost mooted, that its mandate, mission and goals are still relevant, and that the Centre’ s strategic plan is appropriately in tune with the major research needs of dryland agriculture in the WANA region. The Panel’ s report contains few formal recommendationsbut embodies many important and relevant suggestions. TAC strongly urges ICARDA to also carefully consider these suggestions in addition to the recommendations which, in general terms, it endorses. The Committee is encouragedby the Centre’ s response which appearsto indicate broad agreement with the Panel’ s findings and suggestions. However, at times, it is not clear from the Centre’ s responseif ICARDA agrees or disagrees with the Panel’ s recommendations and suggestions. TAC suggeststhat the Board of ICARDA should take a clear stance on the many suggestionscontained in the report. TAC offers the following commentary, which was prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat on the managementaspects, to supplement the Panel’ s report: The report provides a good appraisal of the Centre’ s strategy, its research programmes and Centre 2 The Research Programme TAC is pleased to note the Panel’ s conclusion that, in general terms, ICARDA’ s research programme and support services are held in high esteem by NARS in the WANA region. The Centre’ s strong commitment to work closely with its NARS partners, and where possible to devolve appropriate components of its research programme to them, is commendable. The Committee is also pleased that the Panel has judged ICARDA’ s research programmes to be of a high standard and, in general terms, appropriate to the needs of the WANA region. However, TAC wishes to draw attention to the following issues on which the Panel has expressed some concerns: priority seting: TAC notes the Panel’ s observation that ICARDA has a well defined procedure for setting priorities within programmes, but that ICARDA lacks a transparent and objective mechanism to determine and apply resource allocation priorities across programmes. s view that ICARDA should attach greater Impact assessment: TAC shares the Panel’ attention to impact assessmentand make it an integral part of its research programme development. With respect to the impact of the cereal and legume germplasMm enhancementprogrammes, ICARDA should expand the range of indicators it uses, rather than simply relying on the number of varieties released. Livestock research: While the Committee generally supports the Panel’ s feeling about the limited support given to livestock research at ICARDA, it is also aware of the difficulties which the Centre has faced in attracting funds to expand the livestock research s suggestion that the Centre should formulate a programme. TAC agrees with the Panel’ clear strategy on livestock research, including an assessmentof ICARDA’ s role in rangeland management and forage legume research. This should be done in collaboration with and in the context of the ongoing CGIAR-wide efforts to develop a unified strategy and integrated programmes for livestock research. Farm Resource Management: TAC shares the Panel’ s view about the lack of focus in the Farm Resource Management Programme (FRMP), and suggeststhat ICARDA needs to concentrate the programme on well-defined priority targets. Outreach: TAC is pleased to note the Panel’ s assessment that ICARDA’ s outreach programme is broad-based and generally well received by its NARS partners. However, it notes the Panel’ s concern that some components of the outreach programme are somewhat beyond ICARDA’ s mandate, and fully supports the Panel’ s enjoiner that the Centre should establish explicit criteria to guide its participation in special project-funded activities. TAC is conscious of the interests of some countries in the region that ICARDA should expand its Highlands programme to embrace the newly established Central Asian s feeling that it would be unwise of ICARDA, republics. However, it endorsesthe Panel’ at this point in time, to broaden its mandate to encompass,in any substantive way, the research needs of the Central Asian republics, given projected financial constraints in the CGIAR. Research on irrigalion: TAC endorsesthe Panel’ s recommendation that ICARDA, with an ecoregional focus on the dry sub-tropical winter rainfall areas, should be given encouragementto work on water-saving techniques and conservation strategies in irrigated agriculture, and on supplementary irrigation where appropriate. Centre Management TAC is pleased to note that the serious managementproblems ICARDA faced at the time of the 1988 External Review have been generally resolved, and that the positive developmentsreported by the 1990 Interim Management Review of ICARDA have continued. The Panel points out that ICARDA has put in place management policies and systems of accountability which were previously lacking, but that these may have been s responsethat it is in the process of applied too tightly. TAC notes ICARDA’ introducing a project-based budgeting system involving decentralization of authority, and 4 therefore some relaxation of controls. Research planning and review: It is evident, from the Panel’ s report and the Centre’ s response, that research planning and review occur at several levels in ICARDA. Nonetheless, TAC concurs with the Panel that internally-managed reviews should be conducted with rigour and linked with priority-setting, planning and resource allocation processes. Organizationa. structure: The Panel made some useful suggestions for streamlining ICARDA’ s research management structure which included the consolidation of the four research programmes into two: a Resource Management Programme; and a Crop Germplasm Programme. TAC is pleased that various options for structural change are under consideration at ICARDA, as described by the Director General during the discussion of the report at TAC 61, and that these do not differ greatly from the proposals made by the Panel. Financial stra.$egy: While TAC agrees’ with ICARDA’ s supposition, that “financial flows are cyclical in nature”, it cannot conclude, as the Centre has, that ICARDA has “passed the midpoint in the austerity period” and suggeststhat further austerity may lie ahead. Although financial management at ICARDA has improved overall, ICARDA needs to reassessits fund-raising strategy because it cannot rely on its current financial reserves in the long term. ICARDA should limit the scale of its activities within available financial resources. Human resource malters: These are closely linked with the research planning and budgetary matters noted above, and several were raised in the Panel’ s report, repeating some of the concerns mentioned previously in the 1988 EPMR and 1990 Interim EMR. The Board should pay special attention to ICARDA’ s incentive systems, to ensure that they promote excellence and help motivate staff. In addition, it should examine closely the high number of internationally-recruited personnel in administration and finance. This could be interpreted either as ‘ over-staffing’ or as misclassification of staff into the ‘ international’ category. ICARDA has made some progress in reducing the numbers in 5 this group, but should accelerate its efforts to reduce the cost of administering the Centre. The Review Process The Panel offered views on ways of improving the CGIAR’ s review process, in Chapter 5 of the report. The TAC Standing Committee on External Reviews will consider the issues raised and the suggestionsmade. Opening Remarks 1. ICARDA had extensive and constructive dialogue with the 1993 ER Panel. The Board of Trustees, Management and staff of the Center were particularly appreciative of the Panel’ s thoroughness, the rigor of their probing and the care they took in the pursuit of accuracy and objectivity. They shared their thoughts with us at an early stage in the review process and c++med to do so as the Review progressed, thus offering us ample opportunity to.commect on issues from the Center’ s perspective. We are pleased that the Panel felt equally positive on ICARDA’ s open and forthright cooperation with them. The Pane1has given ICARDA a good report The Center is grateful for both their commendations and observations as well as the many useful suggestions they made, which will certainly help us in our continued efforts to improve our performance. Indeed, the ER Report is already serving as an important reference document in this endeavor. We are tempted to rest on this statement but realize that such a course will not do justice to the Report, to the stakeholders or to ICARDA We wish, therefore, to make a few remarks on aspects touched upon by the Panel which we consider deserving of special mention. Our intention is simply to place such issues in the context of ICARDA’ s research philosophy, approaches and practice. 2. Farm Resource Management 3. The ER Panel is generally approving of ICARDA’ s research in natural resource management (NRM), farming systemsand socioeconomics. It draws attention to some of the successful contributions of the Program including the development of useful methods to conduct NRM research in the WANA region, studies on the effect of wheat rotations on water availability to subsequent crops, the relevance of deep ploughing, the site specificity of fertilizer response and the fostering of an awareness of the importance of socioeconomic as well as technical dimensions in the management of natural resources. The Panel feels that the present structure of cooperation with NARSs in NRM is too ad hoc for the estabiishment of strong links with them. In this area, ICARDA’ s cooperation with its NARS partners currently covers some 30 activities across 1.5WANA countries, and several more activities are in the pipeline. Because of the location-specific nature of NRM work, the Center has no standard- set of activities that can be replicated across a number of countries. Further. because much of the work is adaptive, it is particularly suited to early devolution to NARS. The model suggested by the Panel which requires the posting of ICARDA staff to outreach locations is currently not feasible because of resource constraints. 4. 5. The Panel recommends that ICARDA as an ecoregional Center for dry LClUpCiL2 23%S, be given the approvai to work in restricted research domains in irrigated agriculture for which it has expertise, and that the work should be financed from project funds. This recommendation is fully in line with ICARDA’ s own position, as expressed in a Board decision paraphrased in the Center’ s MTP 1994-98 in the statement ‘ The Center will be primarily concerned with the sustainability aspect of water use in terms of both conserving this scarce resource and of avoiding or correcting likely adverse effects of irrigation, such as salin@. It will continue and further develop its research on supplementary irrigation and water harvesting techniques, but does not plan to undertake major work on the development of irrigation technologies- In this area it will rely on the work of other institutions, particularly lih4I. It wti also carry out the bulk of its irrigation research in full cooperation with its national partners and, as far as possible, with special funding’ . TAC, in considering our draft h4TP 1994-98, found no fault with this statement. With this consensus, we are encouraged to believe that our declared policy is adequate as a basis for what the Center should, or be required to, commit itself to in the field of irrigation research. 6. With regard to socioeconomic work, the Panel makes a few recommendations which are not too divergent from our own thinking. One of them relates to the incorporation of ex ante and ex-post economic analysis in research planning and priority setting. ICARDA has conducted some ex ante work, such as the linear whole farm model on the feasibility of ley farming in WANA, and is willing to adopt such tools in its decision making and research priority setting and the conduct of its work in general. 7. The recommendation on impact studies of the Center’ s major technologies is consistent with ICARDA’ s MTP proposals. In recent years considerable efforts have been devoted to the description of farming systems and the diagnosis of farmers’ problems. As the availability of new technologies increases, less emphasis will be placed on such studies to free resources for ex-post studies of adoption and impact. Such studies will take into account the long-term effects of new technology on the natural resource base. ICARDA will continue to undertake and sponsor research with a farming systems perspective and commodity-centered sector studies as necessary adjuncts to adoption and impact research. 8. As to the organization of socioeconomic research, ICARDA realizes that all organizational models have their advantages and disadvantages. In conformity with its multidisciplinary approach to problem solving, the Center has placed its social scientists in programs and teams to which their expertise is relevant. We believe that this is an acceptable and efficient arrangement but would not seriously challenge that other models are possible. The solution offered by the Panel-that ICARDA revive its earlier efforts to recruit a economist-must remain dormant until the return of easier times. lead 2 Ct?reals 9. . . 10. The Panel finds ICARDA’ s cereal program in good heart, productive, and realizing a perceptible impact on varietal development and agricultural production in the WANA region. It also commends the move towards releasing material with more specific adaptation and the multidisciplinary approach to problem solving. It does, however, raise questions relating to cooperation, the place of three main areas : CIMMYT/ICARDA biotechnology in cereal breeding, and issues relating to highland work : Cooperation between CIMMYT and ICARDA has been proceeding satisfactorily since the two Centers. concluded their current Agreement in 1988. Clearly, such a relationship is not static and must evolve over time through periodic review. Discussions between CIMMYT and ICARDA scientists, who are now working from joint offices in Aleppo, Cairo and Ankara, are a matter of daily occurrence and there have been frequent exchanges of visits by staff of both Centers stationed in Mexico and Syria. As a result, small but significant changes have been introduced which are leading to a greater maturity of the relationship, The two Centers, however, are fully aware that the impact of recent changes in staffing and work plans resulting from developments affecting the CG-system call for an assessment in depth of their relationship both in its form and substance. In this context, we consider the Panel’ s suggestion on refining the ‘ target definitions’ of bread wheat breeders operating in the WANA region, and also of the breeding objectives of the CIMMYTIICARDA durum program, as constituting an important aspect of this reassessment. 11. The Panel considers the current scale of ICARDA’ s activity in cereal biotechnology below the critical mass level and suggests strengthening the program by the recruitment of post-doctorals. ICARDA is running its core biotechnology program on special funds from UNDP and France and has provided to it the maximum support possible within the available r&sources. We are seeking additional funding to strengthen this work. ICARDA has also found it possible to contract out some of its research in biotechnology to qualified NARSs in the region. Examples are the development of di-haploid lines for durum and bread wheat in Tunisia and Egypt, embryo rescue work in lentil wide crosses in Egypt, and embryo rescue work in Morocco to incorporate Hessian fly resistance from wild relatives of wheat. An important issue raised by the Panel is the establishment by the host country of recognized and officially approved procedures for handling transgenic materials. We agree with the need for this measure but must point out that the referred to Rhizobium work was done not at ICARDA, but at the Washington State University and Idaho and was subject to US regulations. ICARDA is collaborating closely with the host country in formulating a policy. 12. 13. On the question of anther culture/haploid induction, ICARDA is currently reevaluating the place of ai-hapiclids fui uJ&% !??eding purposes in term< of biological and economic efficiency in wheat. In the meantime, di-haploids will he developed only for specific genetic analysis and not for general use. As to marker technology, this is being developed jointly with several advanced institlltions. 14. In the light of the importance of the highlands of WAN%, their potential for substantial increases in production, and the fragility of their envirotients, ICARDA’ s MTP 1994-98 provides for a build-up of activities in this su@one mainly in Turkey and Iran. Among the actions envisaged are to station a senior pathologist in Ankara to support the CIMMYT and ICARDA cereal projects, and post the highland cel~ti breeder to Iran. With these changes in mind, the Panel advises an early decision on which site would be responsible.for the distribution of nurseries for the highlands. We do not consider this need as controversial and see the advice as conforming to our own intentions. A consideration that will influence our decision is the 15. speed at which the planned work for both Turkey and Iran can be developed. Both the Panel and ICARDA agree that we should press for an early start up, to avoid loss of momentum. 16. There is no disagreement on the assessment of plant pathology as a vital component of germplasm enhancement work A core post is provided for this discipline in ICARDA’ s MTP even at the most stringent funding scenario, and additional posts are being squght through special projects and the recruitment of regional scientists at the National Professional Off&r work in the outreach. 17. level for The reduction in agronomic work that used to be conducted within the germplasm enhancement programs is as painful to the Center as it is to the Panel. It should be noted, however, that the boundary between specific crop agronomy, required by the germplasm enhancement work, and systems agronomy pursued by FRMP, is very diffuse and cross-program activity has been the rule. There is a parallelism in germplasm enhancement and agronomy work which is based on crops - such as barley agronomy (serving the crop and barley/livestock zone) and wheat agronomy (covering wheat as well as the wheat-based cropping system). This congruence renders links between the two disciplines not only desirable, but also inevitable. ICARDA also agrees with the Panel that, as the Center’ s work in the highlands expands, the need for effective linkages among its various components and actors becomes even more pressing. Among the options 18. open are joint multidisciplinary planning (including livestock and range management) through a highland research steering committee, exchange of visits, travelling workshops, joint nurseries, joint highland training courses and, possibly, a highland research newsletter. Some of these measures and actions are already in place. 4 Legumes 19. The Panel supports the view that legume research cannot be justified on the basis of the economic role of food legumes in the food system alone, but that it must include the role of legumes in cropping systems. They affirm that the sustainability of these systems makes little sense without the integrated use of leguminous components with high capacity for the biological nitrogen fixation. The Panel concludes that the remaining level of activity proposed in ICARDA’ s MTP 1994-98 is appropriate and irreducible if an effective contribution is to continue to be made. This is a point of view with which we fully concur. r, 20. It is in this conte; ‘ that the Panel ie%its the issue of lentil in the farming systems of WANA. ICARDA has believed that by promptly commissioning and publishing in 1990 an IFPRI/iCARDA study on legumes in cropping systems, it had properly responded to the recommendation of its 1988 ER Panel on this crop. The study was submitted to TAC, donors and other stakeholders and ICARDA reported on the action in Progress Reports submitted to TAC regularly. The issue was also addressed in our MTP 199498 which was discussed by TAC in March 1993. In its Priority Study, TAC noted that ‘ lentil is an important crop in farming systems of resource-poor farmers of the WANA region and that outside the CGIAR very little research is carried out on lentil. In the short to medium term, therefore, current efforts on lentil will continue while reaffirming TAC’ s view that, in the long term, the role of ICARDA in lentil research should be primarily in maintaining genetic resource collections’ . In view of this position and the absence of comment on the 1990 study, ICARDA did not consider scheduling further studies, but would conduct whatever additional studies that are deemed necessary. 21. The Panel recounts the background that led to the transfer of faba bean to Morocco, noting that it was based on the recommendations of two Externai Reviews and endorsed by TAC. The transfer operation went smoothly, although at a slower pace than originally planned, and was finally completed in September 1992 with financial and technical backstopping of BMZ/GTZ of Germany. The Panel, looking into the matter a few months later, was of the opinion that the transfer operation was not a real success.Their review occurred in the middle of the first season under the new arrangement which is bound to suffer from some teething troubles but also .was one of an unexceptionally severe drought from which not only faba bean but also other crops have suffered. At this early stage we feel that it is premature to argue the case. Some comments of the Panel on plant pathology work in legumes have been addressed in the paragraphs dealing with cereals. In addition, the Panel recommends closer coordination of pathology resources between Programs, more concentration on understanding the factors contributing to the build-up of root pathogens and the development of IPM for root-infecting 22. pathogens-work that involves collaboration between microbial ecology, -2s research, ?nrt the study of disease In stressed scxiz2XiclC~, cropping syst--environment. We consider the suggestion appropriate- The long-term rotational trials at Tel Hadya and Breda are being used for this purpose by a multidisciplinary team including an agronomist, a pathologist, a nematologist and a microbiologist. Trials are also being conducted on sites infested with specific root pathogens, such as cyst-nematodes in chickpea, to determine the safe time interval between susceptible crops. In drought studies, a physiologist, a microbiologist and a pathologist are investigating interactions between moisture stress and root pathogens and with Rhkobium and VA-mycorrhizae. 23. The Panel advises ICARDA to make a firm decisio,, on whether to invest in IPM-oriented research or in component research with the aim of developing durable resistance to arthropoid pests and to diseases. For the most part, rainfed crops in WANA are low-input crops that have a long history in the region where natural enemies of pests have not been seriously affected by the abuse of chemical insecticides and still exert considerable control of pests. One of the major tasks at ICARDA is not to damage this ‘ balance of nature’ or encourage practices that would lead farmers to do so. 24. Some of the insect pests of importance in WANA such as the Hessian fly and wheat stem sawflies, lend themselves to control through the use of resistant varieties, while others such as the suni bug and aphids can be controlled through a variety of management practices. Thus, a dual strategy is being followed which is responsive to the two situations. We do, however, recognize a need to avoid duplication between cereal and legume IPM work and for the partitioning of responsibilities for specific research thrusts. In contrast to entomological work, pathology research within the germplasm enhancement Programs has concentrated on developing durable and multiple genetic resistance to pathogens - an approach seen as the most effective, practical, and environmentally safe control method. Stimulated by its discussions with the Panel on this issue, ICARDA has established an IPM Committee consisting of crop protection staff with the broad mandate of identifying strategic targets and developing plans for the study/of aspects of crop protection, including IPM approaches. 25. 26. Livestock 27. Livestock and rangeland research receives a substantial share of the ER report. ICARDA finds this proper and supportive of the case it has advanced for this sector in its MTP 1994-98, which anticipates many of the Panei’ s proposals. Nevertheless, the Panel considers that the resources allocated to this discipline are less than optimal. We agree but wish to point out that these resources are, in fact, greater than is indicated by the size of resources 6 allocated to livestock. A substantial proportion of the total Legume Program b,&: is rc;c;zxh on -~;~zGI and forzgtt crops. and the major effort in barley research is directed towards animal feed. The cost incurred for these studies can be legitimately considered as part of the expenditure on livestock research. specifically 28. Several steps toward developing a long-term strategy for rangeland research at ICARDA have been taken in the recent past, but the strategy has not reached the point of defining quantified goals. Actions have included extensive vegetation and socioeconomic surveys among pastoralists and sedentary herders in Syria, Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan Small-scale technical innovations, where grazing control is possible, have been tested and several of thzse have indicated good promise of enhanced productivity and technology transfer. They include the application of phosphate to severely overgrazed grass and legume shrubs and the creation and management of fodder banks of perennial shrubs (Atnplsr spp.). To stimulate and ensure further focussing of ICARDA’ s strategy in the future, ICARDA in 1992 selected for the leadership of its PFLP a scientist with considerable experience in rangeland rehabilitation and management- ICARDA is closely following up the ongoing CGIAR wide efforts to develop a unified strategy and integrated programs for livestock research and will formulate its own approaches in this context. The Outreach 29. The Panel’ s reflections on the evolving CGIAR approaches, especially those related to NARSs and their links with IARCs, address the type of issues that we would have wished to raise ourselves. The Panel, however, does the task with articulateness and lucidity that are beyond our reach. The interdependence of IARC and NARSs work, the uneven development of the latter, the uncertainty of resources available to them resulting in discontinuities in their research programs, the need to evolve a sense of NARSs partnership with, and ownership of, IAEEs, the delicate nature of the relationship between the two sides - these aspects and others touched upon are, in our view, valid and important. ICARDA has long had an association with NARSs that is generally acknowledged to be one of the strong and effective modes of cooperation among NARSs, donors and IARCs. ICARDA’ s approach is based on the premise that the Center has no research agenda for the outreach purely of its own, but that there are national agendas which ICARDA supports within the limits set by its mandate and resources. It implements this cooperative work in the context of true partnership, and like the Panel. recognizes the wide variability of NARSs, and the often sharp and unexpected fluctuations in their fortunes. Because of this, the Center maintains a flexible attitude that enables it to respond in a timely manner and with an appropriate degree of specificity to needs as they arise. 30. 7 31. ICARDA must, naturally, observe the delicate balance between the dictates of its mandate, a& *P perceptions and expectations of the o&her stakeholders - NARss and donors. These need not be contradictory and ICARDA has not found it impossible to perform a useful service that has broadly satisfied the various partners. Although there may still remain among NARSs some misconceptions about the true role of an international center, there is a growing appreciation that IARCs are neither donor agencies nor substitutes for national organizations, particularly in areas where a long-term national commitment is required. As to donors, ICAEWA has not felt undue pressures from them to al‘ ter its course w mode of operation. Donors to special projects, like donors to restricted core activities, do, however, show preference for one type of work or another and, thus, cause the Center to adjust its core resource allocation. ICARDA can plead for a different attitude to funding but, in the final analysis, the matter is beyond its decision domain, and will continue to be subject to the agendas of sovereign donors. 32. 33. A question has been raised as to the appropriate level of involvement of IARCs in research and training activities of NARSs. The Panel singles out for comment ICARDA’ s involvement in extension-oriented transfer of technology, working directly with farmers. It must be emphasized that the bulk of this work is being done within the framework of adoption and impact studies to understand farmers’ and consumers’viewpoints. Our h4TP 1994-98 is explicit in this where it states ‘ The Center’ s experimentation cycle includes, at the interface between research and extension, farmer-conducted trials that bring out elements of farming practices influenced by the division of labour within the farming family’ . Undoubtedly, this research has an extension dimension, but ICARDA is conscious of the constraints imposed by its mandate and resources to covet a major extension role in the region. 34. The concept presented by the Panel that the outreach service could be better delivered through a chain of agroecological regions each with a center of excellence conducting what they term ‘ trunk’ research activities with satellite branches to further test, fine- tune, and deliver technologies to a widening array of end-users in comparable agroecological zones, has been considered by ICARDA. Inherent in the concept is the redeployment of Headquarters staff to the regions, thus lowering their number and inputs to below the criticai mass level. Further, we believe that when this concept is transformed into an implementable framework, which takes account of present and likely future resources, one arrives at something not unlike ICARDA’ s present approach and chain of outreach programs which is, as the Panel states, ‘ relevant to major agroecological zones within the region’ . 35. The Panel recognizes the important role of training as a vital part of ICARDA’ s mission in contributing to capacity-building in NARSs. Through its visits to different countries in the region it found good recognition of the training offered by the Center. The Panel is concerned that the budget crisis is hitting training programs rather hard, and ICARDA shares this concern. As m other important areas, the Centel w:!! seek to optimize the use of resources and minimize any adverse impact of resource shortages. The course we intend to follow is to narrow the range of training courses offered and concentrate on fewer activities. In the meantime, ICARDA will continue its efforts to seek complementary funding for training. Past experience suggests that this activity is attractive to many donors. 36. During the Plan preparation, ICARDA purposely delayed decisions on finalizing certain appointments which can be affected by possible restructuring of the work These posts, including Head of Training which was occupiedin an acting capacity by a senior staff member, will be filled on a permanent basis before the end of 1993. 37. The likely role of ICARDA in the NIRS (the Newly Independent Republics) has been outlined in our MTP 1994-98 which states “The Mediterranean-type environments covered by ICARDA’ s mandate extend beyond the countries of West Asia-North Africa, particularly to neighboming Newly Independent States (NIS) in the south of the former USSR. ICARDA has long had contacts with some of these countries which were formalized in a 1990 Protocol of Cooperation between ICARDA and VASKHNIL (the All Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences). Cooperation has consisted of joint collection missions, exchange of germplasm, the hosting of visiting scientists and a limited amount of joint crop improvement research. ICARDA expects a growing demand for its services in these states, and is well placed to respond positively at the technical level. The current and anticipated leveis of resources, however, do not permit substantial involvement in them, but ICARDA will seek special funding for work that meets their needs from countries and organizations interested in assisting them”. ICARDA has tentatively identified three potential subzones where it can contribute: The higher areas of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, which are geographically contiguous with ICARDA’ s operations in East Anatolia and N.W. Iran and where germplasm, livestock and farming systems are all similar. 2. The highland areas of Tadjikistan and S.E. Kazakhstan which have similarities in small ruminant management and, potentially, forage and barley germplasm. 3. The lowlands of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan which could use ICARDA food and forage legumes as alternatives in new rotations. In this subzone ICRISAT could also make important contributions. 1. 38. Research Support Services 39. ICARDA’ s research support servicesreceive favourabjle comment from the Panel which commends the Center on the excellent progress it has made on establishing the base germplasm collection and the creation of an organizational basis for this work; on the way it dealt with the seed-health issue and the system it established for handling incoming and outgoing seed; and on upgrading the biostatistics and computing services, including the capability to process financial and administrative information. 40. A few suggestionsare made on ICARDA’ s germplasm conservation activities which conform to our own intentions. Thus ICARDA will contime to give high priority to the seed multiplication required to complete the process of depositing material for base collections and to press for an offkial recognition and protection of in situ preservation areas - work that can be done in cooperation with WANANET (the Collaboration Network on Plant Genetic Resources in WANA established jointly with IBPGR), and with the In sine and Biodiversity Working Group. Finally, ICARDA will attempt to quantify the use made of germplasm conserved in its genebank in germplasm enhancement work both inside and outside WANA. 41. With regard to seed health, the Panel suggests that an effort be made to increase the testing of outgoing batches from 60% to 100%. Currently, ICARDA is taking part in the Inter-Center Working Group on Seed Health which has the issue on its agenda. We will adhere to whatever guidelines the Group recommends. Governance 42. The Panel has noted the strengths of ICARDA’ s Board, its effective mode of operation, the cordial, open and mutual trust that exists between the Board and Management and the awareness of the Board of the need for consolidating and fine-tuning the many improvements and innovations it has introduced over the past several years. The exhortation of the Panel that the Board continue in this direction coincides with the Board’ s own plans. 43. The Panel considers the current BOT well balanced as far as geographic, donor/non-donor and gender representation are concerned. It encourages the Board to carefully consider Center commitments in the strategic and mediumterm plans and plan membership balance accordingly. ICMDA agrees. Before every selection the Nominations Committee updates the profile of the expertise as needed at that juncture to improve disciplinary, regional and gender representation on the Board. The Board is also aware of the importance of staggering membership to achieve a more even flow of members and avoid bunching. In its meeting of May 1993 it produced a longterm schedule that meets this requirement. Circumstances such as the unexpected retirement of members can, however, upset the best of plans. 10 44. The fact that the EC acts on behalf of the Board between meetings is, as the Panel notes, an obligation required by :CiI‘ ,X’ s ChGcr. The Charr;;; tiu requires that ‘ All actions of the EC shall be reported to the Board at its next subsequent meeting’ for endorsement. The EC has meticulously observed both directives. There is, in this, a safeguard against the EC taking preemptive judgements on issues that could and should be deferred to the full Board. The role of ICARDA’ s Audit Committee is not confined to financial matters, but covers all functions except the monitoring of research which has been assigned to the Program Committee. The Board has recently reviewed the terms of reference of the Audit Committeeand reworded parts of the text to remove any possible ambiguity as to the ‘ wide scope of this Committee’ s mandate. 45. 46. Useful comments are made by the Panel on a number of procedural issues including nominations for the posts of Chair and Deputy Chair of the Board, service on various committees, orientation of new members, evaluation of performance of senior officers of the Center and others of a housekeeping nature. We consider these comments worth keeping in mind in the reviews of its operations that the Board periodically conducts. In its May 1993 Meeting, the BOT has addressed these issues, set in motion a review process and reached a decision on a few of them including the nomination and election of the Chair, Vice-Chair and members of various committees of the Board, and on a more formal annual evaluation of the DG. The Board is convinced that first-hand knowledge of the Center’ s work both in the host country and the outreach is essential for enhancing the performance of its members who have always been encouraged to visit outreach locations. Several members have taken advantage of this opportunity. The Board will continue to encourage its members to undertake such visits and Management will continue to provide logistical support. The Board has now assigned the task of scheduling member visits and the briefing of new members to the Board’ s Vice-Chair. 47. 48.. The Board feels that the current arrangement whereby new members serve their first year on the Program Committee is sensible and can be justified on both practical and conceptual considerations. Normally, Members start their term at the end of a Regular Board meeting, when all committees would have already been elected. Moreover, attending one or two meetings of the PC before joining a committee that they prefer exposes members to the range of ICARDA’ s activities that the Panel has rightly emphasized. 49. A recurrent .theme in the ER Report is the interface between Board and Management. ICARDA agrees on the importance of a clear definition of responsibilities and on the need for any Board to exercise adequate oversight without undue interference in management domains. On the other hand, there is no unique formula that can regulate the relationship for all boards 11 and all managements, and over-regulation is not without its negative aspects. ICARDA’ s Board maintains that its role is not static and that it has sufficient flexiiility to adjust to the prevailing circumstances. The Panel has underlined that ICARDA’ s current Board and Management have succeeded in achieving the right balance between latitude and accountability. There is no reason to suspect that future Board/Management relationships will not be equally successfuL 50. The Board is aware of the problems and opportunities that the impending changes in Management and Board membership entaiL It agrees thqt this transition should be an occasion for the Board to review such aspects as its stn~cture and operation, the division of work among its committees, its relation with management, ana the proper level of oversight and monitoring it exercises. In fact, such a review has been set in motion through the process of Board self-evaluation, not only in terms of the quality of service rendered by Members, but also with regard to delineating duties and responsibilities of the Board as the highest authority of the Center. The PC, with the largest Board membership, has initiated a parallel process and other committees also regularly discuss their roles although, being smaller and with narrow roles, they have to cope with fewer issues. In this context, the Board finds the recommendations of the Panel on self-reexamination by the Board helpful in the pursuit of the objectives it set for itself. Research Management 51. The Panel, like ICARDA, are rightly concerned with the proper level of checks and balances in research management. We have noted that their recommendation echoes ICARDA’ s own statement on the issue in its Strategy document which states ‘ ICARDA is conscious of the claims of freedom in research pursuits and discipline and accountability in financial and administrative matters. Creativity cannot be attained on comm&d and laissez-faire management is not always the most efficient sryie’ . The Center has been consistent in the application of this approach. In fact, the Panel has found “a high degree of freedom to conduct research which is acknowledged and appreciated by research staff’ . The Panel, nevertheless, senses a rigidity in administrative and financial controls. This is correct, although we would have preferred the word firmness to rigidity. In any case, the introduction of a project-based budgeting system involving devolution of authority should result in some relaxation of controls. The Panel has raised the issue of research review and decision- making. At ICARDA, this is not a single isolated act, but a continuing and evolving process in which scientists interact among themselves, with Program Leaders, the DDG(R), the DG and the Board, mainly through its Program Committee. It involves feedback from cooperating NARSs in our day-to-day contact with them, in the series of Annual Coordination Meetings we hold jointly with them, and in subject-specific workshops/conferences organized by ICARDA. The Center’ s Training and Research Advisory Committee (TRAC) on which 12 52. all Programs and research support services are represented and which meets a aUIII1 Am---. 2: r!j Zes a year, plays an important role in coordinating research, reaching a consensus and formalizing decision. In all this, the Center’ s Strategy and h4TP constitute the reference points. With regard to the evaluation of the quality of research and research workers - an aspect touched upon by the Panel -1CARDA uses several parameters. These include the quality of written reports, publication in refereed journals, successfulresearch outputs in terms of varieties released and methodologies developed, performance in periodically held seminars, contributions to training and, above all, peer perceptions. The annual evaluation of staff, starting within the Program and ending at an inter-Program Evaluation Committee chaired by the DDG(R), is one occasion when equitable evaluation among scientists performing different functions and serving in different Programs is attempted. ICARDA has considered the possibility of using scientists from outside the Center to participate in staff evaluation but ruled that out as a practical option. For it to be done properly, it calls for the services of a team of scientists to address the range of subjects covered by the Center’ s research, as well as an intimate knowledge of the Center and the CG-system to which it belongs. It is also demanding in time, effort and cost. Nevertheless, and as noted by the Panel, ICARDA uses visiting scientists opportunistically in peer assessment. We find the Panel’ s proposal on ‘ milestone’ reviews more practical and intend to study this model for possible adoption. The Panel is aware that there has already been much discussion of structural possibilities within the Center, and that the process is continuing. As part of the review that ICARDA undertook in conjunction with the preparation of its MTP, it considered some 12 models for restructuring its research Programs. The Panel has tentatively recommended a ‘ slimmed-down’ closerknit management structure which has some of the features of one or two of the models previously studied by ICARDA. Its advantages are seen as a reduction in staff and devolution of decision-making. On the negative side, the proposed “flat structure” had, in the cases where it was tried, tended to polarize germplasm enhancement and farm resource management scientists. Further, the model is not clear on how the usual functions of the Deputy Director General, particularly those related to research coordination, can be effectively performed with the cancellation of the post. ICARDA will study the model carefully, together with other options. The process will naturally involve an examination of the responsibilities and demands on the -Management team and other officers and of the boundaries of responsibilities that they exercise. . Finance 55. ICARDA is encouraged by the Panel’ s positive comments on the budgetary and financial aspects of its operations. There are, however, two aspects - fund mobilization and project budgeting - which were discussed at length by the Panel and about which it made useful suggestions which will help us in designing our future strategies and actions. ICARDA has made serious efforts to maintain current, and mobilize new, support for its work with some success.The main sources t’ hat remain’to be tapped are the better-endowed countries of WANk In the way of explanp+inn.rather than finding an excuse, ICARDA renewed its fund-raising efforts in this region as early as 1989 but its budding initiatives were set back by the Gulf war which diverted attention to more crucial matters. Only recently has it become possible to revive our efforts. Although it is too early to report success,some signs are encouraging. With the MTP and ER behind the Center, the encumbent DG intends to commit a greater proportion of his remaining service with ICARDA to fund raising. The idea put fomrd by the Panel of a fund-raising committee and strategy, has recently been addressed by the Board which requested Management to develop a firm proposal on the issue. 56. 57. ICARDA is taking the position that financial flows are cyclical in nature, that plenty and austerity alternate and that we have passed the midpoint in the austerity period. Our plans, therefore, envisage maintaining, to the extent possible, the integrity of our research programs so that we are well positioned to reactivate it when circumstances change. The Board has set the first six months of 1996 (half way through the MTP 1994-98) as the target date for a major review of the structure and function of the Center. 58. As to management by project, the Panel has made a good analysis of the issues involved and their description of the model is almost identical to ICARDA’ s. The Panel has noted that ICARDA Board and Management are not averse to the concept, and have structured the Center’ s MTP 1994-98 around it. ICARDA has had long experience in the use of project budgeting which has been followed in over 40 examples, including all our outreach work and certain headquarter activities such as biotechnology and seed production projects. Expansion into other areas should pose RO insurmountable problems. The recently installed suite of ORACLE financial systems, together with a planned Project Management system and associated procedures, are adequate to cope with strategic and medium-term planning, as we11as annual budget development, execution and reporting requirements in an integrated approach. 59. The Panel recommends that an existing staff member be designated for coordinating the total system design and implementation and developing for them a time-phased plan, as well as a reporting schedule on progress. Until recently, and during the hardware procurement phase. the task was assigned 14 to the DDG(0). With the completion of this phase and the resulting shifts in priorities, thfs function iii11 be asslgnti w pi titsk iorcx? -!~%drri >; t>:e. DDG(R). The DG will monitor progress and report on it regularly to the Board. 60. The Panel is aware of the dilemma imposed by the desirability to accord project officers maximum autonomy in handling project funds and the limits imposed by uncertain funding, which advise caution. ICARDA is probing its way towards a position that satisfies the various claims. In the final analysis, the Panel notes, fuIl devolution need not imply the abandonment of financial and administrative accountability. Administration 61. In the area of administration, the Panel finds that progress has been made on the further development and clarification of the latest version of Personnel Policies approved by the Board in 1989, on the completion of a job equivalence study, the increase in staff training including attendance by senior managers of management training courses, the establishment of an Ombudsman Committee, and others. The main gap identified by the Panel is the preparation of a human resource planning and development strategy including a ‘ human resource needs plan’ . Like the Panel, we hope that recruitment at the higher RA levels, which is now under consideration, will attract a qualified human resources professional with the desired qualifications for this task. Many components of such a plan have already been developed or are currently under preparation. The Panel describes in detail ICARDA’ s staff categories, their performance appraisals, and compensation packages, but no major firm recommendations are made. ICARDA wishes to affirm that the record of recruitment and staff turn-over rate would indicate that the Center and its compensation packages remain an attractive option for both scientists and support staff recruited internationally or in the region. The Center has a balanced turn-over rate which is large enough to ensure its vitality, but not too large to cause concern. Virtually all those who left ICARDA for reasons other than retirement have done so to join comparable organizations, where they occupy senior posts. This gives us confidence in the quality of our recruits and of the experience they gain in the service of the Center. ICARDA has little to add to the favourable statements made by the Panel on ICARDA’ s record in gender issues. They highlight the reasonable proportion 62. 63. of women on the international staff, and praise the safe, tolerant and hospitable environment in which they work and travel. The Panel noted that ICARDA has a Gender Analysis and Research Committee and suggested the establishment of a Gender Staffing Committee to advise Management on spouse employment and related staffing. We believe that by widening the terms of reference of the existing Committee, this purpose can be served. 1.5 64. The Panel noted, and commended, ICARDA’ s action in contracting out the clxring and trzrei ~rvices and suggested an extension of this experiment in privatization to other areas. Our actions clearly demonstrate that, other things being equal, this would be our preferred approach The economic &mate in the host country is rapidly changing and might well open new venues w-hich so far have not been viable options. ICARDA will not be slow to take advantage of emerging opportunities. ICARDA wishes to conclude its remarks by again thanking the Panel for its painstaking work, for the perceptive advice they have given and for their many encouraging remarks on progress that the Center has made and continues to make. They give a clear message that ICARDA is a Center engaged in relevant, seful and much needed research, irruL it is open to new ideas and promising innovations, that it is fiscally and administratively well managed, and that it is a responsible guardian of stakeholder interests, particularly in the effective and efficient use of donor contributions. This testimonial carries with it the assurance to its many friends that ICARDA has proved worthy of their trust and, thus, deserving of their continued encouragement and support 65. 16 THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND CGIAR SECRETARIAT REPORT OF THE THIRD EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN THE DRY AREAS (ICARDA) Panel: Dr. Dr. Dr. Mr. Dr. Jock R. Anderson (Chair) Adel S. El-Beltagy Kurt Finsterbusch Graham Jenkins Peter Trutmann Mr. William Carlson (Consultant) Dr. John McIntire (Consultant) Ms. Elizabeth Field (CGIAR Secretariat) Dr. Vivian Timon (TAC Secretariat) CGIAR SECRETARIAT World Bank May 1993 The World Bank INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION AND DEVELOPMENT 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 U.S.A. (2021 477-l 234 Cable Address: INTBAFRAD Cable Address: INDEVAS May 9, 1993 Dr. Alex F. McCalla Chairman Technical Advisory CommitteeKGIAR University of California Davis, CA 95616 Mr. Alexander von der Osten Executive Secretary CGIAR 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 Dear Alex and Alexander, I am pleased to submit to you the Report of the Third External Review of ICARDA. In conducting this review, the Panel gained an appreciation of the complexity of ICARDA’ s challenge and the many strides that have been taken to meet this. Since 1988, ICARDA has consolidated its strategic research at headquarters and has strived to devolve, and continues to devolve, more applied and adaptive research to its outreach locations. Meantime, the important links to more “upstream” work have been forged energetically through the Center’ s many active relationships with advanced institutions around the world. The Center’ s infrastructure for outreach collaboration has been strengthened through the appointment of Regional Coordinators and further development of research networks, and the Panel considers that ICARDA could serve effectively as the focal institution for CGIAR ecoregional activities in the WANA region. As the CGIAR System matures -- as technologies are developed, priorities shift, NARSs’ capacities allow, and/or funding constraints demand -- centers should and surely will devolve more activities and responsibilities to national partners. The Panel considered the caseof ICARDA’ s devolution of faba bean research (as decided by TAC in 1986 and endorsed by the Second EPR in 1988), and believes that there are important lessons to be learned from this process, which has not been wholly smooth but is also not yet complete. Decisions on devolution, such as this one, entail many stakeholders, and have possibly global implications for future research and food-production capabilities. Thus, even - perhaps particularly -- in this time of constrained resources, when decisions are made to devolve designated CGIAR activities to national programs, all efforts should be made to help ensure that such devolution can be successful. RCA 248423 - WUI 64146 - 2 - May 9, 1993 Unlike a growing number of other CGIAR centers, ICARDA has not had to shrink its research program significantly in response to financial constraints. ICARDA has managed its finances cautiously and has instituted a number of measures to meet the reduced funding, which include increasing operational efficiencies and drawing on financial reserves. Given the funding outlook, however, longer term strategies will be required either to increase funds and/or to downsize ICARDA’ s program. Needless to say, this will create new challenges for ICARDA’ s Board and Management, which will undoubtedly require some shifts in traditional roles and responsibilities. In addition, a greater emphasis on human resource planning and development will be crucial if ICARDA is to continue to provide an environment in which creativity and innovation -- the basis of all research success-- will thrive. . The Panel’ s task was the usual challenging one made even more so by several economizing measures, and we have commented further on this in chapter 5, which deals with the review process. We have there, in what is an unconventional chapter in an ER, also raised several broad questionsfor CGIAR policy analysts,which arise as a consequence of fuller CG engagementwith NARSs and, we feel, have logical implications for extending the scopeof reviews to encompassthe NARSs themselves. These, however, are issuesfor another day, which probably should come soon. Our work in the Review was greatly facilitated by the efforts and input of ICARDA staff, Management and Board members, as well as by ICARDA’ s partners in the NARSs who respondedto our survey and/or met us during our country visits. It is our fervent hope that this Report will help strengthen ICARDA to ensure its continued and long-term successin the WA:NA region, and will give you, and the CGIAR at large, confidence that ICARDA is worthy of continued support. Yours sincerely, Jock R. Anderson Chair, ICARDA ER Panel Table of Contents Third External Review of ICARDA SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. EVOLUTION AND STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 1 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 .. .. .. ...... . .... .. .... . ... ..... . ......... 1.1 Origin, Mandate and Role of ICARDA in Arid Land Agriculture 1.2 ICARDA’ s Strategy ...................................... The Agroecological Thrust ............................. 1.2.1 The Commodity Thrust ............................... 1.2.2 The Activity Thrust ................................. 1.2.3 Institutional Linkages ................................ 1.2.4 1.3 ICARDA Today ......................................... 2. RESEARCH 2.1 2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11 11 12 13 13 16 17 17 17 18 19 22 24 24 24 25 26 29 30 31 31 33 35 36 37 37 37 38 39 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 ........................................... Introduction Farm Resource Management Program .......................... 2.2.1 Agroecological Characterization .......................... [Box 2.1 ICARDA and agroecology] ...................... 2.2.2 Natural Resource Conservation and Management ............... [Box 2.2 Research on irrigation at ICARDA] ................. 2.2.3 Analysis of Farming Systems Improvement ................... Cereal Program ......................................... 2.3.1 Background ...................................... Achievements During the Past Five Years .................... 2.3.2 ., ...................... 2.3.3 Assessment ................ Overview ........................................ 2.3.4 Legume Program ........................................ Background ...................................... 2.4.1 Achievements During the Past Five Years .................... 2.4.2 [Box 2.3 Faba bean research devolution] ................... 2.4.3 Assessment ....................................... [Box 2.4 Analysis of lentil research investment] ............... 2.4.4 Overview ........................................ Pasture, Forage and Livestock Program ......................... 2.5.1 Background ...................................... Achievements Over the Past Five Years and Assessment ........... 2.5.2 Overview ........................................ 2.5.3 [Box 2.5 Relative emphasis on livestock research] .............. Socioeconomic Research ................................... 2.6.1 Background ...................................... 2.6.2 Achievements and Assessment ........................... Current and Planned Work ............................. 2.6.3 [Box 2.6 Gender analysis in ICARDA research] ............... i Table of Contents, continued 2.7 3. Overview ........................................ 2.6.4 Overall Assessment ....................................... [Box 2.7 Integrated pest and diseasemanagement] ................... PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES 40 41 43 RESEARCH-RELATED 3.1 3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 45 45 45 46 48 48 49 49 50 50 50 50 51 52 53 54 55 57 57 59 59 59 60 61 61 62 63 65 66 66 67 3.3 ........................................... Introduction Research Support ........................................ .’................... 3.2.1 Germplasm Conservation .......... 3.2.2 Seed Health/Quarantine ............................... Services ......................................... 3.2.3 3.2.3.1 Laboratory and field facilities ...................... 3.2.3.2 Computer and Biometrics ......................... 3.2.3.3 Visitor liaison ................................ National Program Support and International Cooperation ............. Outreach Program .................................. 3.3.1 3.3.1.1 Introduction to outreach .......................... 3.3.1.2 Highland Regional Program ....................... [Box 3.1 Research initiatives in Central Asia] ........... 3.3.1.3 Arabian Peninsula Regional Program .................. 3.3.1.4 West Asia Regional Program ....................... 3.3.1.5 Nile Valley Regional Program ...................... .................... 3.3.1.6 North Africa Regional Program 3.3.1.7 Latin America Regional Program .................... 3.3.1.8 Networks ................................... 3.3.1.9 Seed production ............................... Training and Information .............................. 3.3.2 ........................... 3.3.2.1 Training at ICARDA ............................ 3.3.2.2 Information services 3.3.3 Institutional Relationships .............................. 3.3.3.1 Host country ................................. 3.3.3.2 National agricultural research systems ................. 3.3.3.3 Regional organizations ........................... 3.3.3.4 CGIAR centers ............................... 3.3.3.5 Other institutes and agencies ....................... 3.3.3.6 General public relations .......................... Overall Assessment .................................. 3.3.4 AND MANAGEMENT 4. ORGANIZATION 4.1 4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 69 69 70 71 72 72 Introduction ........................................... Governance ............................................ Size and Composition of the Board ........................ 4.2.1 Management of the Board .............................. 4.2.2 Selection, Orientation and Development of Trustees ............. 4.2.3 Policy and Program Oversight ........................... 4.2.4 ii Table of Contents,continued 73 Management and Operations Oversight ..................... 4.2.5 75 4.3 Leadership ............................................ 75 4.4 Research Management .................................... 75 4.4.1 Research Structure .................................. 76 Decision Making and Controls ........................... 4.4.2 77 Research Leadership ................................. 4.4.3 77 4.4.4 Strategic and Medium-Term Planning ...................... 78 Research Review Processes ............................. 4.4.5 i . 79 ........... Annual Planning and ResourceAllocation Processes 4.4.6 79 Committees and Research .............................. 4.4.7 79 Research Environment and Teamwork ...................... 4.4.8 80 Options for Structural Change ........................... 4.4.9 82 4.5 Resource Management .................................... 82 Budget and Finance ................................. 4.5.1 82 4.5.1.1 Financial condition and budget strategy ................ 83 4.5.1.2 Financial management ........................... ... 84 4.5.1.3 Integrated planning and budgeting - project-based budgeting 85 4.5.1.4 External audit ................................ 86 4.5.1.5 Internal audit ................................ ..... 87 4.5.1.6 Importation of Syrian currency (“the Lebanesewindow”) 87 4.5.2 Human Resources .................................. 88 4.5.2.1 Personnel policies ............................. 88 4.5.2.2 Regional staff ................................ 89 4.5.2.3 “Casual” work force ............................ 89 .............................. 4.5.2.4 International staff 91 4.5.2.5 Human resource planning and development .............. 92 4.5.2.6 Promotion of P-level research staff ................... 92 4.5.2.7 Turnover rates and center effectiveness ................ 93 4.5.2.8 Gender and staffing ............................ 93 4.5.2.9 Grievance procedures ........................... 93 4.5.2.10 Personnel offtcer ............................. 94 Administration ..................................... 4.5.3 4.5.3.1 Administration vs. Research-- status, staffing and bridging the gap94 94 4.5.3.2 Administrative services and facilities .................. 5. THE REVIEW PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 97 98 100 100 101 102 102 102 102 103 103 5.1 Efficiency, Efficacy and Expediency Tradeoffs ..................... 5.2 Scope of Review and the CGIAR Dependency on NARSs .............. 5.3 Some Potentially Useful Instruments .......................... 5.3.1 A Survey of NARS Clients and Collaborators ................ A Survey of ICARDA ResearchStaff ..................... 5.3.2 5.3.3 Other Approaches to Data Gathering and Analysis ............. 5.4 Exploratory Innovations and Lessons at ICARDA 1993 .............. 5.4.1 The Combination of Program and Management Review .......... 5.4.2 Enhancementof the Panel by Consultants ................... 5.4.3 Active Involvement of Secretariat Staff .................... 5.4.4 Shortened Main-Phase Visit ........................... . .. 111 Table of Contents, continued Appendices Appendix 1: Appendix 2: Appendix 3: Appendix 4: Appendix 5: Appendix 6: Appendix 7: Appendix 8: Terms of Reference for the Third External Program and Management Review of ICARDA ..... . . .... .. .. .... . . .. Panel Composition and Biographical Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Persons and Institutions Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey of ICARDA Clients: Assessmentof Past Performance and Future Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey of ICARDA Research StafC: Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey of ICARDA Research Staff: Summary of Responses . . . . . . . . . An Agroecological Approach to Research: Current Philosophy, Organization and Future Scenarios -- A Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assessmentof ICARDA’ s Response to the Recommendations of the 1988 EPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 113 116 125 136 137 140 143 Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 List of Figures Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 1.1 1.2 1.3 4.1 A4. I A4.2 A4.3 A4.4 An overview of ICARDA’ s thrusts and their supposed linkages . . . . . . . ICARDA organization -- as at April 1992 . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . ICARDA organization in 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . Proposed Center management structure for ICARDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ranking for research programs: past five years vs. next five years . . . . Ranking for training programs: past five years vs. next five years . . _ . Ranking for publications in programs: past five years vs. next five years Relationship among program areas: single linkage dendogram based on four activities in the past five years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship among program areas: single linkage dendogram based on three activities (research, training and publication) over the next five years Scheme for an agroecological organization of research . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 .. 8 .. 9 . . 81 . 132 . 133 . 134 . 135 . 135 . 142 Figure A4.5 Figure AJ. 1 List of Tables Table Table Table Table Table Table 1.1 2. I 3.1 3.2 3.3 A4.1 ICARDA staff, 1988 and 1993 ............................. J Actual expenditures by research program (nominal thousand US$) ....... 11 The types and numbers of networks coordinated by ICARDA .......... 58 Agricultural research personnel in WANA ...................... 62 WANA NARSs classified according to the number of researchers employed . 62 Assessmentof the effectiveness of ICARDA’ s activities over the past five years (1988-1992) ........................ 130 Prioritization of ICARDA’ s future (5-10 year horizon) ............. 131 Table A4.2 iv Acknowledgements The Panel wishes to express its appreciation to the Management and staff of ZCXRDA for the support they provided throughout the course of the Review. The open and constructive spirit of the discussions, and the help so willingly given whenever needed, are gratefully acknowledged. The Panel also expressesits sincere thanks to ICARDA stafffor the warm hospitality they extended. Dr. Nasrat Fadda, Director General, and Mr. Jim McMahon, Deputy Director General (Operations) deserve much credit .for their contributions to planning the Review and ensuring that the Panel had adequate working conditions at all times. The Panel wishes to record a “special thank you” to Ms. Afaf Rashed, Administrative Assistant to the Board of Trustees, for her warmth and attention to members’ needs and for arranging the Panel’ s visits to Aleppo so eflectively. The Panel also wishes to record its appreciation of ICARDA ‘ s partners in the regional and national programs who met with its members and openly shared their views on ICARDA ‘ s work. Finally, the Panel wishes to thank Ms. Ingrid Hagen of the CGIAR Secretariat who expertly prepared this report under much time pressure, and Mrs. Parvin Damania of Aleppo who very ably assistedher. V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overview Whatever the contemporary perspective taken -. . . . growing food deficits, and demandsfor self-reliance in the region, environmental degradation, and the pressing need for sustainableagricultural systems,. ecoregionality, and the quest for enhancedrelevance in agricultural research, capacity-building imperatives, and the Center’ s appraised contribution -- ICARDA makes a compelling casefor its continued existence and the case will probably grow in strength for years to come. It is one of those cases that, if ICARDA did not exist (as a result of earlier donor insight), it would have to be created. A new creation -- a “clean slate” model -- might look rather different from the current model with its major site in Syria. As it is, more comprehensiveengagementby the Center into NARSs’ programs may yet see significant shifts of international research resources into the various major agroecological niches of the region (Appendix 7). As in so many things, the abiding issue is funding. ICARDA must broaden its donor support generally, but especially from some of the better-endowed (and not just oil-exporting) countries in the region, if it is to survive as the productive research establishmentthat it has become. The present “solid” state of both managerial and research staff is such as to make this a good time for donors to move forward with strengthened support. Research Program 1. The research programs comprise the raison d’ Ctre for ICARDA’ s existence. They are staffed by capable and committed scientists who are continuing to raise the profile and impact of ICARDA in its mandated region. Through their efforts, ICARDA has made good progress in the achievement of its targets, particularly as the budget under which it is now operating is less than one-half of that anticipated in the MTP 1990-94. 2. In terms of impact, with respect to germplasm enhancementof wheat, one study to which the Panel had accesshas revealed an impressive benefit/cost outcome within the host country, with gross benefits amounting to some US$30 million of increased production in the 1990-91 season. Other analogous studies are in process but are not yet available. Increasing adaptation of durum wheat from the CIMMYTKARDA program oriented to lower rainfall areas is becoming evident. Along theselines, the current and proposed future emphasisin wheat and barley improvement on germplasm enhancement targeted for more specific adaptation is endorsed. 3. Since ICARDA has the global mandate for barley, it is disappointing that tangible evidence of impact, as measured by farmer adoption, rather than by the official release of varieties by NARSs, is deficient. However, the Panel has confidence that barley material released by the NARSs will make a strong impact in the next quinquennium. 4. Overall, the Panel found it difficult to assesswith a desirable level of detail the impact of ICARDA in the WANA region generally, and strongly endorses the preparation of further welldocumented studies of ICARDA’ s observable impacts. To achieve this, the maintenance of socioeconomic research at least at the current levels is strongly supported. 5. Achievements in the Highland Program have been disappointing until now, especially with respect to the commodity improvement programs. The Panel acknowledgesthe operational difficulties that have hitherto affected germplasm enhancementfor the Highland Program and has concluded that, with respect to cereals, this work is now organized with better prospectsof success. Given the importance of selection within the target environment, it is imperative that the planned bilateral program with Iran proceeds to implementation quickly in order to make the long-delayed internationally-oriented progress in this regard as early as possible. 6. The Panel considered ICARDA’ s responseto the injunction from TAC and the 1988 EPR that resources should be shifted from food-legume to livestock research, and concluded that some progress had been made in this direction, although research directly on animals has not increased. A further reduction in food-legume research is not supported by the Panel, for several reasons elaborated on in the text, related not only to sustainabibty concerns but also to the fact that these crops provide a key source of protein for many low-income people in WANA. 7. ICARDA must yet address the problem of how to make a significant contribution to increasing livestock research within the framework of PFLP/FRMP, and within the wider framework of emerging strategiesfor international efforts in this field and the crystallizing ecoregional responsibilities. The Panel proposes that the Center undertake a more determined search for special-project funding to secure collaborative work with NARSs as a preferred solution. The Panel sensesa philosophical aversion within the scientific leadership of ICARDA to undertaking more livestock work, as defined by the direct involvement of small ruminants. It believes that the clear formulation of a research strategy for livestock by ICARDA is overdue, as also it is for rangeland management. 8. The Panel considers the changeddirection of forage legume breeding - towards presently largely unexploited yet nominally promising species- to be more appropriate than earlier work to the probable needs of the farming systems of the region. In order to rationalize this redirection to stakeholders, ICARDA should prepare a documented case for it, showing how it builds on past endeavors and opportunities. 9. The Panel has concluded that, within the commodity improvement programs in both legumes and cereals, there is good balance between applied research and more “downstream” ’activities. It recognizes the diverse capabilities of the NARSs and acceptsthat there will be a continuing requirement for research at the more applied end of the spectrum, including germplasm enhancement,for the foreseeable future. 10. The limited involvement of ICARDA in biotechnology, particularly with regard to realistic targets in DNA-marker technology, is endorsed. Efforts should continue to attain “critical mass” by special funding. Work on transgenic material is not considered advisable, at least until sound biosafety legislation is in place. 11. While recognizing that FRMP has been assigned an impossibly wide remit, the Panel is neverthelessconcerned about the diffusenessof the researchprogram. It believes that some concentration of objectives would be beneficial. In this regard, the Panel would wish to see the modest effort in . .. VIII socioeconomic analysis maintained and, as possible, increased, given the importance of policy and economic matters relative to technical aspectsin many of the region’ s problems. ICARDA’ s Role in the Region 12. ICARDA has an active outreach program, heavily based on Regional Coordinators, that involves a genuine dialogue with the NARSs on how ICARDA can usefully serve their needs. As a result of this and its other activities, ICARDA is highly regarded in much of the WANA region. Some ICARDA outreach programs could be better focused, however, especially on ICARDA’ s 13. established strengths -- particularly in the Highland and West Asia Regional Programs. The Panel is concerned, for instance, that ICARDA is working in some areas and on some research issues (e.g., in the Highland Program) to which the respective national programs themselvesare not strongly committed. 14. More generally, ICARDA’ s outreach work - much of which is funded through special projects - is diverse in nature and, while this may be the most appropriate stance for a region of this diversity, the Panel arrived at quite diverse opinions about the scope and style of the activities. Accordingly, the Panel urges ICARDA to establish explicit criteria to guide its participation in special projects. The ICARDA social scientistshave been active in outreach work but their collaborative activities 15. are often made difficult becausethey lack counterpart practitioners in the NARS institutes. This is all the more reason, however, to demonstrate the contribution that social science can make in the NARSs, so that appropriate investments in public-sector human capital can be made in the region. 16. Training at ICARDA is well developed and plays a key role in supporting the Center’ s on-campus and outreach research programs. ICARDA offers a wide range of training programs to meet the evolving needs of its NARS partners. Unfortunately, recent financial cutbacks have forced cancellation of some training activities. ICARDA’ s information servicesare professionally run. The Center now has a clearly articulated publications policy with a high standard of production. 17. At a broader level of outreach activity, the Panel finds the various network approachesbeing implemented to be fruitful in increasing collaboration with NARS scientists and to be an effective institution-building thrust, that is well-regarded by NARS personnel. Enhanced NARS capability will be crucial to ICARDA devolving more activities and responsibilities. The Panel examined the process of ICARDA’ s devolution of faba bean research (in accordancewith a 1986 TAC decision and 1988 EPR recommendation), and considers that the Center - and System -- should draw lessonsfrom the difficulties encountered, in order to help ensure a smoother processand the best likelihood of successin future cases. ICARDA’ s overall efforts in capacity-building and fostering positive relations with NARSs are vital and necessarybut not in themselvessufficient stepsfor devolution and successfulresearch partnerships in the future. 18. Overall, the extent of the outreach program is impressive in terms of program content and geographic spread. ICARDA has developed effective working relationships with several other IARCs. Within this network of collaboration, both with NARSs and IARCs, ICARDA is well situated to act as a leader for ecoregionally-basedresearch programs within WANA. ix Center Management The 1988 EMR found serious management problems at ICARDA. In response, the CGIAR 19. commissioned an Interim EMR to report on the Center’ s progress in dealing with the recommendations of the 1988 Review. The 1991 Interim Review reported on positive steps that had been taken at ICARDA to overcome the managerial weaknesses and gave a highly favorable report of the transformation it felt had occurred. The 1993 Panel recognizes that, since 1988, ICARDA has been transformed into an organization that is tightly managedwith consistently applied and transparent policies and strong systems of accountability, which were previously lacking. The good intention to create rational systems has in some casesgone to running a “tight ship” so tightly, however, that there have been negative effects on staff morale and efficiency. Governance 20. The BOT is comprised of well-qualified members who are dedicated to ICARDA and its mission. There is general agreement about the role of the Board, and relations with Managementare quite positive. Looking forward, the priorities embodied in the 1994-98 MTP, coupled with increasing budgetary constraints, create new challenges for ICARDA. The roles and style of Board/Committee operations suitable in previous years may not be optimal in the future. Thus the Panel recommends that the Board re-evaluate its traditional roles and $yle of operations, particularly with regard to oversight of programmatic and management operations. 21. The Board has devoted considerable attention to how it conducts it business, and improvements are evident. Committees have been restructured, By-Laws revised and a Board Handbook developed. The Nominating Committee has expanded the range of competencies on the Board and the Audit Committee has assumed its role diligently. The Panel’ s recommendations focus on improving specific processesfurther, such as those involving the nomination of the BOT Chair and Vice-Chair, and those concerning the annual evaluation of the performance of the DG and oversight of the evaluation of other senior managementpersonnel. Leadershin 22. The DG has effected major changes in the management of ICARDA. With the capable managementteam that is now in place, the Panel considers that the DG’ s focus should move more to fundraising during his remaining tenure, and to making the difficult strategic/policy decisions that will shape ICARDA’ s future. To do this most effectively, greater delegation and devolution of authority will be crucial. The Panel believes this can be done without compromising the financial control needed in this time of more severe funding constraints. The DG is assisted by two Deputies, for Research (DDG-R) and Operations (DDG-0). The 23. DDG-0 was appointed to take charge of developing and introducing new management systems into ICARDA during the past few years. He has accomplishedthis and plans to leave ICARDA in 1993. The Panel commends his significant contribution to the Center. It believes that, given the systems in place and effective Directors of Finance and Administration, the Center’ s decision not to replace the DDG-0 is a wise decision at this time. X Research Management A consequenceof centralized controls at ICARDA is that the DDG-R is obliged to authorize 24. many Program-level decisions, which infringes on time he could be devoting to research leadership. The Panel believes that a greater degree of authority could be delegated to Program Leaders, without compromising necessaryfiscal controls. 25. ICARDA recently completed (through a long participatory process) a MTP, which will serve as the basis for the Center’ s priorities for coming years. In recent years ICARDA has had less of a “Plan” to go by, as actual funding has fallen well below the projections of the 1990-94 MTP. The new MTP should complement ICARDA’ s planning and review processes that, in the Panel’ s view, could be strengthened and better linked. Project-based budgeting, currently under development at ICARDA, should be a useful component of a planning and review system and should offer a facilitating framework for greater devolution of authority. 26. In ICARDA’ s current research structure, four Programs, plus International Cooperation (IC) and research support activities report to the DDG-R. In 1988 IC was also led by a DDG; the current structure, which consolidates IC with Research, serves ICARDA well. ICARDA has considered numerous options for matrix organization, as recommended in 1988, and has retained its four-program structure. Cross-Program interaction, and communication in general at ICARDA, were considered problematic in 1988 and these have improved. Multi-disciplinary research now operates well, although cross-Program interaction - particularly between FRMP and the three “commodity” Programs - could be strengthened further. 27. The Panel analyzed pros and cons of different research structures for ICARDA, including the statusquo. The structure it would suggestfor the consideration of Management, if current funding trends continue, entails consolidation of the four research Programs into two -- a Resource Management Program and a Crop Germplasm Program. The structure proposed should help achieve greater synergy of personnel efforts within and across Center activities, and economize on some of the managerial overheads in an increasingly trim research center. Resource Management 28. While funding has declined in recent years, ICARDA continues to enjoy a sound financial position with a high degree of liquidity. “Downsizing” of program activities has not occurred. Management has “frozen” vacancies, decreased general staffing in administrative areas, exploited economies in support services and drawn on cash reserves to meet budget shortfalls. Longer term solutions may be required, including the possible adjustment of the research program to a more sustainablelevel under a reduced budget scenario. Given current funding prospects and program plans, the development and implementation of an explicit long-range funding strategy should be a high priority. 29. The 1988 EMR was extremely critical of ICARDA’ s financial planning, managementand control processes,citing deficiencies in staffing, organization, accounting and reporting systems, and the absence of internal auditing. The deficiencies of the past have been corrected, and a modern and versatile computer system for accounting/administrative applications is currently being installed. This should further strengthen ICARDA’ s capacity for financial analysis, decision making and, as is needed, control. xi 30. There are 2 1 internationally-recruited staff in ICARDA’ s Management/Finance/Administration units, a pattern that is historical in basis. When vacancies occur and circumstances permit, these positions tend to be downgraded. The number of internationally-recruited staff in these units should be considered in the context of a comprehensivehuman resource planning and development strategy. The 1988 EMR and 1991 Interim EMR strongly recommended ,that ICARDA recruit a 31. professionally-trained individual to head the Personnel Unit and initiate needed changes. While this did not occur, ICARDA has made some progress in the realm of human resource management. Nonetheless, the Panel’ s overall assessment is that there continue to be problems at the institutional level, and appreciable efforts are still needed, particularly in areas of human resource planning and development, and strengthening these should be a priority of Management. Recommendations The various changesproposed for ICARDA as it moves towards the new millennium are less than revolutionary, and the Panel looks forward with confidence to a needed and appreciated Center performing productively in collaboration with its partners in meeting the challenge of the complex and difficult WANA ecoregion. The Panel’ s analysis led to a wide variety of constructive suggestions for modification and change and, for the most part, these have been expressed as “suggestions,” in some caseseven conditional suggestions that must await an era of stronger funding support. This reporting strategy of the Panel has thus yielded a rather parsimonious set of explicit recommendations, especially on the “program” side of the Review, for consideration by the Center, TAC, the CGIAR, and subsequent review panels. Recommendation 2.1 (p. 16) ICARDA, as an ecoregional center for the dry sub-tropics, should be given encouragement to work in restricted research domains in irrigated agriculture for which it has expertise. However, the work should be financed with special-project funds (with a component to cover headquarters’ -related overhead) and carried out by special-project-supported staff, so as not to detract from ICARDA’ s primary research emphases. Recommendation 2.2 (p.23) The proposed move of the wheat pathologist to Ankara will further weaken the capacity for close support work in cereal pathology at Tel Hadya. ICARDA should, as an absolute minimum, fill the position of wheat pathologist at headquarters by a post-doctoral appointee. Recommendation 2.3 (p.30) Work on transgenic material should be deferred until there is bio-safety legislation in place in the host country. xii Recommendation 2.4 (p.37) In view of the ongoing debate within the Center and the many different attitudes that exist among its main partners, the NARSs, ICAFtDA shouId give immediate attention to the development of a comprehensive rangelands research strategy, in which the Center’ s role would clearly be identified. Recommendation 2.5 (p.42) ICARDA should conduct impact studies of its major technologies so that, by the time of the next ER, clear quantified data are available. Recommendation 3.1 (p.57) Research staff in Morocco should be moved to a more effective regional location for interaction with national and regional research personnel. Recommendation 3.2 (p.60) With due regard to the importance that must be assigned to training as part of capacitybuilding in NARSs, the Center should ensure that all aspects that bear on the effectiveness of the program (such as preparation of training materials) are adequately covered and, in this spirit, the filling of the Head of Training vacancy should be a high priority. Recommendation 4.1 (p.71) Responsibility for developing and managing a BOT-endorsed process for nominating and electing members to the Chair and Vice-Chair should be assigned to a BOT committee. Recommendation 4.2 (p.73) The Program Committee and the full Board should assesstheir mechanisms for oversight and reach a fresh judgement as to whether the traditional roles remain appropriate given the new challenges of the strategy, the new Medium-Term Plan, and the increasingly constrained funding situation. Recommendation 4.3 (p.74) The BOT should introduce a more systematic and objective process for annual evaluation of the performance of the DG and for the oversight of the evaluation of other top management officials. Recommendation 4.4 (p.74) The BOT should reassess its self-defined role and strategy in overseeing operations and management of ICARDA. At a minimum, the BOT should assign explicit responsibility for reviewing and assessing the full range of ICARDA’ s administrative and management systems, either as an expansion of the Audit Committee’ s role or as an assignment to a separate standing committee established for that purpose. . .. Xl11 Recommendation 4.5 (p.76) The BOT should oversee the development and implementation of a plan delineating delegation of authority, that strikes a new balance between Program freedom and fiscal/administrative control in an effort to devolve more authority to the Programs. Recommendation 4.6 (p.77) If the current organizational structure is retained, ICARDA’ s Management should examine primary responsibilities and demands on its members, in efforts to identify what the boundaries of responsibility should be for the DDGR. The plan for delegation of authority (recommendation 4.5) should include a carefully reasoned work program for the DDGR that enables the incumbent to focus on research leadership and oversight. Recommendation 4.7 (p. 83) ICARDA Management, working closely with the Board, should develop and implement a detailed, explicit, long-range funding strategy. Recommendation 4.8 (p.85) When the Board and Management reach agreement on the basic concepts and outline of a project-based budgeting system, ICARDA should: (a) designate a single project manager to be responsible for coordinating the total system design and implementation effort; (b) assign the project manager the task of developing - collaboratively with research and financial/administrative personnel - a time-phased systems design and implementation plan, including staff orientation and training components, with appropriate milestones; and (c) establish a regular reporting schedule to the Board on progress, problems and contemplated changes in the approved system design, if any. Recommendation 4.9 (p.91) ICARDA should draw up and implement a human resource planning and development strategy. This should include a comprehensive “human resource needs plan,” a skills/career development component, leadership progression/succession considerations, and a model of appraisal/rewards that is fiscally responsible and organizationally sound. Recommendation 4.10 (p.92) An external evaluation of P-1eveI (especially P3 and P4) staff by international experts in the candidate’ s field of expertise should be incorporated into the promotion review process. xiv CHAPTER 1 - EVOLUTION AND STRATEGY Readers familiar with ICARDA and its history should skip to section 1.3, or take up aspectsof the core review in one of the three following chapters dealing, respectively, with (chapter 2) the research program, (chapter 3) research-relatedprograms and (chapter 4) organization and management issues. Chapter 5 is concerned with the Review itself and related review processes. 1.1 Origin, Mandate and Role of ICARDA in Arid Land Agriculture The genesis of ICARDA has been comprehensively described in the Center’ s 1989 strategy Sustainable Agriculture for the Dry Lands. A few pertinent developments are presented here. Formal discussionson the establishmentof a CGIAR-sponsored international center to conduct research on arid land agriculture commencedin 1972 when TAC commissioneda study of the researchneeds and priorities of countries in the Near East and North Africa (TAC 1973). The CGIAR in 1975 appointed IDRC as an executing agency to establishICARDA. In January 1977, it was establishedas an IARC to undertake research relevant to the development needs of agriculture in West Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, taking over the activities of the existing Arid Lands Agricultural Development (ALAD) Program. Initially it was envisagedthat ICARDA would have its headquarters in Beirut, a main station in the Beka’ a Valley and sub-stations in Aleppo, Syria (low altitude arid lands) and Tab& Iran (arid highlands). As a consequenceof political disruption in the region, this original plan was not realized and in 1981 ICARDA moved its headquarters to Aleppo. Since then it has developed the Tel Hadya farm as its major research base from which it directs and supports its outreach research activities in North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia. ICARDA’ s Charter entrusts it with “promoting improved and more productive agriculture in lessdeveloped countries having a dry subtropical or temperate climate, through research and training activities conducted primarily in the countries of the Near East and North Africa and the Mediterranean region, in order to raise the standard of living and promote the social, economic and nutritional well-being of developing countries” @.3). Within this broad mandate, ICARDA was, at the international level, to conduct research on the improvement of barley, lentil and faba bean to which are added, at the regional level, wheat and chickpea. Researchin animal husbandry was to be an integral component of ICARDA’ s mandate. ICARDA has interpreted its mandate in the context of the physical and social environments of its region and the challengesthey pose. ICARDA exists to meet the challenge posed by a harsh, stressful and variable environment in which the productivity of primarily rainfed agricultural systems must be increased to higher sustainable levels, and in which land degradation must be arrested and possibly reversed. ICARDA addressesthis challenge through research, training and the dissemination of information in partnership with the national agricultural research and development systems. The inherent challenge in ICARDA’ s mandate is demanding. The land resources in the region are of low potential and fragile. It has been estimated that only 8% of the region’ s 1.7 billion ha are arable, and that desert and semi-desert (steppe) constitute 70% of the area. The scope to expand the land area under crop production is limited. Irrigated land (35 million ha) amounts to a mere 2% of WANA’ s total area, but constitutes 27% of its arable land. 1.2 ICARDA’ s Strategy ICARDA’ s initial strategy focused primarily on the description, quantification and evaluation of the physical, biological and socioeconomic problems that determine and/or constrain agricultural production systems in the WANA region. Against this background and following extensive discussions with its main clients, the NARSs of the region, ICARDA formulated its long-term strategy following the Second EPR and EMR (ICARDA 1989). In its preparation, ICARDA was particularly conscious of the The Center also took note needs of its main target beneficiaries, the small-scale fanners in the region. ‘ of TAC studies on CGIAR priorities and strategies for agricultural research and the emerging concept of ecoregionality then under earIy discussion on the international research agenda. In the final analysis, ICARDA adopted a tri-modal strategy to encompassagroecological and commodity thrusts on which it has developed a set of seven activity thrusts. The elementsof the agroecological, commodity and activity thrusts are presented in Figure 1.1. Figure 1.1 An overview of ICARDA’ s thrusts and their supposed linkages / Activities 1.2.1 The Agroecological Thrust ICARDA’ s multidisciplinary, multi-commodity mandate implies, almost by definition, an ecoregion’ to describe agroecological zones, ecoregional approach to research. TAC coined the term ‘ regionally defined (TACKenter Directors Working Group 1993). Within the WANA region ICARDA has identified five major zones, namely (a) deserts, (h) steppe and native pastures, (c) the barley/livestock zone, (d) the wheat-basedsystem and (e) the highlands. The zones are primarily associatedwith different rainfall bands and, for the highlands, with climatic conditions associatedwith high altitude. 2 Deserts Approximately 70% of the WANA region is true desert land, including the Sahara of North Africa, a vast expanseof Saudi Arabia and large parts of Iran and Pakistan. In these areas only irrigated agriculture and nomadic grazing are possible, and these have been largely excluded from ICARDA’ s mandate. This zone has consequentlyreceived little attention in the Center’ s work program. Stenue and Native Pastures Steppe land occupies most of the land in the region where annual rainfall is below 200 mm. These areas are used primarily for the communal grazing of small ruminants and camels and rarely support livestock on a year-round basis. Hence production systemsthat utilize these areas are generally integrated with the adjacent barley/livestock or wheat-basedzones. Both land types and particularly the drier steppe areas are showing evidenceof severe degradation. ICARDA’ s approach to these areas is to try to stimulate the communal development of improved livestock management systems so as to halt further environmental degradation. The main thrust of its work in this context is to develop simple lowcost technologies that will encourage the more effective utilization of by-product feeds (straw and crop residue grazing) in the adjacent croplands in conjunction with seasonallycontrolled grazing of the steppe. ICARDA has not attached high priority to this zone on the understanding that research on land areas in the region with less than 200 mm annual rainfall falls largely within the remit of ACSAD. The Barlev/Livestock Zone In areas adjacent to the steppewith annual rainfall ranging from 200 to 350 mm, the predominant farming system is the integrated production of barley, sheep and goats; wheat is also grown in some areas. As regards barley, both straw and grain are used for livestock feed and, as livestock numbers increase, there is a tendency to put more and more marginal land under barley and to abandon the traditional barley/fallow rotation. Much of ICARDA’ s work on germplasm (barley) conservation and enhancement, on barley/fallow rotations, on feed legumes and on small ruminant production has direct relevance to this zone. The Wheat-Based Svstem Wheat is the predominant crop in areas with a rainfall between 350 and 600 mm per annum. Bread wheat is most common above 4.50mm. Elsewhere, durum wheat predominates. Wheat/fallow and wheat/food legume rotations are commonly practiced in this zone. Among the legumes, chickpea predominates in the wetter areas and lentils in the drier. Summer crops such as melon are also grown. Supplementary irrigation of summer and winter crops is considered profitable and is becoming increasingly common where appropriate water supplies (dams or rivers) exist. ICARDA attaches high priority to this area and the main focus of its genetic and agronomic research on wheat, food and feed legumes and livestock is directly relevant to this zone. ICARDA considers that its interaction with NARSs and the uptake of new technologies are most effective in this zone. The Highlands Plateaux, at altitudes of over 1000 m, constitute approximately 40% of the agricultural land in the WANA region and contribute about 30% of production output, These areas are subject to extremes of summer heat and cold winters and much of the highlands zone may be regularly snow covered for up 3 to four months a year. AMU~ rainfall ranges from 200 to 600 mm. Soils are generally low in organic matter, high in pH and soil erosion is widespread. Production systems are heavily oriented towards livestock production and winter cereals (wheat and barley). ICARDA considers that the highlands have considerable potential for development, although their remoteness is a major constraint. Thus far, with the exception of its outreach program in Pakistan (Balochistan plateaux), ICARDA has not been in a position to develop a broad-basedhighlands researchprogram. The Center plans to reverse this situation in the near future through the expansion of its outreach activities in Turkey and Iran. 1.2.2 The Commodity Thrust The major commodities that the ICARDA research program addressesare the cereal crops, wheat and barley, the food legumes, chickpea and lentil, and livestock production based on pasture and forage crops. Earlier work on faba bean has been devolved to the NARSs of North Africa. Whereas the Center attaches primary attention to these mandated commodities, it also proposes undertaking limited “collaborative work” with other advanced research institutes on a number of oil and vegetable crops, including brassicas, safflower, sesame and sunflower to evaluate their possible contribution to the development of agricultural production in the WANA region. Cereal Crons Following the 1983 QQR, work on wheat at ICARDA was recognized as a regional activity of CIMMYT, with a seconded breeder working on spring bread wheat in Syria, a durum breeder also located at Tel Hadya and a joint CIMMYT/ICARDA breeder of facultative wheat dividing his activities between Ankara, Turkey and Tel Hadya. At the same time, the global mandate for barley was assigned to ICARDA with an outreach program for Latin America located in Mexico. The barley crop is assuming greater significance in ICARDA’ s role in the low-rainfall areas of the WANA region, with particular emphasis on drought tolerance and straw quality for feed. Food Legumes ICARDA attached high priority to faba bean research in its early years but, following TAC’ s recommendation arising from the Second EPR of the Center, it has now devolved this research program to the NARSs of North Africa where the bulk of this crop is grown. In contrast, ICARDA now attaches highest priority to chickpea, grown mainly as a pulse in the wetter areas within the region. The main focus of the work is on tolerance of abiotic stressesand resistanceto pests and diseases. The Center also attachesimportance to research on lentils and, in particular, to the genetic improvement of this crop. Its superior drought tolerance, coupled with the potential of lentil residue as livestock feed, identifies this crop as potentially important to the future development of crop-livestock systemsin the drier areas within the WANA region. Pasture and Foraee Crons The importance of livestock production in the WANA region dictates that ICARDA should attach high priority to livestock feed production. Emphasis to date has been placed on the breeding of forage and pasture legumes and the agronomic challenge of incorporating forage legumes, principally medics, in the barley/fallow rotation. Within its resource management and characterization program, ICARDA is monitoring the effects of overgrazing of the steppeand has undertaken limited work on the introduction of drought-tolerant non-leguminous shrubs in the arid highlands. ICARDA’ s work that is directly focused 4 on livestock production is rather limited. In recent years, the Center has initiated a modest program on anitnal nutrition and in an even more minor way on animal health. In the Center’ s Strategic Plan, and as recommended in the 1988 EPR, there are, however, strong reasons advanced to justify increased attention to livestock research within the ICARDA program. 1.2.3 The Activity Thrust In order to collate the research foci of the agroecological and commodity thrusts in programmatic terms and in reference to CGIAR-defined activities, ICARDA has identified a set of seven researchrelated activities, namely, (a) agroecological characterization, (b) germplasm conservation, (c) germplasm enhancement, (d) farm resource management, (e) impact assessment and enhancement, (f) training and networking and (g) information dissemination. Agroecological Characterization ICARDA, in conjunction with NARSs, is developing methods to describe, quantify as appropriate and evaluate the agricultural resource potentials and constraints of different areas within the region, with due emphasis on environmental impact assessment. This activity necessarily embraces research on climatic factors, the quantification of soil/plant/animal interactions within the farming system and the evaluation of the economic and social dimensionsof agricultural development within the area. ICARDA’ s research strategy in this activity is still evolving and to date has largely concentrated on climatic factors as they affect plant growth. Germnlasm Conservation ICARDA’ s germplasm conservation activity is part of a worldwide program, coordinated by IBPGR, aimed at describing, preserving and, as appropriate, utilizing global plant genetic resources. Within this global genebank, ICARDA serves as a repository for barley, lentil, faba bean and chickpea germplasm. ICARDA attaches high priority to this work, even though it represents only a small component of the Center’ s program. Germnlasm Enhancement This is ICARDA’ s largest single activity. Its objective is the genetic improvement of yield and yield stability of barley, wheat, lentil, chickpea and pasture/forage legumes, primarily for the WANA region. Three principles determine ICARDA’ s approach to germplasm enhancement-- (a) yield stability under climatic stress, (b) yield advantagein low-input managementsystemsand (c) adaptation to specific local environments. ICARDA makes strategic use of advances in biotechnology emerging from other advanced institutes, particularly as regards methods to identify genetic, physiological and biochemical parameters of abiotic stress tolerance and pest/disease resistance. The Center’ s work on wheat and chickpea is conducted in close collaboration with CIMMYT and ICRISAT, respectively. Farm Resource Management ICARDA seeks through this program activity to better understand and enhancethe management of soils, water, soil nutrients, plants and animals so as to optimize sustainable output of the respective farming systems. It is ICARDA’ s strategy to focus primarily on the most vulnerable barley-livestock and highland mixed farming systems. ICARDA has developed a five-pronged approach to this research 5 activity. This includes (a) testing new germplasm from ICARDA/NARSs breeding programs with emphasison defining the conditions relevant to their environmental and economic success,(b) agronomic studies aimed at improving the farming system, (c) the study of soil erosion, water-use efficiency and the more efficient use of fertilizer inputs, (d) the development of sustainableintegrated crop-livestock systems and (e) the more efficient managementof livestock under communal grazing systems. Imnact Assessment The monitoring of the environmental and socioeconomic impact of new technologies introduced as a result of ICARDA/NARSs’ research is central to ICARDA’ s research strategy. This research embraces the development of methods to measure environmental impact, on-farm evaluation of socioeconomic factors that affect uptake of new technology and, in selectedareas, a review of government policy measures that have a bearing on the stimulation or otherwise of advances in agricultural production. The latter studies logically involve inter-center collaboration with IFPRI. Training and Information Superimposed on each of the five activities referred to above, ICARDA attacheshigh priority to training and the dissemination of information. The Center has developed a comprehensive training program based on formal on-campustraining courses at Aleppo and on-site training for NARSs and other clients involving seminars, travelling workshops, networking and hands-on training in the field, as a major component of the Center’ s outreach program. In support of this training program, ICARDA attaches high priority to the development of effective training materials and the dissemination of information suited to its target audiences. At the international level, ICARDA places high priority on publication in refereed journals of scientific papers by its professional research staff. 1.2.4 Institutional Linkages ICARDA from its beginning, has placed high priority on developing close linkages with its main partners and clients, the NARSs of the region. In recent years, the nature of these linkages has changed considerably. Whereas initially ICARDA’ s policy was to provide technical support to the NARSs, in recent years the Center’ s strategy has been re-oriented to seek to develop collaborative research programs with them on an equal-partnership basis. Following the devolution of the faba bean program to the NARSs of North Africa, ICARDA plans to identify lead national programs to take on regional or subregional responsibilities for specific research programs for which they have appropriate expertise. Increasingly, collaborative research is being conducted through networks and research consortia as well as through contracts with research organizations and individual scientists. The emerging ecoregional approach also offers opportunity and encouragement for greater cooperation among the international research centers. As an agroecologically focused regional Center, ICARDA is in a good position to host joint inter-center collaborative (ecoregional) programs in the WANA region. Such programs and the implicit interconnections with the NARSs are of such significance for contemporary assessment and future direction that they are the subject of attention at many points in this Review. ICARDA also seeks active collaboration with regional, international and specialized research institutes in the more-developed world, especially in strategic upstream research that is highly specialized and for which the Center has no comparative advantage. Whilst surely important, these activities are not subject to such close scrutiny in what follows. 6 1.3 ICARDA Today The long-term strategy described above became operational in ICARDA’ s Medium-Term Plan (MTP) 1990-94, which has formed the basis for the Center’ s current program. The Plan was developed in the late 198Os,in a time of financial growth, and anticipated that, by 1993, ICARDA’ s budget would grow (from US$24.1 million in 1988) to US$43.0 million, and the senior staff component would expand (from 64 in 1988) to 87. This has not been the case. Currently, ICARDA is working on the assumption of a 1993 budget of US$19.3 million, below the 1992 total of US$20.6 million, and in real terms a significant decline from the late 1980s. Staff changes accompanying the budget decline follow in Table 1.1, and show a notable decline in Administration. While the total for international staff (P and RA2/RA3) has remained constant at 98, this has been achieved by a reduction of senior (P-level) staff (along with some reduction in the number of post-doctoral appointees). Table 1.1 ZCARDA staff, 1988 and 1993 Research Research Administration Total P RA2lRA3 GSS 1993 P RA2/RA3 GSS 46 11 220 13 4 126 5 19 247 64 34 593 44 10 226 10 13 134 6 15 153 60 38 513 Source: ICARDA PersonnelOffice. ICARDA’ s financial condition and budget strategy are discussedfurther in section 4.5.1.1, while sections 4.5.2.4 and 4.5.3.1 address several aspectsof staffing. The 611 staff currently employed by ICARDA represent 39 nationalities. International staff are from 30 different countries -- about one-half from developed and one-half from less-developednations, with just over one-fifth of the total from WANA. The majority of international research staff are stationed in Aleppo. Currently ten are outposted in the region across the six outreach programs (section 3.3.1). This is a significant decline since 1988, when 15 research staff were outposted. The median age of internationally recruited research staff is 46 years and median tenure is seven years, which in general terms is about as is to be expected in a Center such as ICARDA. Turnover has been at a reasonable level (section 4.5.2.7) in recent years for this and other groups of staff overall. 7 ICARDA’ s organizational structure is shown in Figure 1.2. Two main branches report to the Director General -- Research and Operations. Figure 1.3 shows how ICARDA was structured in 1988, when Deputies headed Research and International Cooperation, and there were three Directors of administrative operations who also reported directly to the DG. In responseto the 1988 external reviews, ICARDA’ s operational units were consolidated below a Deputy Director General of Operations, and International Cooperation was moved into the Research structure. In addition, a position of Assistant Director General of Government Liaison was created. Sections4.2 and 4.4 addressissuesof management and research structure. Figure 1.2 ZCARDA organization - as at April 1992 1 Board of,Tatees 1 Internal . -----_--_____ t Rs,atio”* Donor i,_________ , -------, I t I I Government Liaison Asst. Director General (Int. Cooperation) I I I I r------- 1 I I cll Field Operations 8 Figure 1.3 ICARDA organization in 1988 1 Director General 1 +Yizzz&q I Deputy Director General (Research) Deputy Director General (International Cooperation) 9 CHAPTER 2 - RESEARCH 2.1 Introduction Research in ICARDA is organized on a program basis to address four separate research foci, namely Farm Resource Management (FRMP), Cereals (CP), Legumes (LP) and Pasture, Forage and Livestock (PFLP). Whereas there is a degree of inter-Program collaboration, each of the four Programs has its own research goals, operates as a separate department and is under the direction of a Program Leader. This organizational structure (shown in Figure 1.2) has been in place in ICARDA since its commencement, although some changeshave been made in the research domains and the program titles of FRMP and PFLP. Additionally, a small Genetic ResourcesUnit was established in 1983, which has now been expanded to fulfill its assigned regional mandate. Organizational matters per se and the management of research at ICARDA are discussed in chapter 4. Overall assessment of the four major Programs constitutes the main thrust of this chapter. ICARDA’ s direct expenditure on each of the four major Program areas over the past five years is shown in Table 2.1. Cereal research has consistently received the highest funding, in contrast to the pasture, forage and livestock work, which has received 20 to 2 1% of the research allocation. This varies somewhat from the Center’ s projected expenditure in the 1990-94 MTP (p.125), which indicated that livestock research would command 26% of the research budget by 1994, and expenditure on food legumes would drop to 15%. The MTP projections were based on the recommendationsof the 1988 EPR that ICARDA should expand its work on livestock production. Taking an overall view of livestock-related research in the Center, allowance must be made for the research contributions of LP and FRMP to the development of the livestock feed base. Close examination of these programs suggests that somewhere between 5 to 15% of their research activities could justifiably be “charged” to PFLP. The higher figure relates to the Legume Program, to which the PFLP legume breeder was transferred in 1990. Table 2.1 Actual expenditures by research program (nominal thousand US$) .‘ j..;. . . :1990- ..;I 1 .:. .,...I :j.. .3?92,; : 1988 $ ResearchProgram FRMP CP LP PFLP 2,049 2,568 2,579 1,868 23 28 29 21 2,015 2,729 2,523 1,898 22 30 28 21 2,070 2,700 2,017 1,763 24 31 24 21 % $ % $ % Total Source: KARDA Annual Reporxs. 9,064 Farm Resource Management Program 9,165 8,550 2.2 This Program exists to assist nations and their NARSs in the development of more productive and sustainable crop and livestock production systems that both optimize the use of, and conserve, farm resources. There is a growing awarenessof the threat to fragile ecosystemsof resource degradation due to changes in the production systems (intensification and resource mismanagement). The Program includes monitoring of the long-term impact of technologieson physical and socioeconomic environments as well as work on soil conservation and the impact of alternative technologies on soil-water dynamics and water-use efficiency. Much of the research has been conducted in several diverse agroecological zones in Syria. Because resource-managementresearch tends to be rather location-specific, a major concern has been identification of key resource-management areas and the generation of research methods appropriate for the range of environments represented in WANA. 2.2.1 Agroecological Characterization The objectives of this thrust have been focused on the description and characterization of the agroecological environments of the WANA region and their variability in spaceand time, to facilitate the setting of research priorities and the transfer of technology. ICARDA’ s Agroecological Characterization (AEC) Group has been involved in a project intended to develop and use techniques to describe and quantify the variability of the agroecological environment. This requires the use of computer simulation models in conjunction with field testing to validate responses. In 1988 the EPR recommended that “ICARDA review the staff resourcesdevoted to the agroecological characterization project to ensure that sufficient priority is accorded within the program to bring the project to a timely completion and facilitate the transfer of technologies to national programs, as appropriate.” In response to the 1988 EPR, ICARDA has initiated steps to decentralize part of its research program to strategic locations in the region. The Program also appointed a P-level agroclimatologist (since tragically deceased)and has taken initiatives to compile crop yield statistics and weather data, and to match the two. There has been a continuation of the work linking the spatial weather generator to a wheat model. The project has been most visible in Morocco where there was good awareness of the potential importance of AEC. National scientistscollated the climatic data in the country, systematically collected soil data and created a digital contour map of central Morocco. In contrast, in Turkey, activities lack continuity and output is limited. The AEC team expect to finalize the present project in Morocco within one year. The team working on AEC attempted to distribute ten automatedAgro-Met-Stations. This attempt has not yet been successful as data have been received from only one station of the ten. Preliminary data from the project suggest the wheat model does have value in predicting crop-climate interactions. In addition, the distribution of major food crops is now better documented and understood, as are the major constraints to production and the risks faced by farmers. ICARDA believes these efforts have increased the awarenessin NARSs of the value of agroecological characterization as a tool for increasing resourceuse efficiency through better definition of recommendation domains and breeding objectives. Through its work on agroecological characterization, ICARDA can serve a catalytic role by fostering interdisciplinary researchwithin broader ecological frameworks, which should prove to be costeffective both in terms of human and financial resource allocation. Closer and better integrated linkages of the kind proposed in Box 2.1 and Appendix 7 will, over the long term, have a potentially great impact as a consequenceof the continuity of purpose for the involved personnel, and pursuit of a commonality s mandate could perhaps be of research and technology-transfer objectives. In this fashion, ICARDA’ more effectively realized by the provision of communication links, networking matrices for training and information channels, and impact assessmentat the end-user level, from which the ultimate evaluation of ICARDA’ s mission will be judged. 12 2.2.2 Natural Resource Conservation and Management Researchon soil, water and nutrient resources in a farming systemsperspective using diagnostic surveys and socioeconomic monitoring of applicability of technologies is a major focus of the FRMP. The broad goal in this thrust is to assist NARSs in the development of sustainablefarming systemsthat optimize effkiency of use of soil and water. This involves developing an understanding of physical, chemical, biological and environmental principles that control the productivity and sustainability of cropping systems. From such understanding it is intended to develop strategiesfor their more efficient management. A further objective is to provide data for the development of methods for extrapolation of research findings in space and time. The 1990-94 MTP research agendafeatures several major themes, including (a) tillage and stubble management, (b) improved fertilizer use, (c) water management to supplement rainfall, (d) fallow replacement and (e) on-farm and environmental variability. The general aims and goals that had been held for the period through to 1994, and achievementsto 1993 in each of the themes are elaborated in the following sections. 13 Tillage and Stubble Management (and Soil Conservation) A general aim is the development of tillage and stubble management practices that are costeffective and fuel-efficient, support sustainableproduction and reduce hazards of water and wind erosion. Specific goals are to achieve (a) a critical assessment of tillage systems currently used by farmers, (b) an understanding of the potential impact of improved tillage and stubble managementon soil conditions and the economics of different farming systemson contrasting soil types, (c) a heightened regional awareness of alternative and more efficient tillage systems and (d) the establishment of research on improved soil conservation methods and on monitoring soil losses. The Program has collected data from a long-term trial on tillage practices in Syria. So far these show that there is no advantageof deep tillage in swelling clay soils, as was expected, nonethelessresults suggest that costs of labor associatedwith tillage could be reduced. The results are in line with those of trials in Morocco, which are now being repeated in Jordan. It is debatable whether, at this time, a heightened regional awareness of more efficient tillage systems has been achieved. Meanwhile, techniques to measure soil losses caused by wind erosion have been adapted and tested in Syria and Jordan. Studies are also being conducted on the use and cost-effectivenessof hedges for wind erosion control. Imnroved Fertilizer-Use Effrciencv and Fertilitv Management The work here involves quantifying the effects of fertilizer management, soil conditions, crop sequenceand variable water supply on the economics of fertilizer use; developing methods for analyzing trial data to provide information on biophysical and economic risk of fertilizer use; and conducting more strategic research on soil-crop nutrient dynamics to develop nutrient sub-models for growth simulation models. The existing medium-term ambitions are (a) to assembleinformation on the impact on fertilizer responses of agroecological constraints, and refine methods for the development of better targeted recommendations, (b) to develop better methods for the analysis of agronomic trial data for the estimation of risk, and (c) to develop and calibrate nutrient submodels for use in the prediction of stochastic responsesto fertilizers and the refinement of nitrogen fertilizer recommendations in responseto seasonal conditions. The Program’ s Regional Soil Fertility Network has been expanded in recent years and has served as a catalyst for soil fertility research and communication between WANA research workers. In on-farm fertilizer research, the Program has noted the difficulty of producing reliable predictive models for fertilizer response, even over a small region of Syria. It is working on nitrogen-cycling in legume rotations and crop animal interactions using “N in long-term trials in collaboration with local institutes. In addition, it is conducting work on residual effects of added phosphorus, and on boron in barley production in collaboration with CP. Water Management The objective in this research is to develop managementstrategies for scarce water resources to supplement rainfall. Work in this field has been concentratedon supplemental irrigation research in Syria and water harvesting in Pakistan. Managementstrategies for improved efficiency of use of scarce water resources will be documented and made available for use generally within the region. Ways of improving the use of water have been developed. The improved farm-level supplemental irrigation techniques are being transferred to farmers. Water harvesting appears to be more difficult to extend in Pakistan than at first anticipated. Studies of wheat and barley trials suggest there are some 14 technical problems to be overcome and economic factors hinder the adoption of the water-harvesting techniques used by AZRI. A preliminary cooperative survey in Egypt on the potential for developing harvesting systems in the northeast coastal area has yet to be followed-up. Fallow Replacement with Pastures and Forage Legumes The Program is endeavoring to develop methods to transfer improved barley-livestock systems, which include forage legumes, and to monitor their impact and long-term sustainability. The general research goals through 1994 were to make an economic and agroecological evaluation of fallow replacement systems in various environments of the region and to describe factors affecting the potential of and constraints to continuous cereal production, its economics and sustainability. By 1994, a start will also have been made on assessingthe potential and managementrequirements of oilseed crop production in the region. An economic and agroecological evaluation is being conducted of fallow replacement systems in various environments of the region. Factors affecting the potential and constraints of continuous cereal production, its economics and sustainability have indeed been described. Long-term wheat-legume combinations, wheat culture with supplementalirrigation, and barley cultivar and managementalternatives in on-farm low-rainfall rotation trials and their analysis have increased the understanding of the water balance between crops in a rotation; improved root growth by one crop significantly depletes the resources for the next. On-Farm Trials and Environmental Variabilitv Generation of more refined methods that will allow greater predictability of the effects of variable environments on crop production is the central thrust of this work. Emphasis is on transferring technology to NARSs. Improved production packagesfor durum wheat, chickpea and lentil and methods for testing their impact at the farm level through on-farm trials are being documented. Data from onfarm trials are being used in the development of responseand recommendation domains. This activity is closely linked to work on adoption and impact. Assessment Farming systems research and concern for natural resource management (NRM) are not new concepts at ICARDA, which has a maintained a program devoted to systems research for its ecoregion since its conception. Gains from NRM research at ICARDA can perhaps be used as an indicator of the complexity of managing systems research, the time-span of investment in this area and the likely return to investment. FRMP has developed methods to conduct NRM research in the WANA region. It has produced preliminary conclusions about the effect of wheat rotations on water availability to subsequentcrops, the relevance of deep plowing, the site-specificity of fertilizer response, and the general importance of socioeconomic relative to technical problems in the managementof natural resources. Fertilizer trials have recently been terminated. Work on water management suggests there is much potential for innovative integrated researchto improve the availability and efficient use of water in the region. Within this context, the role of ICARDA in research on irrigated agriculture is discussedin Box 2.2. FRMP has been interacting with other Programs and it is evident that numerous interactive projects exist. The FRMP report each year features many inter-Program research reports written jointly with members of other Programs. However, Program resources are spread over a wide range of themes. 15 h$$iterranean- region in .or&-IO r&s< the. : standard :of living &xi promote the social, ec&kmic and nkritional well-being of the peo@s of dewloping countries. n The niandate does not exclucle :irrigated ; ,agrictilt$re,’ ‘ but ICARDA from the beginning .chiise..tb .excfude: thiS:resea~h :dime~si~n; ’ ’ 1.. this area. ICARDA’ s role in water .: . . ;.tiith growing.problemsof saIimiy;.:~If::. .\.. i: .. 1. ., ; management-was limited to supplemental : ICARDA restricts its work in .fully: irrigated ;; .irrigation and water harvesting in &fed’ agroecosystems to aspects of.efficiency of ‘ .‘ .: :. I: .: i : j agriculture. water. use as it relates to the. soil-G.&r-plant : ; : The move of the CGIAR System .further component, its work. :should cdmplement !. : I: : i I j into natural resource management and into already-existing: NR&i efforts&d should. not: ..I I j ecoregional approaches to problem-solving, be.incompatible withthe.work of-.IIl$l, : .; 1 l.1i ... obliges the Panel to reassess the current: . ..yhich conc.entrates:onieconomidand-~- ..i :.i i.:’ ii : validity of earlier .EPR interpretations of en~ne&ng-efficienc~ Iasp&& ,of irri~ationi : : I j i ‘ ,1 . : ’: : i 1i ICARDA’ s mandate. The previous EPR :Impo,rtanily,~ ICARIM would .provide : : : ’ ‘ he :&iok :$& : .. : ‘ . i j b&&s;opping fo; N*ss-in based its conclusion .on .its perception .of the .; j lthere lis:at.p&ent a se$&s ne’ edas weI1 as ., : j 1 need for a clear focus on winter-rainfall and j &ong’ i&rest h -this re&rch:&:~ :; i .’: j dryland. farming systems, where generally restricted availability:aird ,frequent deficiency of water are dominating factors of production. ’ Supplementary question 2, section I, Appendix I, p. 112 of this Report. ,, : : . . .,:... . . : :.. 1.:. fiecommendation 2.1 ‘ : ::.,. .. :.. .:: :.:. :. . . :; .ICARDA, as $i ecoregional cent& for the’ dry: sub&%pic$ $ioGid be.&& &i&&a&n&~ i .fo work in re$ricttd &search dom&s in. i&a&l ‘ ag&dture ‘ f6r which ‘ it ,has~@eSs&;: ’ .‘ . However, the work should be financed’ tiith special-brojectfunds (with a-com’ ~~~ent$&&i.~ j’ -headquarters’ -relatedoverhead)tixid Carried otit.by spe&l-project-tipported staff;:so:as:not .i :: to detract from ICARDA’ s primary research emphases. Individual, broad subjects are often representedby a single researcher, who alone can hardly be expected to cover the breadth and depth of the subject and is unable to provide optimal inter-Program support. In addition, and partly because of this, interaction and cohesion within the Program is often unclear. 16 Strong leadership of this program is essential. The Center as a whole would benefit from more formalized mechanisms of inter-Program project coordination, as is noted in section 4.4.8 and is taken up in the suggestions in section 4.4.9. The Panel encouragesthe Program to find a way to increase its capacity to conduct a cohesive program of NRM research. This could be achieved by concentrating effort on the most essentialthemes, or by obtaining special funding to increase the capacity of the Program. With such increasedresources, the additional scientists would probably be stationed in “outreach” to tackle NRM problems of particular agroecological zones. The Program faces an especially difficult problem in establishing and maintaining a critical level of interaction with NARSs. In its country visits, the Panel obtained a mixed impression of the success of FRMP’ s NRM outreach activities. The presence and activities of the Program were strongly evident in the Mashreq and Quetta projects where ICARDA has basedstaff members with a background in NRM. In North Africa and Egypt, there was little evidence of NRM activities with the exception of the involvement by individuals in the Regional Soil Fertility Network, coordinated principally from Syria. The Panel urges ICARDA to continue to seek effective methods for developing and building the interest and the capacity of NARSs in aspectsof NRM related to their needs. In the opinion of the Panel, ICARDA should concentrate its efforts on selected problems in locations where there is the potential for good collaborative work and perhaps also special funding. In line with the broad concept referred to in Box 2.1 and Appendix 7, NARSs with specific expertise could be better used to create a “critical mass” of scientists working on certain problem areas. 2.2.3 Analysis of Farming SystemsImprovement The third broad set of activities of FRMP sweeps together a diverse set of activities not clearly accommodatedwithin the preceding two sections and in which the unifying theme of analysisis the taking of a socioeconomic perspective, whereby improvement is judged in anthropocentric terms. Most but by no means all of the economic and sociological work in the Center takes place within or from FRMP. The Panel, however, seesmerit in reviewing all the socioeconomicwork of the Center on a broad social-sciencethematic basis and, accordingly, has placed this in a separatesection as if it were a formal Program as such. Thus discussion and recommendations concerning this aspect of the work of FRMP (and PFLP) are to be found in section 2.6. 2.3 Cereal Program 2.3.1 Background Cereals provide the basis of crop production systems in the WANA region and have equally profound implications for livestock production in many areas. Because of the dietary significance of bread, wheat production is a primary consideration and most countries in the WANA region are forced to address the problem of increasing importation of wheat to correct a growing deficit. In Syria, for example, the average production of wheat in the past decadehas been 1.73 Mt while averageconsumption has been 2.28 Mt, although in the past two seasons, supply and demand have been in balance at the expenseof severe depletion of the aquifers through supplementary irrigation. The two main types grown in the region are durum and bread wheat, which are used in pasta, bread and other forms of consumption. Their relative importance varies -- durum wheat predominates in North Africa and Syria (80% durum, 20% bread), while bread wheat is more important in Turkey and the eastern countries of WANA. 17 The region accommodates some 80% of the area of durum wheat grown in lessdeveloped countries although, on a world scale, durum accountsfor less than 10% of the total wheat crop. In terms of ecoregional characterization, barley is of immensesignificance in the drier areas of the WANA region since it is the only temperate cereal that is capableof producing a crop at the extreme lower rainfall limits for cultivation (below 250 mm and down to as little as 150 mm average annual rainfall). Bread wheat is most often found in the more favored, higher rainfall areas (above 400 mm) and those where supplementary irrigation can be practiced, while durum wheat occupies areas with intermediate rainfall regimes (300-450 mm) where it is not generally irrigated. However, this situation is changing and durum wheat is expanding into irrigated areas. Following the 1983 QQR, cereals work at CIMMYT and ICARDA was reorganized with the global mandate for barley being assignedto ICARDA, which operates a program jointly with CIMMYT for Latin America. Reciprocally, the global mandate for bread wheat and durum wheat resides with CIMMYT and the programs in both these crops in the WANA region are a joint CIMMYTKARDA responsibility. The major activity of the Program is germplasm enhancementand breeding and this is the subject of sections that immediately follow. Other aspects are taken up briefly before framing the recommendations of section 2.3.4. There are five principal areas of plant breeding activity at ICARDA, namely, (a) spring’ barley, (b) winter and facultative barley for high elevations, (c) durum wheat, (d) facultative bread wheat and (e) spring’ bread wheat. (*Spring denotes physiological type rather than time of planting.) In addition, there is supporting work in pathology and entomology, agronomy, physiology and biotechnology. At the time of this ER, the breeder currently responsible for winter/facultative barley was awaiting the transfer of his activities to the bilateral program to be based at Maragheh (‘ Tabriz), Iran. He is supported temporarily by a visiting scientist from Krasnodar, Ukraine, who will not transfer there. The facultative bread-wheat breeder divides his activities equally between ICARDA headquarters at Tel Hadya and the CIMMYT outreach program based at Ankara, where he collaborates with the CIMMYT winter wheat breeder. 2.3.2 Achievements During the Past Five Years (a) Some 72 lines of barley and durum and bread wheat have been released by NARSs of 32 countries, predominately in the WANA region. Syria. It has been calculated that the value of the ICARDA wheat varieties in the series Cham-1 through Cham-4 inclusive, amounted to US$31 million in the 1990-91 season in terms of increased production. Staff of the Cereal Program have contributed some 130 publications in various journals, symposia, newsletters, etc. Some of these are significant contributions to understanding of breeding for variable environments characterizedby biotic and abiotic stress. Co> The impact of new cereal varieties has been assessedwith most precision for the host country, cc> 18 Cd> A vigorous training program has been maintained with approximately 100 persons per year working within the group. There has been a general move to more specific individual training and 7 PhD and 9 MSc studentsobtained degrees. 2.3.3 Assessment Germolasm enhancement. The cost effectivenessof CP is amply demonstratedby the impact study quoted above, which indicates the benefits from only one country in the region in one year. The impact of durum and bread wheat breeding as expressedby varietal uptake has been greater than that for barley on an overall view up to the present. This is partly because the uptake of new varieties is proportionally greater in the better watered areas. The socioeconomicsignificance of barley in the drier areasis neverthelessof great importance, despite the.fact that these areas contribute substantially less in absolute quantities to total grain production. Studies within Syria have indicated that the yield gap betweenwhat is achievableunder experimentalconditions and what is typically achievedon-farms, ranged from 3.2 t/ha under irrigated conditions, through 1.1 t/ha in high rainfall areas,to 0.8 t/ha in low rainfall areas. Yields and areas sown and harvestedvary greatly from year to year in extremely dry areas but, over 12 recorded seasons,farmers’yields averagedabout 0.55 t/ha, whereas on-farm trials of the Syrian National Program produced averageyields of 1.2 t/ha over 9 seasons. Even these crude indices suggest that considerablegains could be achievedin the dry areaswith the transfer of improved technology, the most important component of which is time of planting. However, a lack of capital investment in machinery may limit such exploitation. It is the avowed policy of the CGIAR System and of ICARDA that there should be a progressive devolution of responsibility for the breeding of finished lines from the center to the NARSs. From the earliest days of ICARDA, segregating material has been provided to the NARSs in addition to more homozygous material. To set a target date for completion of this particular form of devolution is problematic becauseof the wide range in capability and resourcesof individual NARSs. Discussionsat ICARDA with the Panel revealed that the attitudes of individual staff members to the policy of progressive transfer of breeding responsibility were themselveshighly heterogeneous,with the extremes of the range for and against devolution represented,respectively, by the spring wheat and spring barley programs. There would seem to be no inherent advantagein slavish adherenceto a doctrine of transfer of responsibility. What matters is surely the improvement of the agricultural economy of countries in the WANA region. Where more advancedlines continue to find ready acceptanceby the NARSs for completion and release it would be logical to maintain their supply. Staff in the Program would also argue that there has been a general move toward adaptation of the material to more specific environments,rather than a quest for general adaptation, over the years of ICARDA’ s development. The most developed and best documented expressionof this is found in the spring barley program. Since the 1988 EPR, there has been a perceptible shift in targeting the material in this Program for the lower rainfall areas where barley is grown, particularly within the host country. The greater use of landracesas genepools with their long-establishedtolerance of abiotic stresses has been increasingly advocated in the program and their exploitation has gathered pace. It would be a matter of concern if the procedure of making and releasing pure-line selectionsfrom the landraceswere to be enshrined as the ultimate breeding policy for this environment, because the buffering effect of heterogeneityin variable seasonswould be lost, even though advantage is demonstrable in some seasons and/or locations. However, the breeders at ICARDA see this as no more than an interim procedure for the extremely dry 19 zones to be followed by the release, possibly involving hybridization with Hordeurn sponfaneutn, of resynthesizedmixtures of elite selections from landraces and ultimately the release of material derived by hybridization of landraces and exotic germplasm. Some difficulty may be anticipated in the release of deliberately mixed lines unless the NARSs are prepared not to apply normal standards of varietal uniformity prior to approval for release. It must be emphasizedthat the majority of this Program is still concerned with the exploitation of suitable germplasm from the world genepool in the crossing program. These nurseries are also being increasingly targeted with greater precision for specific environments within the WANA region. The spring wheat material developed at ICARDA has some cold tolerance and indeed seemsto be moving in the same general direction as the facultative wheat program, although there is some attempt to select in different directions from common crosses. The separation of responsibiiities between these two programs is not entirely clear. The CIMMYT winter wheat breeder and the CIMMYT/ICARDA facultative wheat breeder have attempted to identify their respective responsibilities for targeted areas from the base at Ankara, .although it is debatable whether wheat breeding for the Anatolian plateau requires this physiological distinction. There is also some overlap between facultative and winter types at this end of the spectrum. Operational efficiency is achieved by using common nurseries and the split role of the facultative wheat breeder contributes usefully to the building of bridges between the CIMMYT and ICARDA programs. Syrian quarantine restrictions sometimes impede the flow of breeding material between Ankara and Tel Hadya. Spring wheat varieties (Cham-2 (1987), Cham-4 (1987) and Cham-6 (1991)) have been particularly well taken up in Syria and in Algeria. The latest addition to the series, GOMAM is a candidate for release -- it has some increased yield potential with improved resistance to leaf and stripe rust. The CIMMYT/ICARDA program for dot-urnwheat has over the past decadeprogressively shifted its content to material generated and selected in the WANA region. Material derived from the CIMMYT/ICARDA program accounts for some 60% of the durum grown in the drier areas in Syria. The most important varieties are Cham-1, Cham-3, and, most recently, Lahn, which is grown on some 100 thousand ha, as estimated from seed production, without yet having been officially released. The variety Om Rabi-3, which shows better tolerance to cold and drought, is awaiting release for the lower rainfall zone of durum production. There are extensive on-farm trials, and lines have been taken up to good effect in Algeria, Jordan, Libya, Tunisia and Turkey. There seems to be some need for a clearer definition of the respective responsibilities of the durum breeders in Mexico and Syria. The Highland Regional Program is reported in section 3.3.1.2 but aspects of it relating to germplasm enhancementcan appropriately be discussedhere. There appears to have been little impact yet in terms of the release of varieties specifically adapted for higher elevations. Superior performance of lines of durum and facultative/winter barley in regional nurseries in Turkey and Morocco has been more recently reported, however. In part, the relative lack of progress has been attributed to administrative problems associatedwith the Quetta project, which was chosen as the principal vehicle for the identification and exploitation of material for the higher elevation areas. The absenceof experienced plant breeding staff at Quetta and the apparently poor links with the provincial NARS severely limited the prospects of success. It also seemsthat the decision to locate the base for the high-elevation breeding work at Tel Hadya was inappropriate. Although early selection was effected in appropriate nurseries at high altitude, the correspondenceof individual line selection there to bulked plots at Tel Hadya could well have resulted in genetic drift. Responsibility for wheat improvement has now been devolved and the 20 barley work is benefiting from a greater concentration of effort. Work now involves detailed characterizationof vernalization and photoperiod responsesand the exploitation of an extensive genepool, including landraces, is producing some promising material for a diversity of highland environments. The possibility of relocating the visiting scientist in support of this program to Ankara is believed to be under consideration. On the available evidence, this would seemto be preferable to retaining a base program at Tel Hadya. The question of which site would be responsible for the distribution of nurseries would need to be resolved. It is imperative that the breeding implementation errors of the Quetta project are not repeated in the Iranian bilateral project. It will also be necessaryto establish links between the work in Iran and the other principal sites of activity in Turkey and Morocco. Pressure should be applied to secure an early start to the work at Maragheh if the momentum of the program is not to be lost. Work on triticale at ICARDA is limited to trials of CIMMYT recommendation of the 1988 EPR, and this seems appropriate. material, following a Cereal. A new leader of this program has recently assumedhis duties. He seesthe role of his small group as assisting the breeders to define physiological objectives/selection criteria. Although, as noted below in this section, much of the former agronomic work is winding down, a major emphasiswill continue on drought tolerance and also on seeking a better understanding of tolerance at extreme temperatures. A thermal tolerance laboratory has been establishedto screen material The group is also seen to have an important role in training staff “in-house” and attempting to relate their activities to their counterparts in the NARSs, although with few exceptions these are not yet easy to identify. Cereal biotechnology. The person appointed to the solitary scientist position is administratively located in the LP but shares a laboratory with his disciplinary colleague who is responsible for work in LP, but is located within the CP. The arrangement is illogical but does not appear to be operationally disruptive. Work on cereals has been supported by a grant of US$5 million from UNDP and the French Government. At the behest of the latter sponsor, there has been a relatively heavy investment in tissue culture/embryo rescue facilities, particularly for working with doubled haploids. This now appears to be little used becausemost of the staff prefer to use SSD techniques and a recent survey conducted to assess the opinion of scientific staff on the priorities for biotechnology work did not produce a high score for work on haploids. Doubled haploids produced earlier are currently under investigation in the spring wheat program. Some RFLP fingerprinting is undertaken using a limited number of commercially available probes, using non-radioactive techniques. RAPD techniques are also being investigated. Marker techniques are under investigation for assisting in selection of complex characters such as drought tolerance, disease resistance and QTLs. Much emphasis is placed on collaboration with advanced institutions. Meanwhile, at headquarters, since local staff have thus far been untrained for such work, there is a need for experienced post-doctorals to work in the laboratory. Agronomy and plant protection. In contrast to the situation a decade ago, the work on cereals agronomy within CP has been reduced as the work has moved more “upstream” into cereal physiology. 21 Such agronomic work as is continued concentrateson adaptationto the harsh environments of the WANA region and results are now, as a matter of policy, presented in the FRMP report. Work on barley has been the major component of agronomic/physiological work in CP in a program regarded as completed and reported. It has been concerned with adaptation to Mediterranean environments, including the effect of rainfall and temperature on grain yield, .the effect of phenology on grain yield in high and low environments and an assessment of the implications of the results for breeding programs in stress environments. Studies have also involved C-13 discrimination as a selection criterion in dry environments. Work on barley is assuming a new direction by investigating the physiology of promising crosses using Hordmn spontaneum. In durum wheat, glaucous lines have been demonstrated to have an advantage under drought stress conditions in experiments with isogenic lines. The move into more strategic physiological research is seen as entirely consistentwith the development of ICARDA as an “upstream” research center. The germplasm enhancementprograms in cereals at ICARDA are currently supported by a wheat pathologist, a barley pathologist and an entomologist. The wheat pathology is heavily committed to close support of the breeding work by screening for disease resistance-- a service that it also supplies to the NARS of the host country. The barley pathology also has a component of screening work but tends to do more investigative work. Both programs justify their contribution to the development of IPM systems by their dedication to disease control through deployment of resistant genes. A major theme addressed by barley pathology is the evaluation of the effects of agricultural intensification on barley diseasesand the development of appropriate plant protection technologies. A proportion of the work on barley includes investigation of resistance in landraces, partly in collaboration with advanced research institutes in Europe. This is supportive of some of the newer components of the work in barley germplasm enhancement. More recently, attention in barley has turned to the investigation of root diseases, motivated partly by the Cereal Program Leader’ s belief that many soilrelated problems, including root diseases, are commonly attributed to drought effects. Wheat pathology since 1988 has concentrated almost exclusively on the evaluation of resistance genes and on studies of yield loss due to specific diseases. International nurseries assume a big role in the conduct of this program, as they do for the barley work. It is hoped that the information flow will assist in the identification of durable resistance. Host-pathogen studies have recently been extended to the pathogenicity of Septoria tritici blotch and common bunt (Tzlletia foerida) on Aegilops spp. from which promising sources of resistance have been identified. In the entomological work, resistance to Hessian fly of wheat is regarded as being of key significance, especially in North Africa. Good progress is being made in the identification of resistant material and surveying for Russian wheat aphid in collaboration with NARSs and scientists of third-party institutes. Resistance has been transferred from bread wheat into durum and a new program in collaboration with the NARSs has been establishedto transfer a higher level of resistance from Aegilops species. 2.3.4 Overview The Panel finds the Program to be under effective and respectedleadership. Work on germplasm enhancement is generally productive and realizing a perceptible impact on varietal development and agricultural production in the WANA region. The general move toward releasing material with more 22 specific adaptation through more precisely targeted nurseries is commended. This move will be assisted by more detailed specifications of breeding objectives and selection criteria resulting from close support work in physiology, biotechnology and plant pathology/entomology. Breeding for more specific adaptation is likely to result in more extended activities and is therefore likely to prove increasingly challenging in times of acute budgetary constraint. The Panel identified the following points for consideration. (a) ICARDA should attempt, in conjunction with CIMMYT, to refine the target definitions for the bread wheat breeders operating in the WANA region, especially in relation to the .overlap of spring and facultative wheats. ICARDA and CIMMYT should also jointly review the breeding objectives of the CIMMYT and CIMMYTOCARDA durum programs to achieve an improved definition of responsibilities. (4 ICARDA should review whether its current scale of activity in cereal biotechnology is unacceptably below the “critical mass” required to retain the services of capable international staff. If it decides to maintain its efforts in this area, priority should be assigned to the recruitment of appropriately prepared post-doctorals. ICARDA should consider and decide the optimal site for the distribution of international nurseries for high elevation areas following the transfer of the senior breeder to Iran. ICARDA should also press for the early start-up of the breeding work in Iran, if necessary in advance of the completion of facilities, to avoid loss of momentum in the program. ICARDA should also formulate a mechanism for linking the plant-breeding activity for highelevation areas in the bilateral program to its related activities and responsibilities elsewhere in the WANA region. The Panel notes that. the direct link between germplasm enhancement and the agronomic evaluation of its products that formerly existed within the CP has now been broken. In order to exploit fully the potential of new varieties releasedthrough the NARSs, the Panel urges ICARDA to ensure that inter-Program collaboration between CP and FRMP achieves this objective in support of the NARSs. The Panel further suggeststhat ICARDA should make a thorough review of facilities and support in Turkey to evaluate the probable effectivenessof the plant pathology input to the Highland Program. W W (fl Recommendation 2.2 The proposed move of the wheat pathologist to Ankara will further weaken the capacity for close support work in cereal pathology at Tel Hadya. ICARDA should, as an absolute minimum, fill the position of wheat pathologist at headquarters by a post-doctoral appointee. 23 2.4 Legume Program 2.4.1 Background National legume research programs were non-existent in most countries of the region when ICARDA was founded. Over the 15 years of the Center’ s existence, this situation has been significantly remedied through training, visits and other forms of support, all of which have contributed to the increased capacity of the NARSs in the WANA region to undertake applied and adaptive research. Legumes are important in the WANA region. For all except two WANA countries, they contribute between 4% and 12% of dietary protein, occupy 13% ‘ of land occupied by cereals (Oram and Belaid 1990) and they also provide residues for livestock. Demand has grown by 38% between 1986 and 1988. In addition, food-legume imports cost WANA countries, except Turkey, $230 million per annum between 1980 and 1987. Recent surveys show there is a sharp rise in legume consumption in Algeria, Morocco and Turkey, and increasesin ICARDA’ s mandated legumes consumption are also expected in China, India, Pakistan and Tunisia. Lentils are cultivated in agricultural zones wit0 250-400 mm rainfall, chickpea between 300-500 mm and faba bean between 400-600 mm rainfall per annum. Most of the legumes in ICARDA’ s mandate are highly efficient nitrogen fixers. (Heichel 1987) and they can also profoundly improve the soil properties through altering the microbial activity, nutrient availability and root growth, which in turn can affect soil aggregation and soil water-aeration regimes (Tisdall and Oades 1982). As such they are, and in the future will probably increasingly be, important components of the sustainability of both livestock and cereal production in the region. As WANA is the center of diversity and cultivation of all legumes in ICARDA’ s mandateas well as of their pests and diseases,the sustainable improvement of productivity of these crops poses greater difficulties than that posed by introduced crops in other regions. Following the devolution of the work on germplasm enhancementof faba bean to the NARS in Morocco, the program now comprises work on (a) Kabuli chickpea, (h) lentils, (c) dry peas and (d) forage legumes. The last-mentioned component results from the implementation of another recommendation of the 1988 EPR, whereby work on germplasm enhancement of forage legumes was transferred from the PFLP. The general objectives of the program are (a) to increase yield potential, (b) to narrow the gap between farm and potential yield, (c) to improve sustainability of yield, (d) to mount a defence against erosion of yields by pests and pathogensand (e) to sustain cereal production in farming systems. 2.4.2 (a> Achievements During the Past Five Years The program has implemented the directive to devolve the breeding program on faba beans to a designated NARS. This issue is discussed separately in Box 2.3. The superiority of winter over spring sowing of chickpeas in low-altitude areas of the WANA region has been demonstrated and the technology is being extended by various NARSs. (cl More than 30 cultivars of chickpeas have been released for winter sowing in 13 countries in western Asia and southern Europe, based on material from ICARDA and with resistance to Ascuchyra blight and cold. Some 28 cultivars have been released for traditional (spring-sown) cropping systems. 24 Cd) :. :. .:. :...j.::,: ::;::,< *i.+.st&e$ n..?ht(;Ppel i~geSjCX.RD.$I$ $qii ; i : : : : $L$iDA, Z$r$inae .$C ‘ if&@ .@i”f?&$@n~ ~~earclsz:::;: c.; I I :Ai ti.s $..& -&gd fu&f; was !T.i”, ;~,ii-j;G<,; .;;: ; .anothei ~terMti~nal.drganyahon o+iorG~,~g&&~ ..‘ . Iyeri~~~~able,i.MeanwhiIe,.:fei;l n&ti;.T& ‘ $..ds,.ih;& :;,.,Iji ...j... :;:;1 ~J&&&~ be pr@ared to :i&&$ ihe &y++~ +j !. ’ :‘ s$)p&g .&,e: INRP; ‘ f,gg &.q :;&&; .$$& ,;.. ; ; :..i: i i y : ;,: : its ‘ entire@. and co&irtc itpqrn 4 c&ugry iri :the. .+s: s&U +j int+j-~~~g$~:~ ; ; ;.;. region . , . * (p.56). : ICARDA pointeddut -in the iSPO- :’ nationaI fa1;3&+&m’ The -P&f ‘ finds $iaL INR;4&d not ;#ocate .e+o&$:.~:;.~,,: j .::‘ .“i 94 MTP that the option of finding such a center was psou&+ to:Douy& ‘ & :f&;li&e ~a..~ucceSsfuit~nsf~i:‘ :.: r’ :i ,not r.glistic and requestedhelp from TAC. With -no ofthe &&&j~f&“IC~DA.. ..~,‘ :‘ i’ ..~~,~.~r;,i:-~.‘ ii~l-::-~ guidance, ICARDA took the initiative to transier its ’ .~tbough'Dduijkt.s~t~on k :&l ph&& .a<:[$& .!:. faba bean work to a national program. ICARDA ban.groeg pgiiii ‘ itii$ iso& :&j-i & hati. ._“ ‘ I.;: i I’j i, decidednot to transfer the work to the strong Faba -rese+rchSt&ions-in.IMorocco;:For.this :JX&&; :1&&A.. ‘ ...-i Bean.Progmm in Egypt,. but rather to where faba -bean ’ foutid it -diffictilt :tb h&t tiff;.,‘ & statiofi -l&ks’ -ji~:.;; : ! w&grown-under.rainfed conditions. However, in ~fmstpjctur& a&qu&l~ ma&&~ a ‘ f&i l&n:! !’1.j. :I:! .Momcco the Legume Pmgr&n was,weak. At ee.titie co&&on and segregatingIjoptilaGons,.and,tp:&nage- .. ., ICARDA believed a number of donors:were.likely;to ’ in:t&& i of dr&ght; ‘ There are no :%-rig&on: i 1. support the project (1990-94 MTP, 1+129-3?).:’ :. materials ‘ fa@ies;~In-t&p& yeatapgarently25-4O%~~f:::I.;~~j'iI: :~ ICARDA requestedand was approved funding ‘ until mid-1991, giving it three years to transfer the Program. segregatingpopulations were.lost. The coUectio$a$d’ : : and terminate its faba bean research. -most germplasm were-r&instated through &&vetitio$ The Panel believes the process of phasing-out faba by the ICARDA 1-m. This year there was -anothei :’ drought. In order to maintain -germplasmfor the: .‘ .: ::. : .. bean research was not a case of successfuldevolution. It might have been if (a) the concerned NARS was region, irrigation back-up facilities should ha& b&n;. : capable of managingand enhancing faba bean regarded as an.essenti$criterion for site.&$&tion..~: germplasm, and assuming regional responsibilities, (b) .: The GTZ tigionti coordhator ai-r&e&in 1.; ..:. .,’ the site chosenhad the infrastructure to enablesafe Morocco &Scptember 1992. AIthough it is,.s&ll early* 1 : : managementof germplasm, in a region known .fo; its there are indications that the -passingof regiona!.: : j .,:.j : j 1. variable rainfall distribution, and ic) if regional .cooidinatio&from:ICARDq to GTZ’ will not pm&&$.: i: .,. -collaboration was assured. : 1 : .&iIy. Communications on-stat&are poor.. Little; :’ I 1.. JCARDA’ s Management expectedto build-up th8 ’ experience is available at the-coordinatidn.k&l& :‘ .‘ I. :’ weak legume team of the Institut National de la ’ regionai networking; or in working wi& faba b&n, :. : ’ Recherche Agronomique (INRA) in Morocco in three which.is a difficglt c&p.. The +&finnation, .. :’ years. In 1989 it transferred two faba bean scientists acquaintanceand folIow-up process with-national : : : and equipment to Douyet station to initiate a breeding programs has been slow, and regional coIIab&ation I .’ and pathology program and to train Moroccan uncertain. Tunisia so far has:refusedto sign an :: .. i : ‘ . scientists assignedto the commodity. There were no agreementbecauseoPbudget,disputes. national scientists based at Douyet station. By 1990, a A successfuldevolutiok .wquld have req&ed:a’ i’y..!’’j local tiasters-level breeder and agronomist arrived; an substantially.longei-ICARDA pres&de;‘ which. the ;’ ; : : “identified” p&hologist n&er did. Over this p&-iod, ‘ : Center ‘ di$ oat’f&I it could provide {g-sen the : ’.. ’ : the-INCA-scientists r&eiv&. intensive training. from .. -diiiives f?bti ‘ rAC iani ‘ &e-.1988 EPR) and a!gre&f ,:ii i ICARDA staff. By-the end of 199i, both ICARQA. :corn&&%: of human and .ti fr&ructural. ies&rc& by:. j. i : i faba bean staff had Ieft, but.ICMDA retain+ a .:: ‘ i i.th$Mo+o+,~NARS; : .. : .,.;. : : .::.. .::i’ :...:::i .:..‘ ... ::: : : + :. ’ Supplementaryquestion 3, section I, Appendi .l, p. 112 of this &p&t:, : .:... :... :, :,.: i:.: ./:.:: ::j ... : ,::,z.;‘ :: ,,:.TACl,aecideilia:.p86.thatIC~AShoh,d.i:: ...:‘ y::j :,i+ :. -::.. ‘ ... jpp;“mei sc&& &: Jj&y&& :& .&&l&fg&&Q i;:j;j ‘ . :disconiinue woi~g ,on:faaa b~.~:IThe~,I ::,,: :‘ ~’ I ; .I ’ i .. :;j. ‘ .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i‘ &,,y:+,@&+ &ras ,&&&b; ,F $&+,a JZjR,. :. i : i: .:& @&$‘ +$+&$&j ; ++j~j& tha’ *‘ piiitn~d;:‘ i.ii:~~~~:‘ I”..::’ Box 12.3 25 (6 Reliable screeningtechniquesfor cold tolerance and resistanceto Ascochytablight, wilt and root rot, cyst nematode, leaf miner, GzZlosobruchus and Orobanche have been developed and useful parental material has been identified, including wild annual Cicer species. The evaluation of various Rhizobium associations for increasingthe efficiency of nitrogen fixation has assistedsome NARSs to begin the exploitation of this technology. A package of improved cultivars and partially mechanized harvesting (swathing) systems for lentils has been adopted over an expanding area. 01) Seventeenlentil lines have been releasedby the NARSs in various countries. Sources of resistanceto rust, wilt, Ascochyta blight, Orobanche and drought have also been distributed to the NARSs, and new sourcesof resistancehave been identified in wild Lens. Effective seedtreatment to control nodule damageby Sitona larvae has been developed using an insecticide (Promet). (0 09 A field technique for assessing the need for inoculation has been developed and transferred to the NARSs. In forage legumes, researchhas led to the selectionof non-shatteringgenotypesin common vetch; the identification of sources of resistanceto Orobanche, nematodes, foliar fungal diseasesand cold. Wooly-pod vetch has been identified as a forage of considerablepotential for highland areas. Lines of chickling with low neurotoxin (BOAA) content have been identified. Some 600 participants received training in the Program between 1989 and 1992. 2.4.3 Assessment (1) Cm> (n> (0) The Panel commends the leader and staff of LP on the vigorous manner in which they have maintained an effective program and absorbednew work, despite the loss of a major breeding program resulting from the implementation of recommendationsof the 1988 EPR. The LP has responded positively to the directive to reduce the totall effort on food legume research. Transference out of the faba bean program has resulted in the loss of two P-level, one postdoctoral and nine support staff. However, the transferencein of the forage legume work has resulted in an addition of one P-level, one post-doctoral and four support staff. In addition, the position of plant pathologist, which had been vacant, except for a temporary visiting scientist, since ICRISAT removed support for the position, has recently been filled. The Panel, nevertheless,had difficulty in accepting from its observations and inquiries that forage legumes account for 33% of the total effort in LP, as claimed. The Panel supports the 1988 EPR in stating that legume researchcannot be justified on the basis of the economic role of food legumes in the food system alone. Justification for research on legumes 26 must include their key role in cropping systemsthat encourage the sustainableproductivity of soils in the region, to maintain and increase food production. Discussion of sustainability for the foreseeablefuture makes little sense without the integrated use of legumes that have a good capacity for the biological fixation of atmospheric nitrogen. Forage lemmes A further recommendation of the 1988 EPR was that the forage legume breeder be transferred to LP. This transfer was accomplished successfully. The breeder concerned feels the benefits of interacting more closely with others of the same discipline and derives further synergy from direct access to supporting services, especially in pathology and entomology. The Panel accepts that good liaison is maintained with staff in PFLP through informal and frequent contact. There is also close collaboration with the NARSs. Earlier work on medics in PFLP was not successful and the assumptionsleading to its initiation have been questioned. Work in LP on forage legumes is now confined to eight species of Vicia each of which is adapted for specific environments and for Lathyrus species of which the same may be said. These are genuine breeding programs involving hybridization and selection and go beyond the mere selection of ecotypes. The overriding objective is to reduce the area of land left to fallow and to produce forage in zones of 200-300 mm average annual rainfall. Some lines identified have promise for environments below 200 mm average rainfall. For this purpose V. sativa ssp. Amphicarpa, which has subterraneanpods providing a drought-avoidancemechanism, is of particular interest. Although lathyrism is not a lethal condition of animals, there is a justifiable program for the reduction of neurotoxins in L.uthyrus becausethey reduce feed intake. Successin this project would have supplementary benefits for the millions of people exposed to lathyrism in Ethiopia and India in very dry areas where no alternative food is available. Chickneas Much emphasishas been placed in LP on the significant yield advantagesaccruing from winter sowing of chickpeas in areas where winter temperatures are not limiting. Adoption studies in Syria and Morocco confirm that farmers realize the advantageof winter sowing. However, there was a setback in Morocco, where heavy Ascochyta blight infection in on-farms trials causeda reaction in the NARS and loss of farmer confidence in winter chickpea. The breakdown has been attributed to an infection group similar to those found at Tel Hadya and confidencehas been restored with varieties, such as FLIP 84-92c, and FLIP-83-48c, which are more resistant than previously used varieties. Some 65,000 ha is estimated by the Program to be under winter sowing in WANA. Progress has been achieved in understanding the mechanismsof resistance to major biotic, but not abiotic, stresses. Priority was given to elucidating the nature of the host-pathogen relationship for Ascochyta blight as part of a major effort to develop winter chickpea. A longstanding controversy has persisted on whether specific physiological races with virulence/avirulence reactions exist, or whether pathogens vary only in their aggressiveness. Some of the work was summarized in a special workshop hosted by ICARDA and ICRISAT (Singh and Saxena 1992). Recent data using RFLP fingerprinting and biological typing, in collaboration with the University of Frankfurt, shows that genetic variability between isolates exists, which so far has been associatedwith variation in pathogen aggressiveness. The Panel believes the Program is correct in the emphasis of current work becausethe effectiveness of breeding strategies and the durability of resistanceto Ascochyta blight rely on an accurate understanding of the 27 nature of the host-pathogen interaction. It urges ICARDA to critically review past methods and interpretations of data and to develop effective methods to enable completion of proper pathogenic characterization. The Program intends to “pyramid” resistance to Ascochyta blight. The Panel believes this strategy to be realistic only if the pathogenic groups used at Tel Hadya are representative of those found throughout the region. The Program intends, by 1997, to develop durable resistance in chickpea to Ascochyta blight using partial resistancetraits. The Panel believes this goal is unrealistic considering the uncertainty that still reigns on the variability of the pathogen and the requirement for long-term testing to verify the durability of resistance. Work at ICARDA on the mechanisms of resistance to various root pathogens has not made significant progress, probably due to justified concentration of resources on Ascochytu blight to develop winter chickpea. Nevertheless, in collaboration with NARSs, sources of resistance have been found. Root-infecting pathogens (including nematodes) are problems of most important legumes in ICARDA’ s mandate commodities, as well as in cereals. Problems associatedwith root-infecting pathogens noted as major constraints to production of mandate legumes and their importance are likely to increase in the future with the intensification of cropping systems. The Panel believes this area would benefit from more interdisciplinary research. Lentils Work on lentils has concentratedon developing and extending mechanizedharvesting technology. It is estimated, but not confirmed, that 20,000 ha were sown for mechanized harvesting in Kamishly, Syria. The Panel commends ICARDA on this work but urges the Program to conduct adoption and impact studies. The Program, in collaboration with NARSs, has detected high levels of resistance to Fusarium wilt, drought and Ascochyta blight and it is sending earlier segregating materials to NARSs. These efforts should help to produce more stable-yielding, specifically-adaptedcultivars for stress environments. Aspects of the context in which research on lentils is conducted are taken up in Box 2.4. Drv Peas ICARDA has limited its activities with this crop to evaluating introduced germplasm. The Panel regards the program for dry peas to be appropriate under the optimistic funding scenario. However, it believes funds should be concentrated on higher priority areas if less funding is available. Biotechnology The scientist-in-charge has overall responsibility for coordinating the activities of ICARDA in this field (section 2.3.3). Some contrasts in attitude are reflected in the work on cereals and legumes but the use of molecular marker techniques plays a prominent part in both. In legumes, the technology is being applied to less complex objectives where progress can be more easily demonstrated. These include (a) using markers for assisting in the identification of pathotypes, mainly of Ascochyta, which will be extendedto Hessian fly in collaboration with Washington State University, (b) using marker techniques to measure genetic diversity, e.g., in lentil germplasm, and (c) using RFLP techniques to assist in the identification of cultivars. 28 29 These are all worthwhile applications but assistanceto the legume breeders would be enhanced if attention were directed also to host rather than pathogen DNA markers. There is also less importance attached to locating markers in linkage groups in the legume work. The Biotechnology Coordinator firmly supports the stance taken by ICARDA that non-radioactive techniques (RFLP and RAPD) should be used. He is also opposed to working on transgenosis at ICARDA for the foreseeable future. The solitary foray of LP into transgenosis seems not to have been well thought out. In a collaborative project, a genetically engineered (at Washington State University) strain of Rhizobium was produced that carries a Bt gene conferring resistanceto the nodule-attacking larvae of Sitona. Although this is arguably a legitimate target for biotechnology, the work was undertaken in the absence of any planned legislation regulating the testing and release of GMOs in Syria and, in the absence of any approved containment facilities at ICARDA, there seemsto be no clear plan for taking this work forward. Furthermore, little is known of the microbial ecology of the transgenic organism or of how to control its spread in the soil. 2.4.4 Overview The Panel urges ICARDA to ensure the coordination of pathology resources between programs, with more concentration on understanding the factors that result in build-up of root-pathogens and the development of managementstrategies for root-infecting pathogens. Such collaboration should include collaboration between microbiology (microbial ecology), soil sciences, cropping systems research and other disciplines relevant to the study of disease in stressed environments. The Program has made significant strides in developing methods to measure the contribution of BNF to the nitrogen content of chickpea, the effectiveness of inoculation of chickpea and in strain characterization, tolerance of strains to salt and heat, antibiotics and to varying moisture levels. However, the Program has not yet reported all results that are available to demonstrate it has achieved its goal of understanding the contribution of BNF to nitrogen needsof the cereal-chickpea rotation. The Panel urges that the Program collates these results and presents them clearly. Since there are, in some quarters, remaining doubts about the adoption of forage legumes in WANA farming systems, the Panel suggests that ICARDA produce a short, well-argued document to justify the continuing program in germplasm enhancement of the species now researched and their intended place in the region’ s agriculture. The Panel endorsesthe view of the Biotechnology Coordinator that it is preferable at present for ICARDA not to undertake work on transgenic material. Recommendation 2.3 Work on transgenic material should be deferred until there is bio-safety legislation in place in the host country. 30 2.5 Pasture, Forage and Livestock Program 2.5.1 Background The economic context of livestock production in WANA is one of growing land and feed scarcity, causedby crop expansion and urbanization. A review of Syria, Tunisia and Turkey (Oram 1988) argued that conversion of grazing to cropland had produced a ruminant feed crisis that will soon cut livestock development, if it had not already done so. There are three broad livestock production systems in ICARDA’ s winter rainfall mandate area. They are distinguished chiefly by rainfall and winter temperature. Pastoral (nomadic) systems, agropastoral and mixed crop-livestock systems, as described in the 1988 EPR, are practiced throughout the WANA region. Sheep and goats are the principal species in all these systems. The sheep are local indigenous breeds, generally fat tailed in West Asia and low-land North Africa, and thin tailed in most of the rest of North Africa. Feed-Legume Svstems. The responseto land scarcity is intensification in the use of the traditional feed resources, pasture and crop residues, higher feed-grain imports, and a shift to non-ruminants raised on imported feeds. ICARDA has attempted to respond to increasing demands for feeds by developing technologies for feed legumes that have the additional benefit of soil nitrogen enhancement. Four types of feed-legume systems have been defined (a) annually sown and harvested species, such as vetches, (b) perennials cut for hay but not grazed, such as alfalfa, (c) self-regenerating annual pasture legumes, grown in rotations with cereals, such as medics, and (d) legumesseededinto rangelands, such as perennial medics (Buddenhagen 1990). An ICARDA review (Osman et al. 1990) indicates that type (a) is the most common in WANA, as exemplified by vetch and oat production in Algeria, vetch and Egyptian clover in Morocco, berseem (Trifdium alexandrium) in Egypt, vetch and oats in Tunisia and vetch in Turkey. Type (lo) alfalfa occurs in Morocco and Turkey. The focus of ICARDA’ s effort has been on ley farming (c), with some on (a), a little on (d), and none on (b). Ley farming has not been successfully transferred on a wide scale in WANA. Attempts to introduce it (Osman et al. 1990, Christiansen et al. 1993) failed or succeededvery partially in Tunisia and Algeria, with limited successin Morocco. Reasonsfor the failure of ley farming are thought to be (a) colder winter temperatures than in Australia, especially above 1000 m, and poor nodulation, causing low yield of the legume, (b) the depressing effect of the pasture legume on the subsequentcereal due to more acute water competition than with a clean fallow/cereal rotation, and (c) poor grazing management leading to destruction of the legume seed stock. Structure of Livestock Research. The Pasture Forage and Livestock Program (PFLP) has main responsibility for livestock work. The livestock component of FRMP research, which encompasses primarily long-term rotation trials involving livestock, has decreased markedly in recent years. CP improves wheat and barley, which produce residues consumedby livestock. LP improves food legumes and in addition it has a small forage legume program. This organization provides a focus on the main constraints, is multidisciplinary and implies a strong need for collaborative work among the Programs. 31 Future Goals of PFLP Research. These are in three broad areas. Improvement of small-ruminant production. ICARDA’ s work is largely limited to research on sheep production, although many flocks in the regions also include goats. Within the general goal of improving small ruminant production, specific objectives are (a) to assist the plant breeding programs in screening for materials with good nutritive quality, (b) to estimate the nutritive value of typical feeds (straw, stubble and legumes), (c) to identify the causesof low weaning percentages, (d) to relate changes in productivity to feeding and body condition and (e) to identify the major feed-supply constraints to productivity. The Program concentrateson feed shortages as the main barrier to livestock output. The Center does little in animal health. The 1988 EPR recommendedthat ICARDA not undertake research in animal breeding, although it recommended that the Center do more in evaluating the production potential of regional breeds. Improvement of sown-pasture and forage production. The goal is to integrate food or feed legumes into crop rotations and to replace fallow with sown pastures and forages. Benefits could be achieved on as much as 30 million ha of fallow converted to crops. Specific objectives are (a) to develop forage and pasture-seedtechnology, (b) to study the ecology and potential of pasture legumes, (c) to study rhizobial ecology and nitrogen fixation under cool temperatures and (d) to conduct pasture and grazing management studies. Improvement of native pastures and rangelands. The goal is to facilitate better feed supply by ;mproving native pastures and rangelandswith legumes and shrubs in drier areas. There would be NRM benefits in addition to augmented feed supply. Specific targets are (a) to study flock and land management constraints to the adoption of improved technology, (b) to identify plant cultivars and rhizobia suitable for reseeding in degraded areas, including inoculation technologies for rhizobia and (c) to test pasture rehabilitation technologies. Other goals are to supply improved forage and pasture legumes through collections and evaluation of local germplasm (GRU). The chief themes in PFLP are, in the opinion of the Panel, appropriate. Animal nutrition, including forage production and crop management as affecting feed supply, is the most important. Crop-livestock interactions (e.g., ley farming or fallow management), pasture management and cropresidue managementare also important. The Center has a logical justification for not working on feedlots and non-ruminants. Phvsical Facilities. The principal animal research facilities are at Tel Hadya. The research staff believe that the facilities have the following limitations: (a) the housing for digestibility and rumen studies does not meet the contemporary lead standards for the welfare of experimental animals, (b) the Center does not have a building suitable for experiments involving individual feeding of ewes in late pregnancy and post-lambing, (c) the veterinary laboratory is too small and (d) staff have to travel across the Tel Hadya farm becausethe facilities are dispersed and telephone service is inadequate. A new unit that remedies these deficiencies has been designed in PFLP and special project funds are currently being sought. The Panel supports this initiative. Resnonseto the 1988 EPR. The 1988 EPR recommended that ICARDA (a) transfer a P-level economist to PFLP, (b) extend research on annual pasture legumes, grazing management, and livestock husbandry outside Syria, (c) include mixed speciesherds in livestock and feed managementresearch, (d) include genotypes of different production potentials in livestock and feed management research and (e) contract two additional P-level livestock scientists. The Center has complied with the first three 32 . . recommendations. A P-level economist was transferred to PFLP. Livestock husbandry has been studied in Pakistan and a major project is now launched in Algeria. The Center has not complied with the final two. It has initiated limited work on genotypes of different production potentials and, for lack of resources, has not contracted two additional P-level livestock scientists. 2.5.2 Main Results ICARDA’ s main results from its pasture, forage and livestock research may be itemized as follows: Achievements Over the Past Five Years and Assessment (a) cb) cc> 04 (e> (0 @ 01) (9 (i) identification of forage and pasture legumes (Mediterranean) tolerant to cold, disease and pests; identification of specific strains of medic rhizobia with greater ability to fix nitrogen; development of rotations of cereals and self-regenerating annual pasture medics in Syria and methods to extend this work to other sites. PFLP has produced four books, all relevant to the topic, that summarize regional experience; identification of constraints to pasture legume/cereal rotations through on-farm trials in northern Syria; identification of methods for boosting the potential productivity of marginal lands near Aleppo; demonstration that medic pasture and vetch rotations can increasetotal soil N and organic matter; demonstration that better nutrition at mating can raise the productivity of Awassi ewes; preliminary indication that variation in productivity traits within populations of Syrian sheep makes selection programs feasible; identification of anti-nutritional factors in some legume seeds; and indication, through studies in Syria and Pakistan, that some degradation of marginal rangeland could be reversed with simple technologies, such as using small amounts of P, establishing Atriplex and resting the pasture. Annual pasture legumesthat could improve grazing lands in the drier environments have also been identified. The nutritive quality of crop residues is a recent theme. ICARDA found that differences in the intake and nutritive value of barley and wheat straw result from differences in plant morphology and structure, which, in turn, differ according to drought stress and variety. Current Work The PFLP has four major themes (a) small ruminants nutrition and management, (b) sown pastures and forages, (c) socioeconomicsand (d) marginal lands and rangelands. In an internal priorities 33 exercise, PFLP argued that 24%) 22 %, 24% and 23 % of its resourcesshould be devoted to those themes, respectively, with the remaining 7% to training. Small ruminants nutrition and management. Animal scientists at Tel Hadya are expanding work on the nutritive value of cereal straws and stubble, which provide at least 40% of the annual feed to flocks in the region. They are also studying the interaction between stubble grazing and supplementation strategies. PFLP is also working on barley straw quality to ensure that ICARDA does release germplasm that is also appropriate in this aspect. Rapid assessment methods using small quantities of straw are being developed. This work may be expanded to wheat and lentil straws. Another experiment compared Turkish and Syrian Awassi ewes at two levels of nutrition. The Turkish ewes yielded 25% more milk yield at both levels of nutrition, but the best animals in each group gave nearly identical results. One issue is the lack of analysis of the long-term rotation trials at Tel Hadya with respect to their implications for feed supply and supplementaryfeed management. Another problem relates to ICARDA’ s role in animal genetic improvement. While there is a consensusthat ICARDA should not engage in livestock-breeding research per se, there are cogent arguments that it should do something to assist the national programs in indigenous breed evaluation. Sown uastures and forages. Given the possible importance of feed legumes in mixed cropping/grazing systems, and the past difficulties experienced in introducing improved medic systems in the region, it is entirely appropriate that ICARDA put major emphasison such systems. A long-term crop rotation and grazing trial has been conducted at Tel Hadya since 1985/86, at Breda since 1987/88 and, in collaboration with the Government of Syria, at Kamishli; an economic analysis of this work has been completed recently (Nordblom et al. 1992). A similar project began near El-Khroub, Algeria in 1992. The Panel endorsesthis work. Close collaboration is planned between PFLP and LP, and there is at present frequent informal contact. Socioeconomics. There is an effective collaboration between the economist and the natural scientists. The PFLP economist seeks to evaluate quantity, quality and temporal distribution of feed, to determine the economics of pasture-crop rotations and marginal-rangelands regeneration techniques, and to identify land tenure and flock-management systems and their impact on adoption of new technologies. Other relevant pursuits include government policies affecting relative prices of produced and purchased feeds, and support services such as seeds, fertilizer, animal breeding and extension. Marginal lands and rangelands. ICARDA defines rangelands as having (a) winter rainfall and (b) total annual rainfall between 100-400 mm, Rangelands cover about 315 million ha and produce 50500 kg/ha of usable dry matter. Measures to raise rangeland productivity have not been successful, which has been attributed to low and variable rainfall, poor soils and outmoded range tenure. The economic justification for rangeland improvement is questionable and merits further study, together with new agronomic approaches. Some justifications for developing rangeland research, even with an uncertain expected return, are: (a) ICARDA is virtually the only institution effectively engaged in this work in WANA; (b) the poverty of the rangeland populations; (c) the close interactions between the rangelands and related arable farming areas; and (d) concern about rangeland degradation arising from overgrazing and soil erosion (or common-property reasons). The “unique institution” argument is weak, although the validity of the proposition may, for some observers and investors, provide sufficient qualification for some research. The “poverty” argument has been difficult to put into practice becauseof the severe problems encountered 34 in eliminating poverty in marginal agricultural areas. Proponents of the poverty argument have (i) to admit that the prospects for successthrough research are poor and (ii) to compare the expected efficiency of reducing poverty through research with that of reducing it through alternative means. The “interactions” argument depends on the fact that livestock can use seasonal feed and water in widely separatedplaces. Relevant examples are in Syria, Algeria and Morocco where sheep move back and forth between rangelands and farming areas. Many other examples are known in West Africa and Asia. This argument raises the concern that productivity improvements in the adjacent farming areas increase pressure on the rangelands, even if research has not affected production practices there. That pressure creates an implicit demand for rangelands research so as to use the full potential of technical change in the farming areas. While research on rangelandscan be justified for the interactions and common-property reasons, quantitative answers to the questionsneededto justify rangelandsresearch do not exist at present. Getting them will be costly becausethe answers will only become apparent over time. ICARDA will have to commit resources to answering these questions. ICARDA’ s outreach program in Balochistan has, over the past seven years, conducted initial evaluations of rangeland productivity and establishedfarmer-controlled interventions on feed availability and Atriplex plantations. Simultaneously, PFLP has had a major range-restoration experiment on a Syrian Government station since 1990 to test the effects of edible shrubs (Atriplex sp. and Salsola sp.) and grazing pressure on sustainablerange productivity. Other work on rangelands includes a socioeconomic survey focusing on Bedouin systems of the steppe southeastof Aleppo. 2.5.3 Overview Resource Allocation to Livestock. ICARDA has not complied fully with the 1988 EPR recommendations about livestock and legume research. Resources allocated to legumes have been reduced (section 2.1). The Panel recognizes that resources allocated to PFLP do not reflect congruently the importance of livestock in the WANA region. The question of emphasis is specifically addressedin Box 2.5. Nutrition and Management. The work on small ruminant nutrition and management appears to be relevant to the major problems, is well-directed and of good quality. The major problem identified by the Panel is the lack of resources to analyze data from some of the long-term rotation trials. The Panel strongly urges ICARDA to complete and publish this work. The Panel consideredthe suggestionthat ICARDA establisha network to assistnational programs in the evaluation of animal genetic resources in the WANA region, with particular emphasis on small ruminants. The proposed network would provide training on the design of breeding programs but would not collect primary data. The network may not need full-time staff, but would require consistent external expertise in animal breeding and close collaboration with ILCA and ILRAD. The Panel suggests, however, that such a network should not be initiated unless special-project funds are secured. Forage Lemme Research. Appraisal of feed-legume germplasm and its integration into production systems is a long and complex process. A possible cause of lack of impact has been the absence of long-term programs to study the use of those materials in actual production systems. The Panel believes that expansion of research on livestock/production systems should take place where a 35 its&tempt toanswer thisquestion. On theone hand, it fully endorses .ICARDA’ s ’ ... partly because of fmancial constraints.. Neither ICARDA nor the Panel has accepted .completely the implication in the question that food legumes should assume a low priority in the WANA region, for reasons discussed more. fully in section 2.4. Food legumes are important in the diet of many poor people in the WANA region and, in the opinion of the : i Supplementary question 5, section I,.Appendix for such work will always be lin&d; the : I,.,:, :. i :. .: Panel prop’ oses that ICY&DA.&culd .e&blish : i : strong colIaborative livestock research ‘ $oje& i I i :‘ i i .: with the NARSs:-Within WANA; there-are .!:. ’ several existing-N.&S establishments with j ”i ‘ expefi&ce ih smallL*nat p&J&id$’ && ; : i : .’ : : : ’ ‘~ research; and the I&e1 -believesthat $&al+. : project funding -could be attracted for -such 1.. 1 .. NARS/ICARDA collaboration. 1, on-p.112 of.this Report; : 1. .. : :. $. :. : ; “critical mass”of staff can work on both a cereal/livestock system and on an adjacentrangelands system. This work should be expandedbeyond Syria; work in Algeria would also be appropriate as funds permit. The Panel suggests that the forage legume breeder, jointly with the leaders of LP and PFLP, reach a detailed agreement on the forage legume enhancementprogram. The agreed program would comprise target environments and farming systems, principal species and other specific objectives such as fallow replacement. The agreement would become the outline of the plant breeder’ s work during the next five years, upon acceptanceby management. A statement of an ICARDA strategy on ley farming is overdue, given its potential importance in the intensification of livestock production in WANA. The Panel suggeststhat the Center formally articulates a strategy on the future of ley farming that clearly specifies ICARDA’ s future research program in this area, surely drawing on Center synthesessuch as reported by Christiansen et al. (1993, pp.294-5). 36 Recommendation 2.4 In view of the ongoing debate within the Center and the many different attitudes that exist among its main partners, the NARSs, ICARDA should give immediate attention to the development of a comprehensive rangelands research strategy, in which the Center’ s role would clearly be identified. 2.6 Socioeconomic Research 2.6.1 Background The focus of social sciencesat ICARDA is technology analysis. This is becauseICARDA social scientists, as do those at other Centers, have a comparative advantagederived from their close working relations with the natural scientists. Technology analysis usefully and typically entails five stages (a) diagnosis and problem identification, (b) identification of potential solutions, (c) collaborative experimental design, (d) post-experimental analysis and (e) adoption and impact studies. ICARDA’ s social science researchportfolio is consistentwith such a categorization. Organization and Resources. The social sciences have never had a separateprogram or unit at ICARDA. While the social scientists have always been involved primarily in work that has usually be described as farming systems research, there has never been a permanent organizing activity, such as ICRISAT’ s Village Level Studies. An initial effort at ICARDA of studying village systems was suspendedafter some years, as it did not serve as a locus of technology generation. Headquarters social scientists are now allocated between PFLP and FRMP. Two Rockefeller Fellows are outposted to the North Africa and Nile Valley Regional Programs. Social scientists do not have sufficient staff support, especially relative to that enjoyed by most of ICARDA’ s natural scientists. The social scientists require numerate research assistants, who are unlikely to be available from within the existing technical staff of the other scientists. The lack of support staff obliges the social scientists to use post-graduate students or visiting national scientists in an “assistant” capacity, a practice that is questionable in any case, but is certainly an undesirable substitute for trained, long-term socioeconomic staff on regular contracts. Evolution. Historical development of social science research at ICARDA roughly falls into three clear phases corresponding to the periods covered by external reviews. During the initial period, the emphasiswas on diagnosis of the farming systems of northwest Syria, Sudan and Egypt (the Nile Valley Project) and the identification of problems and possible solutions. During the second period, collaboration in experimental design with biological scientists was increased. Following the 1988 EPR, ex post evaluations of experimental programs, adoption and impact studies were initiated, reflecting a desire to study and perhaps quantify ICARDA’ s progress in technology development and transfer. Social scientists began working in the North Africa and Highland Regional Programs. 2.6.2 Achievements and Assessment ICARDA staff have done considerable work in diagnosis/constraint identification, technology evaluation and adoption and impact studies since the 1988 EPR. 37 Diagnosis and Constraint Identification. A series of papers - impressive indeed in volume, scope, analytical content and relevance -- about the Balochistan Province of Pakistan described the farming systems, identified some of the constraints to higher productivity and evaluated relevant technologies. Useful work was done in farm surveys, sheepproduction and wheat diseaseresearch, and continues with economic analysis of water harvesting and livestock marketing research. Technologv Evaluation. Two major papers indicate that ley farming in Syria and the intensified feeding of pregnant ewes are not yet profitable enough to extend to farmers. Both papers indicate promising avenuesto improve those technologies. A study of supplemental irrigation of wheat in Syria indicated the beneficial aspectsof this technology. ICARDA staff have made an ex ante estimate of the benefits to research and extension in sheep production in Pakistan and a more qualitative justification of national program research on camels in that country. Similar estimatesare available for water harvesting in Balochistan. Little has been done to measurethe impact of ICARDA research on income distribution, with the exception of a study of the effects of winter chickpea production on women’ s labor demands in Tunisia. Gender issuesmore generally have been addressedin the socioeconomic-led work of the Center (Box 2.6). Technologv Adoption and Imuact. The Center has answered the recommendation of the 1988 EPR that it carry out adoption studies. Surveys and analysesof winter sowing of chickpeas have been done in partnership with national programs in Morocco and Syria. The evolution of lentil production practices and the benefits of mechanical harvesting of lentils have been studied in Syria. An adoption and impact study of modern wheat production in Syria was begun in 1991, and the preliminary results reported. The impact of improved faba bean and wheat technology in the Sudan was assessed under the auspices of the Nile Valley Regional Program. Other studies of improved cereal and food legume technologies are currently underway in Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Syria, Sudan and Egypt. 2.6.3 Current and Planned Work Social scientistshave on-going activities in diagnosis, technology evaluation, adoption and impact, and policy, where the latter includes some work on common-property questions. The work’ s coverage is broad in terms of commodity, country and farming system. Data-collection methods include surveys, field trials and literature reviews. Analytic methods include partial budgeting, econometrics and programming models. These methods are more than adequateto ICARDA’ s mission and little need be done to develop new ones. Exceptions should be broadly applicable by national programs. An example is the work on eliciting farmers’ subjective yield distributions in Syria and Morocco. Diagnosis. Recent diagnostic studies include work on forage, pasture and animal production in Morocco; surveys of dryland farming in Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya and Lebanon; two diagnostic studies in regions of Turkey; and a livestock marketing study in Pakistan. There have also been several “regional” papers in this category as part of the 1990-94 World Wheat Facts and Trends (jointly published with CIMMYT), and as background for the 1994-98 MTP. The latter include: the economic setting of WANA agriculture, research issues in the rangelands, trends in livestock feed supply and demand, and feedlots as a possible research topic. Technologv Evaluation. The main evaluation work thus far has been in Syria, with work on lentil mechanization, supplemental irrigation, crop rotations on the Tel Hadya station, fertilizer use on rangelands and establishment of edible shrubs on rangelands. There is an on-going economic analysis of water harvesting trials in Libya, Pakistan and Syria. FRMP and PFLP staff are planning further work on the economics of joint grain and straw production in barley. 38 Around 1988, the results of an ICARDA study on legume harvesting and mechanization created an awareness at the Center that gender issues could indeed be significant to research on agriculture in the WANA region. This gave ICARDA cause to rethink the issue; gender had been addressed earlier to a limited extent but was found to be of little significance at the farm level in WANA. As ICARDA staffing in social sciences was thin, this supposition had gone unchallenged. From 1988 - when ICARDA had only two social scientists - to 1992, a few isolated projects contained a gender component. In 1992 the CGIAR Gender Program gave the Center an impetus and offered guidance in assessing the importance of gender analysis to the ICARDA research agenda. In mid-1992 ICARDA requested the Gender Program to provide training in awareness and methods for ICARDA scientists, and to conduct a review of the research portfolio with respect to the appropriateness and opportunities for usefully incorporating a gender perspective. Two consultants visited ICARDA over the course of eight days, and prepared a useful report. An ICARDA Gender Analysis and Research Committee, appointed by the DG, has reviewed the consultants’ report and considered imp!ementation. Their favored approach would be to incorporate a “user perspective” into ongoing and new research, rather than to conduct isolated “gender research projects. ” To explore possibilities, members of the Committee initiated discussions informally, with ICARDA scientists conducting or planning relevant research, and ideas are emerging on how and where gender might be incorporated. The next step will be for the Committee (recently expanded to include representation from all Programs) to meet with Management to recommend and discuss an institutional approach for addressing gender in research at ICARDA. One difficulty ICARDA faces is that the body of gender-related research relevant to agriculture in the WANA region appears quite limited, so ICARDA is breaking new ground. In order to enhance ICARDA’ s (and NARSs’ ) broad understanding of the topic, the Center has commissioned a consultant to un-dertake a six-month study. The work involves a number of activities aimed at providing a firm base for linking gender issues in agriculture within the WANA region with ICARDA’ s research activities. The results should assist ICARDA in determining future gender-related research priorities more cogently than in the past. j. : :. The Panel is pleased to learn of the growing attention at ICARDA to gend&&ysis, and that. 1. steps are being taken to examine this issue from an institutional (ICARDA-wide) basis;. The Panel endorses this approach and encourages the Center to move forward (yith reqtiisjte re$yrce :: .; . : commitment), in order that gender analysis become an integral part Srese&h tit :ICAwA; ;:::.’ ..I -: 39 Policy. Whilst the 1988 EPR expressed a strong opinion that ICARDA eschew policy work, given IFPRI’ s size and competence in this field; the reality is that (a) IFPRI is, in fact, quite a small institute relative to the potential policy-research domain, even in WANA, and (b) many analyses of technology and NRM issues simply cannot be abstracted from the surrounding circumstances of agricultural and general economic policy. The contribution of social science research to the analysis of these issues, as well as the dominance of economic situations in determining what is possible, has been noted elsewhere (e.g., section 2.2). Planned research includes policy analysis, per se, and studies of “governance and management of public systems,” In the former, ICARDA seeks dialogue with regional governments to enhance awareness of policy environments and to discuss specific policy options. Individual projects include reviews of national policies that affect adoption of ICARDA technologies, and meetings to discusspolicy questions with national program partners. In the latter, ICARDA will seek to develop a better understanding of public institutions that determine research outcomes. Specific examples of research projects are government policies on pasture legume release, and public institutions dealing with openaccessresources, including rangeland. Common Properties. The main common-property work consists of new projects on rangeland management and groundwater use in Syria. It is expected that the projects will identify conditions for sustainable managementof those resources. 2.6.4 Overview Work in the social sciencesis commendable. The program recognizes and seemingly has some organizational and resource needs, however, related to a Center-wide failure to exploit fully the potential of the social sciences. The Panel endorses ICARDA’ s limited role in on-policy research per se. It strongly suggeststhat the Center seeksstronger ties with IFPRI in this area, nonetheless. There appear to be many experimental data at Tel Hadya that have not been analyzed from an economic point of view. The Panel suggests that, among the activities mentioned previously, the considered priority work possibilities should include reviewing the data to determine what are amenable to such analysis, and preparing a plan for economic analysis. A problem caused by the dispersed organization of the social scientists is that it may diminish their professional authority and potential effectiveness within the Center. To bolster this authority and to improve ICARDA’ s social science research contribution to the Center’ s mission, Management and Program Leaders should seek to ensure that the work is of the highest feasible standard, encourage comparative studies and above all, allocate increased attention to social science. The social scientists do not necessarily need a separateprogram. Their work is already well-integrated with that of the natural scientists. Such reorganization would risk damaging the integration with perhaps no real benefit in prospect. If, however, Management feels that a separateunit would be administratively an easier solution to the problem of insufficient support, this option should be considered. Should the funding outlook for ICARDA become less bleak, the Panel suggests that the Center might in due course seek to recruit a well-known individual, preferably one with broad experience in 40 another center or similar institution, as a lead social scientist.1 Such a person should probably best be an economist and, if so, might under the prevailing circumstancesbest be attachedto the DDG-R’ s office. Responsibilities would include: (a> enhancethe quality of all social science work, ranging from-writing protocols, to executing field work and advancing publication efforts; advise Management on research priorities; analyze ex ante the economics of ICARDA’ s Programs and projects, encompassingissues such as the optimal size of crop improvement research and the economic justification for crop protection studies; and manage economic aspectsof a major long-term project, e.g., broad studies of factor markets or environmental problems in which detailed papers are done by visiting social scientists, including post-dots. @> cc> (d) In order to attract a suitable candidate as lead social scientist, ICARDA should compensatethe position at the level of Program Leader, although the position would bear no administrative responsibilities as such. In addition to the needs for stronger leadership, the social sciencesare also constrained by a lack of support staff and computer software. It is impossible to conduct surveys and analyze data without support staff. Managementacceptedthe recommendation of the 1988 EPR to hire more support staff for the social scientists, but has not acted upon it. The Panel supports an arrangement whereby each social scientist in the PFLP and FRMP would have at least one qualified research assistantwith her/his own PC, and considers it reasonablethat the social scientists should receive priority for re-allocation of support staff among Programs, given existing disparities. There are natural scientists with many new experiments going on while old ones wait to be analyzed. Some “discipline” might be imposed by reallocating some resources tied up in their field support staff to the social scientists. 2.7 Overall Assessment The Panel is aware of ICARDA’ s difficulties in attracting the desired level of donor support to its four Programs. The balance of resource allocations across Programs should, in general, reflect the priority needsof the WANA region, as articulated in the Center’ s Strategic Plan. In attempting to move in that direction, ICARDA has recently developed a within-Program prioritization mechanism based on a subjective assessment of the possibilities of developing impact-focusedtechnologies that will meet with wide farmer acceptance. The Panel commends ICARDA on this initiative. Noticeably, still absent, however, is a transparent basis to determine and apply resource allocation priorities across Programs. The Panel urges ICARDA now to tackle this logical next step. Following the 1988 EPR, the Center made some readjustment of the balance between the four main research programs. The breeding of faba beans has been transferred to a NARS but there has been I This paragraph and severalearlier ones in this section constitute a response to supplementary question 5, sectionI, Appendix 1, on p. 112of this Report. 41 a compensatory transfer of forage legume work into the general legume germplasm-enhancementeffort. ICARDA still has a substantial commitment in a broad sense to germplasm enhancement of the major cereal and legume crops, which absorbs approximately one-half of the total resources. The Panel believes that the continuation of legume research at ICARDA is important becauseof the significance of legumes in human and animal nutrition and also for their contribution to sustainable agriculture in the region. The Panel considers that the present allocation of effort in LP is close to an irreducible minimum for meaningful operation. For example, there are only two breeders of food legumes, excluding the Program Leader who doubles as an agronomist, and one of these is supported by ICRISAT. The transfer into LP of the forage legume work has operationally proved a success, and there is good informal liaison with PFLP that would benefit from more structured coordination. In the opinion of the Panel, the breeding work in forage legumes is now more appropriately focused on species more relevant to the ecoregion that ICARDA serves. The germplasm enhancement work is, in itself, wellconducted, but some questions have been raised about its underlying economic justification. PFLP needs to assemble a case to establish the probable adoption of forage legumes by farmers. LP has engaged in innovative work, particularly with respect to the development of a technology package for the winter sowing of chickpeas and to a lesser extent for lentils. Mechanization of the latter crop together with modification of the germplasm, have facilitated adoption of improvements in lentil farming, although some problems, notably of diseaseresistance and weed control, remain to be solved. Pathology is probably an even more important component of legume than it is of cereal improvement but it has received inadequate resources until recently. As far as the Panel is able to judge, CP is having a beneficial impact in the region, although data in support of this claim tend to be presented in terms of varieties released by the NARSs rather than by hectarage occupied. Since barley is of major significance in the ecoregional definition of ICARDA’ s mandate, it is appropriate that this crop is assuming a somewhat higher profile. Impact within the host country has been disappointing so far but progress in establishing and supporting programs with the NARSs in parts of North Africa has been commendable. The barley program is now taking the lead in putting empirical breeding work on to a firmer conceptual basis, and in advancing the trend towards more specific adaptation in CP generally. Wheat improvement has had a more measurable impact in the host country than has barley, and the durum program in particular has identified material with improved tolerance of drought stress. Cereal improvement for the Highland Program made a slow start for various reasons but is now coming on stream and division of labor with regard to bread wheat, durum and barley has concentrated the effort of individual scientists and improved the efficiency of this part of the overall program. The Panel found it difftcult to assessthe impact of ICARDA in the WANA region. Recommendation 2.5 ICARDA should conduct impact studies of its major technologies so that, by the time of the next ER, clear quantified data are available. 42 There is some concern that CP is no longer directly involved at the agronomic interface with farmers with respect to new varieties. Given that the NARSs have the responsibility for the release of these, and the location specificity of most agronomic work, it thus seemsthat the responsibility should indeed be devolved, with only the weaker NARSs being supported by ICARDA. The proposed intensification of effort on cereals physiology can be justified in terms of understanding stress tolerance and thereby hopefully refining breeding objectives. The Panel is also concerned that cereals pathology may be inadequately covered following the transfer of wheat pathology to Ankara. The Panel recognizes that the very heterogeneous nature and capability of the NARSs in the region means that the planned progressive transfer of responsibility to the NARSs for germplasm enhancement will not proceed uniformly across the region in the immediate future, and ICAmA will need to remain flexible and selective in the conduct of its germplasm enhancementprograms. The Panel has raised questions about the scale of ICARDA’ s involvement in biotechnology. Objectives set for LP are deliberately less ambitious than those targeted in the cereals work, where some attempts to mark QTLs have been registered. The concentration on marker technologies in both areas is deemed appropriate. However, the Panel believes that an earlier solitary venture by LP into transgenosis, resulting in the presence on-site of Rhizobium carrying a Bt gene for resistance to Sitona larvae, was not well-considered, given the current absenceof biosafety legislation in the host country. Integrated Pest Management is becoming a more prominent part of ICARDA’ s research strategy, which follows current lead thinking in plant protection circles about crop-managementapproachesthat foster the development of sustainable agriculture. The implications of this are discussed in Box 2.7. Box 2;7 Integrated pest and diseasemanagement components on which IPM strategies are built,. but .often as yet -lacks :the.integr@ion of -So&$ ; ecological and economic perspectiv&~ bri $$t ; i. ’ ~agem&t;..~, .: .:i:j:: ..: :... i.. :.: i! .1 ‘ .” ICARDA has committed itself to the concept of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in its -1994-98 MTP. As is -the case for several : other IARCs, however, it has not yet seriously ’ .adoptd.the &inciples-emt+&d:in the::. : ;. : .I;. 1: tiitg its ~&i&d r&o&sir;-$ti~ p~otf&~$‘ ~ i :i :: : : ’: h&s not cltirlj defined its n&&f the tei-m j. i 1.: :. : i tiil1 ne. to make :a seiioti de&ion &out ::..:. ; : : :j IPMvr; which is well-depid@d ‘ as :“a $r&& i 1: ; ; ” wh&her& inv&t:ih ~M&i&&re&arch,or. : : : .i I in, &&on&t ,. :resea&~~ s&h :a$ $udjiFg : :: i 1 : i i : ii. approach to-reduck p&t’ d@r&’ to -$lertiblk 1, : .: ‘ m&J&&m of &&&el &bi~&&st&& 1’’ I&eLf shrbugh-a variety of t&h&u& .. . : including predators and parasites, genetically with -the aim:of developing .diibl& re$stice-’ ! i 1’ . resistant hosts, natural envkonmental to arthropod Ipests and .di&Ges.’ Undeizthe: ‘ : modifications and, when necessary and present 1994;98 MTP &na& it :is’ hi& : ’ ::: i : ‘ .. apprqpriate, chemical pesticides. . . a (Bird et unlikely that: the Legume Program, -f&i j ;. : :.I. ; I.! al. .1990). Th.5 concept recognizes the example, could m&e ‘ signif+ant :&d&:@er I .i I:.: : ;. : importance of management tither. than to .$velop. &%&tii;e: I.I?M :Strat&gie.s ‘ for .its ; : ;’: j ,: : :i~ commodities’ withan.allocati~on.qf2,iti: ~i.‘ ~~‘ ~~ ‘ .. :: .eradication of pests; -and the. often site-speci’ fic 1 fii g&n&& gi j 1i : : g i: -nature t$ di$&se~m&ageni&t &&egies;.It is .i.. .SSMjy; 0; i; of: bpo&t pa&ogens- && 3.69. :’ ’: : : j ’ ’ 1. :~&n& a philosophy based on the use 6f:ecolo&al : I ‘ principles to qanage pests &d. di&asesl SSM/j (199&9$MTP, p.156j.: :: ICARDA has worked on.many .aspects of plant protection, including eff&iiv&.iy z&dy. 43 FRMP interacts at various points with the other Programs within ICARDA, but the Panel had insufficient time to assess adequately the depth of these interactions. Some formalization of the interaction would be beneficial. In general, the Panel has formed the opinion that resources in FRMP are too thinly spread and that there is a need to concentrate effort on defined priority targets. Involvement in the outreach programs appearsdiffuse with, for example, only socioeconomistsoutposted. The Panel believes that special funds would be forthcoming to support work on NRM, thereby increasing “critical mass,” and would encourage ICARDA to formulate proposals that would attract such financing. With regard to livestock work in PFLP, the Panel is acutely conscious of the dilemma imposed by budgetary problems that are unlikely to permit increased resource allocations. The question is addressedin Box 2.5. There are, at present, only two scientists directly involved in research on animals. A definitive strategy document from PFLP regarding ley farming is still awaited and is much needed. Rangeland management is similarly awaiting a definitive policy statement. At present, the scarcity of resources in and the organization of this program are rendering its activities peripheral to the dominant problems of livestock in the WANA region. The Panel is deeply concerned about the intrinsic unsustainability of regular cropping in the lowrainfall areas with highly erodible soils. Successful cropping is at best opportunistic and at worst environmentally devastating. Yet the populations so highly reliant on albeit irregular food production from these areas are as deserving (and on equity grounds perhaps more so) of some as yet-unattained rewards from technological progress, however modest, in their agricultural enterprises. Increased pest resistance, and drought tolerance and avoidance-capability would be steps towards such progress, whilst research on the managementof the soil resource base, under different types of land-use systems, would be helpful in informing land administrators and policy analysts more fully of their options. Last, but not least, socioeconomic analysis in terms of its importance and central position in the researchprogram in general, must continue and, as resourcespermit, be strengthenedin two ways. First, by increasing the research-assistance support to make more efficient use of the present already quite productive senior staff and second, should a vacancy become available, adding greater seniority to the effort through a further appointment of a widely experienced research economist. This experience should include research evaluation and priority-setting work, especially in an IARC context. Given the present and probable future financial climate facing ICARDA, the Panel believes that there would be synergistic advantagesin merging the commodity programs of CP and LP into one group and from merging PFLP and FRMP into another (section 4.4.9). In the first case the synergy would mainly result from sharing support activities in plant protection, physiology/agronomy and biotechnology. In the case of PFLP/FRMP the advantagesenvisaged would result from a more efficient deployment of limited resources into the farming systems aspects of NRM. Formal mechanisms would seem to be required to ensure effective integration of activities between the two merged programs. 44 CHAPTER 3 - RESEARCH-RELATED 3.1 Introduction PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES ICARDA, over the years, has developed an extensive set of research-relatedactivities and support services to extend and underpin its research program. These include national program support, training and information services, laboratory and field facilities, biostatistics and the evolving germplasm conservation program. The Panel has deliberately made distinction between (a) primary research and (b) activities such as germplasm conservation and seed health that, in its view, are maintenance and/or development-oriented programs. In its Strategic Plan and MTPs, ICARDA attacheshigh priority to training and information. In the Strategic Plan, the Center identified training as the fastest growing area in ICARDA. Since 1990, however, expenditure on training has been considerably reduced. On the other hand, expenditure on other research support servicesand the international cooperation program (outreach) has steadily increased since 1988. The latter is generally consistent with the recommendationsof the 1988 EPR. 3.2 Research Support 3.2.1 Germplasm Conservation At the time of the 1988 EPR, the Genetic ResourcesUnit had neither permanent facilities nor a Program Head. Both of these deficiencies have now been corrected and the unit is well established in new buildings with adequatespace and equipment. The Unit is now exercising the important mandate assignedto it by IBPGR/IPGRI to collect, conserve and characterize the unique genetic resources of the area -- a task integral to the role of ICARDA as an ecoregional center. There are currently five IPGRI outposted staff accommodatedin the GRU. They are responsible for the crops other than those (cereals and legumes) mandated to ICARDA, i.e., industrial crops, fruit, horticultural crops, trees and shrubs. There are 13 countries participating in the regional network. The principal achievementsof the program since 1988 have been: the facilities are now fully operational and staffed; the base collection (maintained at -21°C) is being rapidly establishedfrom the previous active collection with 60-70,000 accessionsat present; unique accessionsfrom the WANA region have been duplicated at CIMMYT species; for all cereal the faba bean collection, for which the former breeder of the crop acts as curator, is being progressively duplicated at Linz, Austria; duplication of chickpea accessionsat ICRISAT has also been initiated for unique material held by ICARDA; arrangementsfor the duplication of lentil accessionsare under negotiation with the Indian Council for Agricultural Research; organizational databaseshave been established for all species conserved, with passport and evaluation data; G-4 new collections have been made each year on trips totalling about 20 since 1988, with an aim now to cover gaps in the existing collection, especially in countries where accesshas been or has become difficult such as Iran, Iraq and Lebanon; and sites for in situ conservation have been identified in Syria and Jordan. (0 These achievements are seen as important for maintaining the widest range of natural variability for speciessuch as Triticum uratiu and T. dicoccoides, which have poor survival when grazed. ICARDA is requesting the Syrian Government to seek support from the GEF to protect the sites identified. The GRU distributes many samples on request each year both within and outside the WANA region. In 1991, the number of items distributed was as follows: within WANA 8,000, to ICARDA breeders 6,300, to others 9,000. It is difftcult to assessthe use to which distributed material is put but some NARSs are using landraces and primitive species in their germplasm enhancementprograms, quite apart from the modern cultivars that the collection also contains. Much of the germplasm evaluation has been supported by special project funding, e.g., the Italian Government has supported the work on evaluation of stresstolerance in wheat and the Dutch Government has been supporting the establishment and taxonomic characterization of a major world collection of Aegilops spp. The medium-term funding of both projects is not assured and it is a matter of some concern that the person working on stress evaluation is also the wheat germplasm curator, a position that requires some degree of permanence. At the time of the Panel’ s visit the enlargement of the IPGRI team at Tel Hadya was under discussion. Such a move would require increased offtce space. There is also a requirement for a “dirty” working area to facilitate seed cleaning operations. The GRU is associatedwith the SeedHealth Laboratory and the Virology Laboratory, which have essential roles to play in the importation and exportation of germplasm. The Panel commends the GRU on the excellent progress it has made on establishing the base collection and the creation of organizational databasesand urges it to proceed as expeditiously as possible with the seed multiplication required to complete the process of depositing material. The Panel strongly supports ICARDA’ s efforts to persuaderelevant government ministries in the WANA region to recognize and authorize the protection of in situ preservation areas. ICARDA should review and define how it intends to monitor the security of in situ areas. The Panel strongly suggests that ICARDA should attempt to quantity and evaluate the use made of genetic resources in germplasm enhancementboth inside and outside its mandated area. 3.2.2 Seed Health/Quarantine The objectives of the Seed Health Laboratory (SHL) and the Virology Laboratory (VL) are to ensure safe reciprocal exchangeof seed between ICARDA and cooperators of national and international institutions. The SHL is headed by a part-time consultant from Aleppo University, with one associate and two technical assistantsand casual labor @SC level). 46 The incoming seed lots from foreign countries are first tested by Syrian quarantine authorities. When released from quarantine and fumigated, they are inspected visually for symptoms of infection. Batches are tested for seed-bornepathogens with a number of standard methods in both the SHL and VL. Thereafter, seed is treated and grown out in a post-quarantine field where any diseasedplants are rogued in regular inspections. All outgoing seed from Tel Hadya is treated, as institutional policy, with fungicides and insecticidesto minimize seed-borne diseasesand insect pests. The SHL is advised about outgoing seed-shipmentmultiplications. It inspects the fields, and 50-60% of outgoing seed samples are tested for pathogens. A phytosanitary certificate is required by the Syrian Government for outgoing seeds. Some 24,000 lines were handled by the GRU in 1992. All were tested for seed-bornepathogens. Since 1988, there have been several changes. (a> There is better organization by the Syrian quarantine authorities. Syria passedlegislation on plant quarantine in 1991, and included a list of exogenouspathogens important for quarantine. Syrian quarantine facilities and training have also improved. The Syrian Government no longer requires ICARDA to obtain a permit of origin and importation as is required for commercial seed. (cl SHL facilities have improved significantly and all equipment necessaryis now available. In the past, the SHL was able to test only 25% of incoming and outgoing seed - now 100% of incoming seed and 50-60% of all outgoing seed samples are tested. Some research activities have been developed, including evaluation of fungicides, to improve treatment for specific pathogens and epidemiological studies of A. rabeii and Pyrenophora graminae . The SHL today is a core activity, whereas before it was supported by GTZ special project funds. (4 Cd The SHL is changing to more rapid detection techniques. Molecular tools using PCR technology in collaboration with INRA-France and Montana State University are being considered. The associate recently received training in PCR techniques, particularly for P. graminae, at Montana. ICARDA is commended for the way in which it has dealt with the seed-healthissue. It has an estabiished system for handling incoming and outgoing seed both for the GRU and breeding mater&. The SHL has good facilities and staffing. Although not ideal, this work has been handled well, especially considering the financial constraints. There are two areas that should be given more attention: (a) ICARDA should consider the wisdom of growing post-quarantine material in the same area as trials on seed-borne pathogens and (b) ICARDA should make an effort to increase testing of outgoing batches. The Panel questions the use of post-quarantine plots for seed-borne plant pathology trials. It believes such dual use compromises the purpose of the area and suggestsplant-pathology trials be moved to another location. 47 3.2.3 3.2.3.1 Laboratories Services Laboratory and field facilities The laboratory facilities available at ICARDA are essentially those listed in the report of the 1988 EPR. They are generally well-equipped with adequatespace for the existing work programs. One need identified is for a “dirty” working area in the Genetic Resources Unit and extra office space, should IPGRI confirm the expansion of its activities at Tel Hadya (section 3.2.1). CP is also seeking controlled environment facilities. There are no facilities for radioisotope work and no proposals to develop such activity in the foreseeablefuture. As noted in Chapter 2, work on transgenic Rhizobium has been initiated with inadequate consideration of how material would be subsequentlyhandled at Tel Hadya. At present there is no designatedhigh-security laboratory. Some concern exists amongst the staff and senior management about the effects of budgetary restrictions on the replacement of laboratory equipment. The situation is exacerbated by rudimentary servicing facilities for imported equipment within the host country. There is no easy solution to this problem but the situation requires monitoring and some form of priority assessment for the replacement of equipment. The Panel suggests that ICARDA initiates discussions on the location of controlled environment facilities in advance of proposals from CP for such facilities being approved. Field Facilities The Farm Manager oversees operations at Tel Hadya (944 ha) and at other sites in Syria: Ghrerfe (2 ha), Breda (76 ha), Jindaress (10 ha) and Lattakia (5 ha). He also overseesthe machinery and vehicle workshops, and gardening services. ICARDA also operates two sites in Lebanon at Terbol (39 ha) and Kfardan (50 ha), but work at Bouider (35 ha) and Kasser (10 ha) has been terminated. The stock of agricultural machinery is adequateto maintain current operations but budgets do not permit allowance for an annual depreciation rate of, say, ten percent. Some of the equipment is now obsolete but environmental conditions at Tel Hadya do not causerapid deterioration, which arises only from normal wear and tear. The problems of increasing pressure on the availability of land for experimentation have been substantially reduced by tight management that has improved the rotation. Most scientific staff were satisfied with their land allocation, although some concern persists in LP about the need for isolation for pathological investigations. Trials generally are not irrigated except in very dry seasons. The dramatic reduction in the water-tableat Tel Hadya in the past few seasonshas serious implications for ICARDA but is only part of the monumental environmental problem facing the country and much of the WANA region. Glasshousefacilities at Tel Hadya are very limited, there being only one in use for virology at present. The polythene tunnels have given good service but lack adequatetemperature control. Sheep holding and laboratory facilities for PFLP are deemed to be inadequate and there are proposals for expanding them (section 2.5.1). 48 3.2.3.2 Computer and Biometrics The Computer and Biometrics Services Unit (CBSU) is the focal point for computer and biometrics services in ICARDA. It provides support to users of all computer facilities, software packages and hardware maintenance. The staff of 15 technical personnel is organized in sub-units covering scientific computing, biometrics, technical support and managementinformation services. ICARDA has a dual-host VAX4000/500 computer configuration connected in a cluster and to a local-area Ethernet network. The operating system is VAXNMS. The Center also has 210 PCs under the DOS operating system. The majority of these PCs are connected to ICARDA’ s computer network. CBSU currently has a large set of software packages both for its PCs and VAXNMS systems. VAX software includes FORTRAN and BASIC compilers, ORACLE, GENSTAT and SAS. PC versions are also available and are supported by a comprehensiveset of graphics, spreadsheetand languageprocessors. The ICARDA research staff is assistedby CBSU in (a) the planning of experiments and surveys, (b) data analysis and (c) statistical interpretation of results. The Unit offers an ongoing training program to ICARDA staff in biometrics and statistical analysis with “hands-on” training in the use of software packages appropriate to the needs of research workers. Specialized biometric methods are deveIoped to meet specific research needs. CBSU offers support services to a large user community that includes (a) ICARDA research and administrative staff, (b) visiting staff and consultants and (c) trainees, students and NARS research personnel. Integrated databases and application systemshave been introduced to upgrade researchers’ ability to store, retrieve, share, manipulate and analyze experimental data. Several ICARDA-specific application systems(e.g., meteorology and germplasm data) are being developed using ORACLE-RDBMS and Tools. ICARDA is also replacing its old computerized financial and administrative system (MAS) with the more efficient user-friendly ORACLE financial system. The general ledger and accounts-payable systems are already up and running. These ORACLE financial systems are database-orientedand offer users prompt query and reporting facilities. Biometrics and computing services in ICARDA have been significantly upgraded recently. The Center is now in good shapeto provide modern, efficient and computer-baseddata storage, data retrieval and statistical analysis services to its in-house research and outreach programs. The Panel commends ICARDA for its foresight in developing this essential research support service. In continuation of this positive development, the Panel hopes that every effort is made to ensure that all Center research staff are trained to fully use the new services now available on-line. The Panel is also pleasedto note that the Center’ s computerized financial and administration systems have also been significantly upgraded, and foresees that ICARDA is now well placed in this respect to move to project budgeting and devolved financial/administrative control. 3.2.3.3 Visitor liaison ICARDA, like most IARCs, is subjected to many visitors, who come individually or in large parties, and have varying degrees of knowledge of the Center and interest in its research. Despite the protocols in force to mitigate the effects of interruptions, visitors and visiting parties are still intrusive on the working time of research personnel, who present expositions of their programs. The Panel encourages ICARDA to continue its efforts to provide visitors with information without detracting excessively from scientists’research time. 49 3.3 National Program Support and International Cooperation 3.3.1 3.3.1.1 Outreach Program Introduction to outreach ICARDA’ s regional mandate extends to 24 countries in West Asia, and North Africa, stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean. The agroecological diversity of this spread is vast and far beyond ICARDA’ s on-station resource capacity. The Center’ s approach to its mandated challenge is to establish a chain of outreach programs relevant to the major agroecological zones within the region. In parallel with ICARDA’ s evolving objective to undertake strategic research at its Aleppo headquarters, the Center has devolved and continues to devolve applied and adaptive research to its constituent regions, whenever possible, by transferring the responsibility to capable and willing NARSs. In this approach, ICARDA has chosen to rely heavily on the local NARS institutions and scientists rather than building a large outreach staff. ICARDA’ s strategy is to act as a catalyst and partner in development, working in close harmony with NARSs, to encourage sharing of information and experience, to offer training, to promote technology uptake, to improve plant germplasm as appropriate and, where possible, to assist the individual NARSs to secure funding from other agencies. Networks and training are an essential component of ICARDA’ s approach to these activities. ICARDA considers its activities in developing regional programs and networks integral to its research program. ICARDA’ s main clients in these outreach programs are the NARSs. These vary considerably in their stage of development, capability and needs. They are generally constrained by inadequate finances and weak infrastructure. Nevertheless, some NARSs have well-trained scientists who are capable and willing to engage, inter alia, in relevant applied and/or adaptive research. ICARDA’ s network strategy attempts to harness the capabilities of these researchersin collaborative and network programs with other NARSs in the region. In its 1990-94 MTP, ICARDA outlined a six-region outreach program, which Regional Coordinators were subsequently appointed to develop and direct. These appointments constitute a watershed in the Center’ s decentralization of its activities. The main role of the Regional Coordinators is to introduce the research community within their region to ICARDA’ s expertise, to promote and develop appropriate regional programs and, in so doing, to develop a productive partnership between ICARDA and the NARSs. 3.3.1.2 Highland Regional Program ICARDA formally established a Regional Collaborative Program for the Highlands of West Asia and North Africa in 1990. Its main goal is to develop an outreach program appropriate to the challenges of the severe environments of Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Atlas Mountain areas of Algeria and Morocco. Some of the Central Asian republics of the CIS are now being considered to be part of this program (Box 3.1). The NARSs within this regional program, as elsewhere, are variable as regards research capability. Consequently, ICARDA has followed a flexible approach in responding to the needs of the different research institutes. 50 r&ear& foci &J -noi &s& m+j$i && ,I.j ‘ . : 1:: ‘ j agricultural research needs of the &Cen& .: : : Asian s’ tates hstedabove, nor is~;the’ P.aneI:m.a. ‘ . ” .;’ follows. Collectively,the six stateshavea population of nearly 60 million people. position to adjudicate on the. efficacy. of the. ’ i ]; i Uibekistan: .This is the largest of theexisting research systems .+thm.these count@s.,,~. ; ::‘ f Central Asian republics with 21. million people.. Inbroad.terms, the Panel feelsit’ tiouldbe ::ij:j .‘ i,:i unwise .& J&QDA; ai t&y+ t&&i, & by&en.:& ; : ; 5.I ‘ Basically .an agiiculttiral country; it produces 1 mandate'to.encompass.~;iny~substairtii'~~y~:ihe.:~'~:i 65 %I (1.3 Mt) ‘ of the Porn& Soviet Union’ s 1. r*se+ n&&z: of tkk :Centri! $&ni $p$t~j$sij:i j : ; I i i :.Ii ’ cotton output-and-is. also-a.?najor. f&it ‘ (22 Mt..’ : s p;a,)y@~ng:ar&. :.‘ .[:I.. 1. _ :::.;.jg . .... .: : : .!..I ~ei.PaneI’ is~consdiousi-ofthe’ ~~~~res~~:i:.:’ i; hrbiijan:. i.t;&scau&iti $&tith .. : ‘ sf+wt& su&:i& Turkey:~~-Pakistan.iniji~:ii::~ ;.I 7 million people, produces cotton, grain; rice, -hav$rg’ ICARDA respond to the research need&ii: 1 :’ of these new nations, .and it sees some logic!& :-. fruit and vegetables, largely (70%) under irrigated agriculture. the Turkish view that-ICARDA!s-outreach Highland Program be appropriately .expanded: Tajikistan: Tbe smallest of the Central Asian republics (5 million population) is a very with emphasis on livestock. On-the other’ hand; rural, largely (90 %) highland state. Sheep the Panel-cautions against over-ambitious. ::; j: ; .(wooI),and cattle production dominate expectations.and demandsonthe Center at a time! : -agricultural output. -of financial’ austerity. Should significant $eciaI- : : .i : syrgyz&n: It has a mixed agriculture: 1 -project 5inds~ emerge to-address: some of the.-: : : 1.. : -research:problems in these states, and m I : .: : I :I based on livestock (including sheep and goats) .:i!j -and wheat and: has a population of’ 43 milliou. .i 1 -paiticular:~theproblems-of~ig~ilanh.'~giiciiIture, .. ICARQA might then j&ifi&l~~reconsicl& ‘ Tobacco, cotton-and rice a&also importam : its .. ’ : : crops. position.. The -gene&issue of international Ii&s:. : Kazakhstan: It is a large state and to agricultural -research in the Former Sovietsupports 17 million people. As the granary of Union is of sufficient importance .to justify: j .: :.’ the Former Soviet Union, it produces wheat, CGIAR concern and careful a&y&s. j .. j! : republics of Uzbekistan, Aieibaijan,’ IGz&h.&, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan ’ Supplementary question 1, section I, Appendix 1, .p.l12 of this Report; .: :. .. ICARDA’ s first project in the highlands started in 1985 with the objective of assistingthe Arid Zone Research Institute (AZRI) at Quetta (Balochistan) to become an effective federal research institute focusing on pastoral and rainfed farming systems in the arid regions of Pakistan; ICARDA has executed the project on behalf of USAID. The project is approaching the end of its second and final four-year phase. 51 Research activities within the project have included range and livestock management, agronomic and germplasm research on food crops (barley, lentil and wheat) and forages, field evaluation of water harvesting techniques and socioeconomicstudies of development constraints and technology transfer. Onsite and overseas training was also an important component of the project. ICARDA provided experienced project leadership and posted four researchers (specially recruited) at AZRI during the project’ s first phase. In 1990, ICARDA extended its Highland Program to Turkey and, over the past two years, has initiated a series of seven mini-projects, four with the Central Crops ResearchInstitute, one with the Soil and Fertilizer ResearchInstitute and one each with the Universities of Cukurova and Ankara. Financial support for this work is provided by the Italian Highlands Regional Collaborative Project. The research activities are quite diverse. They include surveys of low-income farming systemsin the Taurus Mountain and Sivas-Kayseri regions, the evaluation of barley and food-legume germplasm (chickpea and lentil), the selection of coId-resistant forage species and the monitoring of Rhizobium populations and nitrogenfixation efficiency. Training and dissemination of information (largely through workshops) are also part of the project work plan. ICARDA has recently concluded an agreement with the Government of Iran to technically underpin the establishment of a new research center for dryland agriculture. The project will be based in NW Iran (Marageh) and will involve a team of eight scientific staff and a five-year budget of approximately US$lO million. Based on a brief visit to the Quetta project, an evaluation of the project reports, and interviews with counterpart staff at AZRI and PARC, the Panel considers that this project has been reasonably successful. Its most noticeable achievement is in its training of AZRI scientists and the development of a research ethic and culture in the Institute strongly based on scientific work and its reporting. It is not obvious that the research program has as yet developed effective technologies that can significantly advance agricultural production in the difficult environment of the Quetta plateau. The project has, on the other hand, significantly strengthened the agricuhural information base of the region and, as it ends, will leave behind a reasonably well focused and trained research staff. The Turkish Highlands Program is not sufficiently long in place to have delivered significant results as yet. The Panel sees ICARDA serving a catalytic role in nationally important but neglected areas. It notes the diversity of research activities but fails to see a clear focus in the program thus far. The Panel also is concerned that ICARDA is possibly being asked to initiate research in remote regions of Turkey and on research problems that the Turkish NARS has not addressedbecause of the inherent difftculties of engaging in agricultural development in these remote, poorly serviced highland areas. 3.3.1.3 Arabian Peninsula Regional Program The original objective of this Regional Program, as stated in the letter of agreement between the Arab Fund for Economic and Social development (AFESD) and ICARDA, dated October 4, 1988, is “to bridge the gap between production and consumption of wheat and barley in the Arabian Peninsula.” This program was initially developed strictly for improving wheat and barley, in. association with similar activities in the Nile valley. Since 1988, however, activities have expanded to cover all of ICARDA’ s mandate commodities and the related activities, and a broadenedobjective has been adopted: “to promote agricultural research, training and dissemination of information through a mature partnership with national agricultural research.and development systems in the Arabian Peninsula.” 52 The major activities of this program are (a) germplasm exchange, evaluation and improvement, (b) initiation of special wheat and barley regional crossing blocks for the Arabian Peninsula, (c) initiation of wheat and barley varietal description studies, (d) training and human resources development and (e) exchangeof visits and consultancy between ICARDA and the sevenparticipating countries of the Arabian Peninsula (UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sultanate of Oman and Yemen). During the period of 1988-92, more than 260 research workers were trained at ICARDA headquarters and within the region. Despite the political unrest prevailing in the region, the Gulf War, visa restrictions, political constraints and other logistic problems, three coordination meetings were successfully organized in Yemen, Aleppo and, most recently, the UAE. The participating countries and the donor representativesfrom AFESD have emphasizedthe need for this program to be tuned to the actual research and training needs of the region. Funding for APRP provided by AFESD is US$O.9 million covering the period 1988-92. The ICARDA contribution to this program is about one-half the time of the Regional Coordinator, who has also been acting as ICARDA’ s Head of Training since 1990. Efforts need to be made to secure financial support for the second phase of this program. Regional needs require changes in the nature of support hitherto provided by ICARDA. The major elements of a possible new scenario will relate to research on forage crops, vegetables and some horticultural crops, and related agromanagementsystems, in particular, irrigation, water-use efficiency, fertigation and protected agriculture. The Panel is conscious of ICARDA’ s failure to date to attract significant funds from the Arabian Peninsula countries. It would encouragethe Center to further pursue funds from this region, including through tailoring a research program proposal to more fully suit the needs of Arabian Peninsula agriculture. 3.3.1.4 West Asia Regional Program ICARDA launched the West Asia Regional Program in July 1989 and establishedits headquarters in Amman, Jordan. The program’ s goal is to coordinate and strengthen agricultural research and training activities pertinent to the problems of rainfed agriculture in Cyprus, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and lowland Turkey. The program focuses primarily on the region’ s major food (wheat, lentil and chickpea) and feed (barley, forages and pasture legumes) crops. Activities relating to livestock production also constitute a significant component of the program. The Program covers a wide range of research and training activities across the six countries it serves. The principal activity is the Mashreq Project, which is jointly funded by UNDP and AFESD. This project contributes to the cost of the ICARDA Regional Offrce in Amman. The main aim of the project is to “introduce proven technologies to addressthe problems of farmers in the barley belt” - a large, low, rainfed area stretching north from Jordan into Syria and eastwards into Iraq. On-farm research is emphasizedand available and appropriate technologies are demonstrated on farmers’ fields. Plant-production activities consist largely of on-farm demonstrationof proven agronomic practices relating to soil cultivation, seeding and fertilizer rates, choice of barley germplasm and the evaluation of the benefits of introducing vetches into the traditional barley-fallow rotation. Animal-production activities include oestrus synchronization and pre-mating ewe nutrition, the evaluation of Awassi rams selected for increased milk yield, and the demonstration of straw treatment (urea) and the use of urea-molasses blocks to improve the use of by-product feed resources. These 53 activities are conducted on a farmer-managed and/or researcher-managed basis and are replicated across Jordan, Syria and Iraq. Training of researchers, extension agents and farmers is an integral part of the program. In addition to the Mashreq Project, the program promotes a wide range of other researchrelated activities including studies of wind erosion, water harvesting and seed technology, germplasm collection and evaluation, and tillage-cum-residue managementwork. ICARDA staff visit the West Asia region frequently. The West Asia Regional Program is active and embraces a wide range of activities, many of which are relevant to the advancementof agriculture in the countries concerned. However, the Mashreq Project involves ICARDA in an unusually heavy involvement in extension-oriented rather than researchbased activity. Although some involvement of IARCs such as ICARDA in technology transfer to the farmer is justifiable, the Panel notes that ICARDA has accepted the management of a project that represents a departure from the role usually assumedby international centers. The Panel also wishes to flag its concern about the involvement of ICARDA in the application of technologies on which it does not have in-house scientific expertise. The sheepbreeding program in Iraq and the oestrus synchronization trials in Syria, Jordan and Iraq are examples of such work. The relevance and research efficiency of this work are questionable. The Panel is conscious of the difficulties ICARDA faces in meeting the many demands on the West Asia Regional Program. There is a need, however, to narrow and focus this Program to a set of activities that relate more directly to ICARDA’ s mandate and research competence. 3.3.1.5 Nile Valley Regional Program The Nile Valley Regional Program (NVRP) includes Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia. It covers research, transfer of technology and training to improve the production of cool-seasonfood legumes and cereals. The EC funds the Egypt-based portion of the program. All ICARDA activities in the Nile Valley have been funded by special projects. Activities in Sudan and Ethiopia are supported by DGIS and SAREC, respectively. A new proposal to the EC for a second five-year phase will give more emphasisto the newly reclaimed and rainfed areas, managementof resources and sustainableproduction. The main element of ICARDA’ s strategy is to enhance self-reliance in national programs in the areas of research leadership, coordination, program planning and execution. On-farm research and integration of research and extension is being emphasized, as is establishmentof multidisciplinary teams to address problems of the Nile Valley. National coordinators for legumes and cereals are responsible for the daily management and coordination of projects, with the support of the ICARDA Regional Coordinator. Annual meetings that include national scientists, the Regional Coordinator and ICARDA scientists, are organized to develop research plans. A national management committee reviews proposals and considers them in the light of priorities and a budget. A regional coordination meeting is organized to develop work plans for networks, which address common regional production problems, and to discuss regional results. Headquarters staff also used to attend national meetings, but since 1992 attendancehas been limited to specialists responding to requestsfrom the NARSs. Proceedingsfrom national and regional coordination meetings etc. are published in annual reports, workplans and budgets. The Panel visited Egypt and used that as an indicator of ICARDA’ s effectiveness in the region. All technical and financial reporting to donors is done through the Regional Coordinator, who is also involved in developing special projects and seeking funds in coordination with NARSs and ICARDA headquarters. Senior managersof ARC, its program leaders,scientists and donors expressedappreciation for ICARDA’ s role. Program scientists commendedICARDA’ s coordinator and the Center’ s contribution 54 to Egypt in technical support, as a source for germplasm and for its work in organizing regional meetings, travelling workshops, conferencesand training. ICARDA is coordinating researchon aphid and diseaseresistanceand heat tolerance. In addition, the Center organizes specific activities, such as the virus survey that was being conducted during the Panel visit. Problem-solving networks in cereals (5), food legumes (7) and socioeconomics (1) are operational with complementary roles for various Nile Valley countries. Egypt has a well-equipped molecular biology laboratory staffed by well-qualified scientists. ICARDA has excellent collaboration with these researchers, in developing media for culturing callus, embryos and nodal cuttings to facilitate inter-specific hybridization of lentils. ICARDA training on seed production has proved valuable. ICARDA is helping ARC to improve socioeconomicwork in order to identify bottlenecks to technology adoption. One criticism expressed in Egypt was the site-specific bias of ICARDA’ s research concentration in Syria and the need for the Center to contribute more to other regions. Adoption of new technology by farmers is apparent, both through high adoption rates for production-packagecomponents (as documentedby socioeconomic surveys) and by the increase in average national yield and production. There is considerable pride in the ongoing OFR but additional effort is required nationally, especially in order to integrate socioeconomic information with technology research and to increase farmer involvement. ICARDA has played a major catalytic role in OFR, yet it remains weak in the social sciencesand in some other areas, e.g., in systemscharacterization, farmer participation in technology development and testing and impact studies. To remedy this situation, ICARDA posted a socioeconomist supported by the Rockefeller Foundation to work in NVRP. ICARDA has actively encouraged the free use of its office facilities in Cairo by other IARCs. IRRI shares ICARDA office space, and IIMI has expressedinterest in doing the same. A USAID project on maize and wheat involving CIMMYT and ICARDA is also administered through ICARDA’ s Cairo office. In the context of ecoregional research, the Panel sees no conflict in ICARDA’ s coordination of work in the Nile Valley. Although ICARDA’ s historical emphasishas been on the dry areas, ICARDA’ s involvement in the Nile Valley and agroecoregional zones seemsjustified. The Panel suggeststhat ICARDA pursue short-duration research postings in the region so as to promote the involvement of national programs in areas where ICARDA has expertise. The involvement of specialized international experts in meetings would, perhaps, be helpful in fulfilling national needsand in generating international contacts for national scientists. ICARDA should be involved in strategic research in Egypt on conservation of resources and sustainability. Egyptian new lands, rainfed areasand fertile old lands, provide an excellent opportunity to do “sustainability” research at various input levels and this approach is being taken in the new phase (Egypt II) of NVRP. 3.3.1.6 North Africa Regional Program The North Africa Regional Program (NARP) executes and coordinates ICARDA’ s core and special-funded collaborative research and training activities in Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia in collaboration with the NARSs. ICARDA has a strong regional team operating from Tunisia and Morocco, with the coordinator based in Tunis and two research scientists working closely with the NARSs. During the transfer of the faba bean program, the ICARDA team based in Morocco increased to four. ICARDA’ s primary interaction has been in cereals and food legumes in which ICARDA’ s contribution has been substantial and its expertise acknowledged. ICARDA’ s major regional donor 55 agenciesare IFAD, AEESD and IDRC. ICARDA is instrumental in creating a regional problem-solving perspective, which donors appreciate. ICARDA works with several Tunisian institutions that comprise the NARS (mainly INRAT, INAT, ESAK and Office des Cereales). The arrangement has been flexible and productive. ICARDA initiated work in Tunisia in 1980 on barley and food legumes, where no prior programs existed, and later extended its activities to bread wheat and durum wheat. Collaboration with LP has centered on the transfer of winter chickpea technology, which is expected to have a significant impact on production. PFLP has also been active recently in mixed forage-livestock farming systems, The institutional arrangement in Algeria is unconventional. In that INRA is not closely involved, the work on cereals and food legumes has been devolved to ITGC. Another institution works on livestock. ICARDA’ s activities are primarily with ITGC, with scientistsdrawn from other institutes as needed. PFLP and ITGC have planned an eight-year crop-grazing rotation trial in eastern Algeria. In Morocco, ICARDA interacts mostly with the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), especially with the Centre Regional de RechercheAgronomique (CRRA), located at Settat, near Rabat and with a research station in Douyet. INRA and other Moroccan institutions have been strengthenedsubstantially in the past five years, especially with support from USAID. CP has based the highland barley breeding program for North Africa in Morocco and LP is involved in collaborative work with winter chickpea and lentils legumes. FRMP and PFLP have activities coordinated from Syria. Collaboration between ICARDA and Libya started in 1989, and both CP and LP have developed collaborative programs. Work concentrates on disease and insect surveys. ICARDA also provides assistanceto the NARS’ work on-station and with on-farm variety testing within an IFAD technology transfer project. ICARDA has also organized germplasm collection missions. PFLP and FRMP have recently started collaboration with Libya. The Panel was impressed by ICARDA’ s work in North Africa. The Center’ s strength may be attributed in part to its diverse meansof communication with the NARSs -- through research coordination, direct scientific collaboration, workshops, meetings and training. ICARDA has also sent questionnaires to NARS scientistsseeking their views on program and institutional issues,program balance and training. Personal visits by ICARDA research personnel have also furthered collaboration. The positive relations between ICARDA and regional staff are a credit to the Regional Coordinator and outposted ICARDA staff. They know the region well and are appropriately responsiveto the national programs. The Panel was particularly impressed by collaboration forged with the NARSs by CP and LP. ICARDA has made an impact with barley, wheat and more recently with the introduction of winter chickpea, although quantitication is difficult since the results of impact studies are not yet available. It is providing NARSs in the region with earlier generation material, selectedjointly with NARS scientists. The effect of ICARDA research on mixed crop-livestock agricultural systems is not readily visible. The special project on farming systems research in Tunisia can reasonably be said to have failed. One of the reasons for the failure was the lack of a sustained input from the NARSs. The same danger exists with respect to the ambitious project at Khroub, Algeria. The impact of FRMP in the region generally is minor and the Program must work further to initiate contacts, conduct strategic research relevant to the region and to coordinate its work in North Africa. 56 Evaluation of the devolution of the faba bean program to Morocco is discussed in Box 2.3 (section 2.4.2). Related to this, the Panel finds that the Douyet station is an inappropriate site to base ICARDA staff. The station lacks an infrastructure and is inefficient for regional as well as national work. Frequent travel to Rabat is necessaryfor visas, supplies and communication. It would be better to position ICARDA staff more centrally where travel, time and resources can be used more efficiently. Recommendation 3.1 Research staff in Morocco should be moved to a more effective regional location for interaction with nationa and regional research personnel. ICARDA’ s publications from regional work, other than the annual project reports, have been few, especially from the farming systemsproject. ICARDA has recently published a paper on winter chickpea and women’ s labor use. It has begun related studies of women’ s roles in Tunisian agriculture and on the adoption of improved wheat, barley and triticale practices. 3.3.1.7 Latin America Regional Program As part of the realignment of research responsibilities following the 1983 QQR, the direction of barley breeding moved from CIMMYT to ICARDA in 1984. The target area in Central and South America is estimated to be about 900,000 ha of which one-third is in Mexico where a primary objective is the production of malt for brewing. The crop is used less for animal feed in Latin America than is the case in the WANA region. The spectrum of diseasesin Latin America is also different and includes leaf rust, stripe rust, scald, net blotch and Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus. Only one senior scientist is engaged on the program in Latin America. He is responsible for distributing nurseries throughout Mexico and the Andean region and has also developed links with China. There is some increasing interest in hulless barleys for food and possibly feed. In the absenceof a private-sector involvement in barley breeding, work on barley for malting is entirely supportable since it provides farmer income. Some pilot agronomic work using medics in rotations has been initiated in Mexico. The location of the scientist in charge at CIMMYT means that he is not in a major production area for barley but he benefits from infrastructure at the Center (see also sections 2.3.2 and 3.3.3.4). The production area is, in any case, fairly dispersed. The financial sustainability of the Latin America Program should not be forced on ICARDA’ s attention unless a Center budget of less than US$17.6 million has to be considered. The credibility of ICARDA’ s present mandate would be challenged if it could no longer support this activity. 3.3.1.8 . Networks Networks may be defined as multilateral cooperation of scientists and/or institutions (national, regional and international) to collaborate in agricultural researchto find solutions or exchangeinformation on problems or research areas of common interest and use existing resources (human and physical) more effectively, and learn from the experience of each other. ICARDA’ s networks, which involve NARSs in the WANA region, fall clearly within this definition. Complementarity in research efforts should be the main feature of regional or sub-regional networks in order to avoid duplication and make better use 57 of the limited human and physical resources available to national programs” ICARDA is playing an important role in ensuring such complementarity through the national and regional coordination meetings held annually. In addition to the regional networks described in section 3.3.1, ICARDA coordinates from Syria worldwide (international) networks, such as the International Cereal Nursery (with CIMMYT), numerous subject-specific networks over the whole WANA-region, such as the WANA Plant Genetic Resources Network (WANANET), and subject-specificnetworks coordinated within WANA regional programs, such as the North African Legume ResearchNetwork, which functions in the North Africa Regional Program. The networks range in their complexity from simple information exchange, to cooperative research, which includes exchange of information, personnel and materials. The networks are used to solve regionally important problems by dividing labor between different NARSs, or to produce and share information that no single program could obtain on its own. As a “neutral broker,” ICARDA plays a central role in coordination between NARSs. Through ICARDA’ s efforts, extensive collaboration has developed between NARSs in the region (and even within-country) that has had a “multiplier effect” on the quantity and quality of scientific work produced in the region. Since 1988, ICARDA has increased the number of regional programs and other network activities. It now has a regional network in North Africa. It has establishedthe Nile Valley Regional and Mashreq Networks, and begun new initiatives in the Arabian Peninsula and the Highlands. Numerous new subject-specific networks are functioning, especially in commodity related subjects, but also to a lesser extent in FRMP, PFLP and other units at ICARDA (Table 3.1). Table 3.1 Group Cereal Program Legume Program Farm Resource Management Program Pasture, Forage and Livestock Program Communication, Documentation and Information Services Germplasm Resources Unit Seed Unit SOWCCZ ICARDA International CooperationOffice. The types and numbers of networks coordinated by ICARDA Subject-specific :. networks 11 11 3 3 3 1 1 ICARDA has developed various network mechanisms Center-wide to suit country and donor requirements. It has substantially increased the number of regional and subject-specific networks. Both NARSs and regional donors noted the importance of ICARDA as a facilitator for regional collaboration and that they valued the networks highly. The Panel commendsICARDA folr its excellent achievements in this context. Communication within the networks is done through informal and formal meetings (e.g., workshop and coordination meetings, and network visits). Exchange of genetic material and information is welcomed by NARSs in spite of some difficulties (e.g., seed movement). 58 3.3.1.9 Seed production Seedproduction facilities have improved substantially due to prudent managementby the specialist in charge of the German/Dutch funds provided for this purpose. A seedprocessing unit (throughput 130 t from 30 ha), not part of the original plan, was purchasedand has proved valuable for training purposes. It is also increasingly being used to process seed lots at ICARDA. A major objective is to encouragethe NARSs to improve standards of seed production. There is clearly a continuing need in the WANA region for more resources and training in seed production. On present projections,‘ capacity in the NARSs will not be adequateexcept to cope with the introduction of new varieties. Increased use of farm-saved seed therefore seems inevitable, along with the need for mobile seed processing facilities. Incidentally, this would almost certainly retard further the already rather bleak prospects of any privatization of the seed industry, at least for cereals and legumes. In 1992, a Seed Production Network was established at a workshop in Amman, sponsored by ICARDA and the GTZNordan Seed Multiplication Project. The network will disseminate information on seeds, strengthen the infrastructure for seed production in WANA and encourage formal eduction in seed production. Several activities, such as the production of a WANA SeedDirectory, a refereed testing system, a catalogue of seed standards and a seed newsletter have already been initiated. The Seed Production Unit is a downstream but vital activity for ICARDA and the NARSs, and is one that is Iikely to have an immediate impact. 3.3.2 3.3.2.1 Training and Information Training at ICARDA The main objectives of ICARDA’ s training activities are to improve and update the technical capabilities of NARS personnel to enable them to conduct independent and cooperative research focused on the needs of their countries. Training also assistsnational scientists in understanding the processes of and decision making concerning technology transfer at many levels, especially at the level of farmers involved in adopting or rejecting new innovations. Although in citing numbers “trained” the Panel does not wish to imply any belief that headcounts(or quantity irrespective of quality) are relevant indicators, in 1992, ICARDA trained 716 individuals from 38 countries including 21 WANA countries, about onehalf at headquarters and one-half in-country. It is gradually shifting its training from headquarters (17 courses) to in-country (20). This policy has the advantageof making the courses more accessiblebut it has the recognized disadvantageof reducing the recipient’ s exposureto the scientific culture of ICARDA. Each Program has a senior training scientist/training assistant. Their primary responsibilities are to develop training programs reflecting the needs of national systems, to develop training methods and materials and to organize ICARDA scientists to participate in training. The Head of Training is also designated Chairman of the Training Coordination Committee (TCC). The budget crisis is hitting the training program rather hard. Training tends to be regarded as one of the easiest activities to reduce and cutbacks have already led to the cancellation of courses and reduced intake of trainees. Outside funding for training was securedfrom AFESD for trainees from Arab countries. Only 30% of training funding comes from core funds, while 70% comes from special-project funds. 59 The Panel recognizes the important role of the Training Coordination Unit (TCU) in removing the burden of trainee administration and logistics from the program/unit-based training scientists, allowing them to concentrate on improving the quality of their training activities and to interact closely with their colleagues in ICARDA and the region. Despite the important role of TCU at ICARDA, the Panel has found that the support given to it in terms of human and financial resources is insufficient to meet the increasing demands for ICARDA training. This is reflected in the three-year delay in appointing a Head of Training, the delay in appointing two Q-level staff members to assistthe Head of Training and the recent transfer of the position of the training-material production specialist from TCU to CODIS. The two positions of senior training scientists in LP and FRMP have been vacant since 1992. Problems are recognized by ICARDA, and are presently under consideration by TRAC. The Panel, through its visits to the different countries in the region, found good recognition of the training offered by ICARDA. Training activities must be seen as an important element of ICARDA activities and thus should be considered in its annual appraisal and promotion procedures for research staff. The Panel also shares the opinion of the 1988 EPR that the graduate research training (GRT) program of ICARDA is a powerful tool for building regional capacity and improving partnership with NARSs. Recommendation 3.2 With due regard to the importance that must be assigned to training as part of capacitybuilding in NARSs, the Center should ensure that all aspects that bear on the effectiveness of the program (such as preparation of training materials) are adequately covered and, in this spirit, the filling of the Head of Training vacancy should be a high priority. 3.3.2.2 Information services ICARDA’ s Scientific and Technical Information Services (STIP), establishedon a program basis in 1985, was reorganized in 1989 under the new title Communication, Documentation and Information Services (CODIS). The program’ s goal remains the same, namely, “to provide scientists concerned with ICARDA’ s mandate crops, both within the WANA region and outside it, with relevant information and to promote the exchangeof information between ICARDA and national systems and between the WANA region and the outside world.” CODIS activities include (a) publications, (b) library, (c) training support, (d) public relations (section 3.3.3.6) and (e) translation and interpretation services. Publications ICARDA’ s in-house publications are numerous, and are wide-ranging in terms of technical content, target audiences and distribution. They can be classified under four broad headings, major reports (e.g., Annual Report), specialized publications (e.g., newsletters, workshop proceedings, MTP), training materials, and policy and procedures manuals. Other miscellaneous publications include ICARDA catalogs/directories, information brochures and special study reports. The scientific publications are considered ICARDA’ s most important written output. Following a recommendation by the 1988 EPR, ICARDA established a Publications Committee in December 1988. This committee has prepared a clear and succinct statement of ICARDA Publications 60 Policy and Procedures. The publication procedures are explicit and cover refereed and non-refereed papers, training publications and general-audiencematerial, as well as French and Arabic translations. Library The library occupies a prominent position in the ICARDA headquarters building, close to the main entrance. It is well laid out and has a pleasant albeit sometimes crowded work environment. Currently, the library has some 38,000 accessionsand supports 395 journal subscriptions annually. Limitations on library funds dictated that the annual number of accessionshas decreased from 1900 in 1989 to 1300 in 1992. In this situation, priority in accessions is placed on ICARDA’ s. mandated commodities and agriculture in the WANA region. ICARDA has recently developed a comprehensive Information Managementand Exchange Program anchored in the much expandedcomputerized facilities within the Center. Lack of space has been a major problem in the library for some time. Training SUDDOI~ CODIS, at the request of and in close collaboration with the Training Coordination Unit, prepares general and course-specific training materials including manuals, field guides and course modules. CODIS also offers advice to visiting NARS scientists on the preparation of effective training materials and in the use of library systems. When a training course is scheduled, a list of the training materials required is prepared by the Training Coordination Committee (KC). CODIS then prepares the material as specif@i by the TCC. Translation and Internretation The unit provides translation services to the Center as a whole, including the outreach programs. Translation into Arabic is particularly important in the region and this service extends to scientific publications, training materials as well as general-audiencepublications. For example, the Annual Report continues to have an Arabic version, whereas the FABIS, LENS and RACHIS newsletters carry Arabic abstracts of all articles. The Center is placing increasing emphasis on the preparation of training materials in Arabic so as to provide more effective support to NARSs in Arabic-speaking countries. CODIS has in-house Arabic translation capacity. As regards French translations, the Center is dependent on freelance expertise. Based on comments made to the Panel on its field visits, the Panel would encourage ICARDA to provide more publications, as well as more training, in French. 3.3.3 3.3.3.1 Institutional Relationships Host country ICARDA’ s Assistant Director General of Government Liaison facilitates relations with the host country (in 1988 the position designated as Assistant Director General handled this). The current incumbent was an Undersecretary in the Ministry of Agriculture of Syria and member of the ICARDA BOT before he assumedhis position in 1990. The Panel’ s discussions with Government Ministers and senior officials indicate that ICARDA’ s relations with the Government of Syria are good and perhaps better than at any stage in the past. The Ministers of Planning and Agriculture were articulate in their knowledge and praise of ICARDA. This reflects well on Management’ s efforts to strengthen ICARDA’ s image in Syria and, in the Panel’ s view, on improving staff interactions at the senior scientist level. A concern expressedby host-country scientists with whom the Panel met is ICARDA’ s lack of serious attention to the land area within Syria that receives less than 250 mm average annual rainfall, and 61 which occupies 55% of the land area and supports 80% of Syrian farmers. This issue is a long-standing matter of contention between ICARDA and Syrian NARS scientists, which is not readily solved. The ongoing discussion within ICARDA to place greater emphasis on the selection of cereal germplasm suitable for cultivation at rainfall regimes as low as 150 mm per annum has triggered some discussion within the Syrian NARS. The idea of cultivation of any kind in this area was vigorously opposed by staff of the Meteorology Department, and the Director of the Irrigation and Water Directorate pointed to the correlation between recent increases in grain production and severe depletion of aquifers. These specialistswould argue that ICARDA should place more emphasison selection of genotypes having greater water-use efficiency. 3.3.3.2 National agricultural research systems ICARDA’ s primary clients are the NARSs. These vary considerably in their size (Tables 3.2, 3.3), stage of development and capability, and are generally constrained by inadequatefinances and weak infrastructure. It is of utmost importance that the ICARDA research community be alert to the strengths and weaknessesof NARSs in order to structure a meaningful research program. To facilitate such understanding, and because of the rapid changes in some countries, an updating system should be developed in consultation with other regional organizations, NARSs and ISNAR. Table 3.2 Agricultural research personnel in WANA .:: :;:..;i I;. .lg61i !::. :1966- ..:: :i971- .-;.-lgy&,-. ,.,is*l~:.i:j:i:drowthi~’ .I965 ;: 1970 :i; : i 1973 ;. x.2?@:; ‘ ;,ilCjf~$-; .j:;;:&&:.,;; &ric&kal research personnel % fill-time equivalents) 569 301 1,287 2,157 19,753 1,431 371 1,683 3,485 28,829 2,070 444 2,232 4,746 37,004 2,748 616 2,655 6,019 55,143 4,246 770 3,980 8,995 77,737 10.6 4.8 5.8 7.4 7.1 .: :.S”b(;&onj: Egypt North Africa(4) West Asia (15) West Asia and North Africa (20) Less-Developed Countries (130) * Numbers in parentheses are.of the countries for which data were available. Source: Pardey, Roseboomand Anderson (1991). Table 3.3 WANA NARSs classified according to the number of researchers employed Small (25-99) Cyprus Jordan Lebanon Oman Yemen, A.R. Yemen, P.D.R. Medium (100-999) Algeria Iran Iraq Israel Libya Morocco Syria Tunisia Micro (< 25) Kuwait Qatar United Arab Emirates Large:(;1~000) EwPt Turkey Note: Classified on the basis of the 1981-85averagenumber of full-time researchers. Source: Pardey, Roseboomand Anderson (1991). 62 The diversity of size (at least as indicated by research personnel), stage of development and agroecological mix has been mentioned at several points in this Report as a major factor in the complexity of ICARDA’ s challenge. ICARDA has responded energetically to this in the many ways in which it has sought to foster strong working relationships with NARSs. These have ranged from broad consultations in ICARDA’ s planning processes(section 4.4.4), to the elaborate outreach program (section 3.3.1) and many direct and collaborative research (chapter 2), training (section 3.3.2.1) and information (section 3.3.2.2) activities managed from headquarters. The overall effectiveness of the relationships with NARSs is difficult to assess. Many of the responsesof researchersin NARSs approachedby the Panel (section 3.3.1.2-6) are overall positive, while pointing to aspectsof the collaboration that might be improved. The engagementis surely a complex one and seemsdestined always to be so. With the elaboration of the ecoregional approach and the heightened CG System attention to NARSs’ needs, ICARDA will be obliged to continue to strive to enhance the effectiveness and equality of the NARS-linked working relationships. As it does so, it may find the concept outlined in Appendix 7 to be helpful in reorienting some directions of its laudable efforts. Whatever is done, and the needsare surely great, will not be easy and the difficulties will be aggravated unless funding constraints ease. The Panel wishes ICARDA well in this most challenging and important aspect of its mandate. Cooperation and joint projects between ICARDA and advanced NARSs in the region must continue for all the obvious reasons including the contribution to the maintenance of a more viable research environment for ICARDA itself. This relationship between ICARDA and advanced NARSs will reflect on its overall achievementin the important tasksto be performed in the region. Within the context of a continuum in the relationship between the advanced NARSs, ICARDA and all the NARSs in the region, the Nile Valley Network provides an example of establishing such cooperation without any additional infrastructure. 3.3.3.3 Regional organizations AOAD (Arab Organization for Agricultural Development, Khartoum, Sudan) AOAD, situated in Khartoum, supports ICARDA’ s training programs. A joint ICARDA/AOAD study on nutrition policy supported AOAD’ s major orientation, of food security in Arab countries. A constructive relationship is facilitated through the regional office AOAD maintains in Damascus. The ICARDA-AOAD collaboration concentratesmostly on training. AOAD financially supports trainees in ICARDA courses. In addition, ICARDA participates in AOAD-organized or jointly organized symposia and workshops, mostly concentrating on agricultural policies. ACSAD (Arab Center for Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands, Douma, Syria) ASCAD is an institution of the Arab League with a mandate similar to that of ICARDA. It has four main divisions covering water, soils, plant production and animal production, with expertise in agrometeorology, soils, hydrology, small ruminants, range management, steppe vegetation, genetic resources of steppe plants and cereal breeding. An agreement to facilitate collaborative work between ICARDA and ACSAD was ratified in 1983. Like ICARDA, ACSAD maintains links with many international organizations. Unlike ICARDA, it works only in Arab countries and is involved in irrigated production systems. In other respects, the 63 work programs have much in common, although the emphasismay be different, e.g., ACSAD works on food legumes but does not breed them. In cereal breeding, ACSAD work on wheat and barley is organized collaboratively with national programs where much of the work is done. ACSAD has established direct liaison with CIMMYT on wheat breeding and databasemanagement. On-going cooperation between ICARDA and ACSAD includes coordination of research activities, exchange of germplasm and research results, collaboration in verification and on-farm trials of cereals, and cooperation in training courses and workshops. All new lines developed by ACSAD are tested by ICARDA for diseases,and data are shared. The steppe managementand rehabilitation work of ICARDA is done in close collaboration with ACSAD. Recently ACSAD proposed a five-point collaborative program with ICARDA (a) collaboration on cereal improvement through a joint nursery of elite materials from both institutions, (b) organization and implementation of joint training courses, (c) collaborative/joint research on steppe improvement, (d) collaborative/joint research on water harvesting particularly in the steppe/barley transition and (e) collaboration in the collecting and conservation of genetic resources and particularly in-situ conservation. This program will be discussedonce ICARDA’ s medium-term planning and ER processesare completed. The Panel supports the enhancement of collaboration between ICARDA and ACSAD, where complementarities exist. The Panel notes that cooperation between the centers might be enhancedfurther in the development of agriculture in marginal lands, water harvesting and range land/pastures (with the involvement of ICARDA in arid areaswith 150-200 mm complementary to ACSAD’ s role). Cooperation also may be expanded to on-farm evaluation of winter cereals on a larger scale, as well as training in areas of mutual interest. ARINENA (Association of Agricultural Research Institutions in Near East and North Africa) ICARDA along with ISNAR and FAO, is a sponsor of AARINENA. AARINENA has not been functioning over the past two years and their scheduled meetings have continuously been postponed. Recently, in April 1993, a meeting was held at the FAO Regional Office, Cairo and attended by ICARDA at which it was decided to hold a full meeting of AARINENA in April 1994 to decide on future actions. ICARDA remains supportive of AARINENA in principle, but at present it cannot contribute financially. FAO Regional Office for Near East (RNEA, Cairo) ICARDA retains cordial and close working relationships with RNEA and sits on many of the coordinating inter-agency working committees establishedby RNEA to try to help coordinate agricultural research and development efforts in the region. ESCWA (UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia, Amman) ICARDA retains cordial and close working relationships with the joint ESCWA/FAO Agriculture Division. During 1993 a formal agreement will be signed. CIHEAM (International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies, Paris) ICARDA signed a formal agreement with CIHEAM in February 1989. The centers cooperate in arranging one or two joint training courses each year and the occasional technical workshop. 64 CIHEAM output is often used in planning, e.g., the inventory of agricultural research in the Mediterranean countries. 3.3.3.4 CGIAR centers ICARDA stands proudly among the family of IARCs supported by the CGIAR and the present responsibility of the DG as Chair of the Center Directors Committee is indicative of the considerable energy ICARDA puts into its many System-wide and inter-center roles. The Center has had active working relationships with several other centers including CIAT, CIMMYT, IBPGR, ICRISAT, IFPRI, ILCA and ISNAR, and discussionswith IIMI have just begun. The relationships with ICRISAT remain excellent. ICRISAT retains a chickpea breeder at ICARDA. The centers have jointly sponsored meetings, and maintain frequent contact in chickpea improvement. ICARDA attributes the good relations to an unformalized but cordial working arrangement. The Center’ s close collaboration with IBPGR also has had a long history and will be on-going with the new-named IPGRI. Aspects of this active associationare described in sections 2.3.1, 2.4.1 and 3.2.1. If there is a question of any significant potential concern regarding ICARDA’ s working relationship with other centers, it probably involves that with CIMMYT. This question relates essentially to the Cereals Program and the current allocation of responsibilities, as described in section 2.3.1. The Panel is pleased to record that, with one or two exceptions, the poor interpersonal relations and petty rivalries between middle managementof the two centers identified by the 1988 EPR have now largely disappeared. This is a tribute to the incoming heads of both programs and to the senior managementof both centers. It is evident, however, that at the operational (breeder) level a few anxieties still persist and both centers should jointly address these remaining small areas of concern. There are inevitably problems in managing at a distance. Clearly, day-to-day management of a scientist must be undertaken at the location at which he or she is operating. It would seem to be advantageous to allow the same line managementto be responsiblefor the annual appraisal review of the scientist concerned, or at least, to have a major input to it. In the durum program, the work between CIMMYT and ICARDA does not seem to be fully interactive, despite the existence of joint regional nurseries. The contribution of CIMMYT to the earlier development of material released in the WANA region is indisputable. The program based at ICARDA now seemsto be capable of producing acceptablevarieties (e.g., Lahn) that fit the higher rainfall/irrigated end of the spectrum, as well as working for the lower rainfall regimes. Some lack of definition of separate objectives for the spring wheat and facultative bread wheat programs in the CIMMYT/ICARDA organization in the WANA region has been discussed in section 2.3.1. Any overlap between the winter and facultative wheat programs is properly a matter for CIMMYT to review. Hitherto, CIMMYT’ s main impact on bread wheat cultivation in the WANA region has been mainly in the coastal, irrigated spring wheat areas. 65 Within some countries of the WANA region, and certainly in the host country of ICARDA, there is political pressure to switch some of the durum production into bread wheat. ICARDA will need to monitor this situation and reallocate resources if necessary. The Center will also have to review its responsibility for the Andean barley program, given tighter funding constraints, which raises broader questions of tradeoffs between maintaining a global mandate and/or meeting needs of the WANA region. In addition, budget shortfalls may require ICARDA to reconsider its agreementswith CIMMYT and other centers. 3.3.3.5 Other institutes and agencies ICARDA has contacts and collaborative projects with numerous advanced institutes. Many of these arrangements are flexible and rely on individual contacts. Should the donor community remain so shy of ICARDA, the Center will have to rely increasingly on links to institutes and universities that hopefully will continue to have the resources to make further scientific advances in fields relevant to ICARDA’ s mandate and activities. This could be construed as ICARDA creatively increasing upstream work despite declining resources. At the same time, better opportunity is created for ‘ advanced institutions (a) to bring some of their work to a strategic and applied level of research application and (b) to make more of a contribution than might otherwise be possible towards development efforts in the Iessdeveloped world. The scope of such arrangements is wide in disciplinary, thematic and geographic coverage (ICARDA Annual Reports), and it is not within the capabilities of the Panel to subject even a small fraction of the collaborations to any real scrutiny. It observes that, through such collaborations, for mstance, ICARDA strengthens its very modest biotechnology capacity. Given the personal and individualistic nature of most of the arrangements, and their importance for fostering the “invisible university of agricultural science,” members of ICARDA’ s researchstaff could perhaps be more explicitly recognized for their “scientific entrepreneurship” in forging and collaborating in such links. It may be that the emphasis on publication in scientific journals already does this sufficiently, albeit indirectly. 3.3.3.6 General public relations In recent years, ICARDA has become increasingly concerned about its public image. Part of the Center’ s rationale to establish Regional Coordinator offices throughout the region was to develop closer partnerships with NARSs and, in so doing, to promote ICARDA’ s image. It is the Panel’ s impression that ICARDA is held in high esteem throughout WANA. At the global level, ICARDA presents itself quite well. Its wide-audience publications are professionally prepared. However, the Panel is conscious that ICARDA, along with the other CG centers, faces increasing competition from the proliferating number of organizations seeking funds for research and conservation activities relating to the environment. This is occurring at a time of financial temperance within the donor community and highlights the challenge to ICARDA to impress potential donors. ICARDA’ s desire to communicate effectively with its major audiences is reflected in the quality and professionalism it seeks in its publications such as the Annual Reports and yearly Highlights. The Center is also targeting publications at specific donors, such as the recent publications Australia and ICARDA and 7%e United States and ICARDA. 66 3.3.4 Overall Assessment On balance, the Panel was quite impressed by the high esteem in which ICARDA is held throughout its mandate countries. The Panel’ s impressions are basedon its country visits, the survey of ICARDA’ s clients, interviews with Regional Coordinators and outposted research staff and relevant reports. Equally, the Panel observed in each of the outreach programs that the Center is seriously attempting to help its NARS partners on a broad front and that it has developed, and is constantly attempting to improve, a genuine dialogue with the NARSs as to their needsand how ICARDA can best serve these. Because of the broad regional mandate of ICARDA and its limited resources, the focusing of outreach programs is especially important. In the opinion of the Panel, however, some of the outreach programs are not well focused. This concern relates particularly to the Highland and West Asia Regional Programs. In the latter Program, ICARDA is involved in some activities for which it has little expertise. With respect to the Highland Program, ICARDA is in danger of being used to seek solutions to national research issuesthat the host country has not yet chosen to address, perhaps becauseof problems arising from the remotenessof a major part of the target region. For an outreach program to be successful, it is vital that the NARSs concerned are fully committed to it. Related to this issue, the Panel urges that ICARDA establish and use an explicit set of criteria to determine the acceptability of projects in order to guide its participation in specially funded projects. It is generally recognized that the commodity programs in cerealsand food legumes, which Iead to the development of varieties that can be of direct benefit to farmers, have so far had a greater impact in the regions than the products of PFLP or FRMP. Data on the number of varieties released by the NARSs, however, are more readily available than those for areas cultivated, which reduces the certainty of assessingimpact. In terms of socioeconomic activity, there is considerablebut uneven representation throughout the regions. A problem here is that there are few socioeconomists in national research institutes so that collaboration is then restricted to university contacts. Furthermore, the NRM element of FRMP is generally poorly institutionalized by nations in the region. ICARDA staff posted to outreach programs play visible and essentialroles for ICARDA. Their postings can create personal hardships and professional isolation, and they need to be assured that their career progression will not be adversely affected as a consequence. The Panel suggeststhat ICARDA establish guidelines for the rotation of staff between headquartersand the regions. Other incentives such as priority in the award of sabbatical leave should also be considered. Some NARS staff spend time at ICARDA on sabbatical studies and, where they can be conveniently accommodatedwithin the research programs, this practice should be encouraged, provided that the projects chosen are related to a subject of high-priority interest in the Center. Normally, this arrangement for sabbaticals would be supportable only through special project funding. If training is done well it might be ICARDA’ s enduring contribution to the agricultural development of the WANA region. Undoubtedly, the image of ICARDA has benefitted already from its training and also greatly from the presence of the Regional Coordinators and outreach scientists. Its profile has been perceptibly raised in some cases where it was not hitherto prominent. The Regional Coordinators encountered by the Panel have proved excellent ambassadors for ICARDA. 67 The networks sponsored, supported and participated in by ICARDA are many, differing in research function (Iable 3.1), and are central to a cost-efficient approach to an ecoregionally focused center with active engagement in a diverse set of NARSs. ICARDA is working hard to make these networking activities “work” well, and so too are some of the partner NARSs. Plurality of approach in networking arrangements is probably a positive feature and is one on which ICARDA scores well. Just how effectively they operate is a relevant question to which a reasonable answer can only be found after considerable investigation that was beyond the Panel’ s resources. It did, however, form a generahy positive view of the professionalism and seriousnessof ICARDA’ s commitment to these endeavors. Especially for some of the long-term examples, such commitment is vital to ultimate achievement, and the Panel trusts that requisite resources will continue to be applied. 68 CHAPTER 4 - ORGANIZATION 4.1 Introduction AND MANAGEMENT The 1988 EMR found serious management problems at ICARDA. In response, the CGIAR decided that an Interim EMR should be commissioned to report on the Center’ s progress in dealing with the recommendations of the 1988 review. The 1991 Interim EMR reported on a number of changesat the Center as well as on areas of continuing concern. Overall, that Review concluded that “ICARDA’ s management structure, policies and operations are now in good shape. The problems of the past have largely been successfullyovercome.. . We highly commend the Board and Management for their success and are confident that the few residual problems can be satisfactorily overcome” @p. 18-19). The 1993 ER Panel is certain that many aspects of managementat ICARDA have significantly improved since 1988. In addition, it finds the 1991 Interim EMR to be perceptive and on target in most areas of its inquiry. However, the overall conclusions drawn in 1991 may, in hindsight, perhaps have been a little too favorable. The 1993 ER Panel recognizes that ICARDA has developed and implemented systems of management and control, replacing the general ad hoc approach described in 1988. It has strengthened a number of managerial weaknesses-- most dramatically in the area of financial management. And it is clear that the DG has put in place a capable Management team. However, the Panel believes that the good intention to create rational systemshas in some casesgone to an extreme of running a “tight ship” so tightly that there have been negative effects on staff morale and efficiency. As the 1991 Interim EMR was conducted approximately one and-a-half years ago specifically as follow-up to the 1988 EMR, the 1993 ER Panel wiI1 not report again on follow-up, unless specific concerns still exist. The general focus is on the future, and changesthat the Panel feels will enhance ICARDA’ s prospects for success. 4.2 Governance The 1988 EMR strongly recommended that the ICARDA Board of Trustees (BOT) take immediate steps to strengthen its performance. The 1991 Interim EMR reported that many positive steps had been taken, basedon its assessment of Board minutes and interviews with a few BOT members. The 1993 Panel had the opportunity to observe a meeting of the BOT (in addition to its review of BOT documents and interviews with members), and confirms the findings of the 1991 review - that deficiencies of the past largely have been corrected and that the BOT is functioning well overall. The current BOT is comprised of well-qualified members who are dedicated to ICARDA and its mission. There is wide, though not unanimous, agreement about the role of the BOT, its committees and its members. ReIations with Management are cordial, open and based upon mutual trust and respect. ICARDA and the BOT are entering a new stage in the Center’ s evolution. The past five years can be viewed as a period of consolidation. Responding to the 1988 EMR and the 1991 Interim EMR, the BOT and Managementhave made great progress in upgrading the quality of senior managementstaff, introducing improved managementsystemsand strengthening the overall capacity of the BOT to discharge its oversight responsibilities. The new program emphases and priorities embodied in ICARDA’ s Strategic Plan (SP) and Medium-Term Plan (MTP), coupled with increasingly tight budgetary constraints on core funding, create a new and challenging environment for the BOT and Management. The well-defined roles and style of operation that were suitable to the requirements of previous years will not necessarily be optimal for the years ahead. ICARDA’ s BOT confronts these challenges at a crucial transition time for leadership. During the coming year, the BOT will be selecting a new Director General and BOT Chair. It has a valuable opportunity to make a fresh assessmentof its philosophy, style and modus operandi and to determine whether and how to adjust these to meet the new challenges. In 1994 the composition of the BOT will be substantially different from that of the BOT in 1988. The annual Board meeting in 1994 will find only five trustees who were on the Board in 1988 (excluding the DG), all of whom will be completing their terms. The time is ripe for a thorough self-appraisal and reassessment of the BOT’ s style of governance. Particular attention should be given to the BOT’ s traditional view of its oversight role. The BOT has positioned itself near one end of the Policy/Management continuum, exercising care not to be excessivelyinvolved in the operational decisions of Management. Viewing its function as essentially “strategic” and its role as broad policy-making, the BOT has largely deferred to Management not only on day-to-day operating decisions but also on management policy. Except for the financial oversight of the Audit Committee (AC) and selected personnel issues, the BOT has not systematically concerned itself with the oversight of management operations. Similarly, its approach to research program development and management could be characterized as “arm’ s length.” This posture may have been reasonably suitable during ICARDA’ s consolidation period, and was clearly compatible with the preferred style of KARDA’ s DG and BOT Chair. Before a new DG assumesoffice, the full Board should re-evaluate its role and define the desired relationships with the new DG and managementteam. The ICARDA Board is very conscious of the multi-cultural (and diverse political) conditions under which it and the Center must operate. ICARDA serves a large and diverse region -- stretching from Morocco to Pakistan -- with a long history of turbulence and conflict. Strong cultural, ethnic, religious and political differences combine with great diversity in agroecological conditions to create highly demanding governance and management challenges. ICARDA’ s Board and management team deserve recognition for the progress made during the past five years. 4.2.1 Size and Composition of the Board ICARDA’ s Charter authorizes a Board of 18 trustees, of which one is ex-officio (the DG) and up to three may be nominated by host countries. Of the 14 remaining trustees selected by the BOT, three are nominated by the CGIAR. In 1990 the BOT decided to limit membership to 16, reportedly because some felt that a full membership of 18 was unwieldy. Current BOT members are no longer clear as to precisely why two more trustees would create an unwieldy Board. Some trustees feel that even 16 is too many, noting that large private-sector firms manage with smaller boards. Others feel that limiting the BOT to 16 (often fewer when there is a delay in filling vacancies) precludes adequate discharge of the BOT’ s responsibilities for policy and program oversight. Most recently, the need for budgetary economy was cited as an additional reason for not filling all authorized positions. The current BOT is reasonably well-balanced as far as geographic and donor/non-donor representation are concerned. With two female trustees, the BOT compares favorably with other centers, though efforts rightly continue to seek additional qualified female trustees. In terms of disciplinary balance, the BOT currently lacks members with training and experience in disciplines that are of programmatic concern, including biotechnology, agroforestt-yand environmental management. The Panel 70 recognizes the difficulty of creating multidimensional Board balance. Nonetheless, it encourages the Board to carefully consider program commitments in the SP and MTP in terms of both the responsibilities of the BOT for policy and program oversight and the competence of current trustees, and to plan membership balance accordingly. Given the number of upcoming vacancies, the Panel expects that the Board should find a mix suitable to its needswhile limiting membershipto not more than the current level of 16. 4.2.2 Management of the Board Since 1988, the BOT has devoted considerable attention to matters of governance. In 1990 the BOT undertook an in-depth questionnaire survey of BOT perfor&nce, and has given more attention to self-appraisal sessionssince. Departing trustees are invited to participate in “exit interviews” or submit end-of-term appraisalsof their Board experience. BOT committeeshave been restructured, By-Laws have been revised, and a Board Handbook has been developed. A successful effort by the Nominating Committee (NC) has expandedthe range of competencieson the BOT, and has improved gender balance. The Audit Committee (AC) establishedin 1988 has taken up its responsibilities with diligence and energy. The BOT’ s committee structure and committee responsibilities are clearly documented in the Handbook and, within their defined roles, trustees have a clear understanding of their responsibilities. Beginning in January 1993, the BOT instituted a formal half-day orientation program for newly-elected trustees. A deliberate effort has been made to strengthen the Executive Committee (EC) to enable it to act as an equivalent to a Board. The EC now includes the Chairs of all standing committees as well as the Board Chair and Vice-Chair and the DG. In addition, two other trustees, including one member-country representative, bring the total EC membership to eight (one-half of the current BOT membership). The deliberate strengthening of the EC, “to cope with urgent matters that cannot await the convening of a plenary session of the Board” (Center’ s Report to the Panel, September 1991, p.60), is consistent with the provisions of ICARDA’ s Charter and has much to recommend it. It does, however, tend to implicitly diminish the status of the remaining trustees in their own eyes. This could become a problem over time if the EC is not careful to operate in an open and transparent fashion and strenuously resist the inevitable temptations to exercise preemptive judgements on issues that could and should be deferred to the full Board. The major remaining weakness in the overall managementof the BOT is the lack of an explicit agreed-upon process for electing a Chair and Vice-Chair. During the January 1993 meeting, there was a breakdown in the advanceplanning for replacing the retiring Chair, in part resulting from the fact that responsibility for that function is not specifically assignedto any BOT committee or officer. The situation prompted an improvised, awkward and somewhat embarrassing ad hoc procedure resulting in the unexpected extension of the incumbent Chair for one additional year. Recommendation 4.1 Responsibility for developing and managing a BOT-endorsed process for nominating and electing members to the Chair and Vice-Chair should be assigned to a BOT committee. The process (which could be assignedto the NC, EC or a special selection committee) should be designed to assure that each trustee has an opportunity to recommend candidates, and to participate in a secret 71 ballot for the election. To the extent possible, a Chair-designate could, ideally, be elected one year in advance to provide an opportunity to become thoroughly familiar with the many and varied responsibilities and duties of the position. 4.2.3 Selection, Orientation and Development of Trustees The principal responsibility for the selection of new trustees rests with the NC. The NC consists of four members elected annually by the BOT on the nomination of the Chair. Neither the DG nor the BOT Chair serves on the NC. The full Board elects the NC Chair, who consults closely with the BOT Chair on NC recommendations. In addition to the customary role of identifying and proposing BOT members, the NC also nominates candidatesfor the standing committees of the BOT. However, the NC has no assigned role for nominating the BOT Chair or Vice-Chair. Forward planning for filling vacancies is limited to one year in advance. It does not appear that sufficient attention has been paid to the need to adjust terms of service to even out the turnover of trustees (five members will end their final terms in 1994, none in 1995, and only one in 1996). Primary reliance for identifying prospective candidates for Board-selected positions has been placed on current and past BOT members. However, the CGIARKIS is now being accessedfor prospective members with some success. The Panel suggeststhat the NC should extend its planning horizon at least one additional year. A greater effort could also be made to adjust terms of service to achieve a more even flow of members, and to avoid “bunching” of vacancies. The responsibility for orienting new trustees to the full range of responsibilities and rights of membership is not explicitly assignedto any officer or committee of the BOT. Some of the senior trustees indicated that they would have welcomed and benefitted from a more formal orientation program. The BOT did institute a formal half-day orientation program for new members in January 1993. The program was well received by the new members as a useful overview of ICARDA’ s organization and research program. However, a more extensive discussion with the Chairman and other senior BOT members would have been welcomed, especially if focused on the.individual trustee’ s rights and responsibilities, and the nature and timing of the major decisions that would be faced in the trustee’ s term of service. The Panel suggeststhat the BOT assign specific responsibility for planning and implementing a systematic orientation of new trustees. Consideration should be given to making the assignment to the NC, to the Vice-Chair, or to a separate committee comprised of senior trustees. In addition to the provision of the customary documents and the overview of Center operations, new trustees should be briefed by the Chair and Committee Chairs on the BOT’ s modus operandi, the rights and responsibilities of trustees (with explicit focus on conflict-of-interest rules), and be provided with a Board decisioncalendar outlining the key scheduled Board business over the first three years of their terms (including planning, program, budget decisions, BOT officer elections, etc.). Greater opportunities seemingly should be provided for orientation visits to selectedfield sites as well as to HQ operations (section 4.2.4). 4.2.4 Policy and Program Oversight While responsibility for policy and program oversight is shared by all trustees, the principal responsibility for reviewing ICARDA’ s researchprograms and monitoring implementation rests with the Program Committee (PC). The PC presently must consist of the DG and at least three trustees who are elected annually by the BOT. All new trustees are now automatically assignedto the PC for their initial year. Currently, ten trustees serve on the PC, and the DDG-R serves as the Secretary. The PC normally 72 meets twice a year - for a threeday annual program review in January and a one-day meeting during the annual Board meeting in the spring. During the past few years, PC members have tended to view their role as primarily “strategic,” dealing with higher order policy issues rather than exercising close oversight of research program performance and quality. This is an inherited role influenced both by the preferred style of the current DDG-R and by the disposition of the more senior members of the PC. This limited view of the appropriate role of the PC is not, however, unanimously shared by all PC members. Some feel strongly that the PC should be more closely engaged in assessingthe scientific quality of the research at the scientist level, and should be more directly involved as scientific colleagues of the professional staff a view shared by many ICARDA research staff. Most members feel that the PC has had some positive impact upon the content of the SP and the MTP. Resource allocations within Programs, at the project level, are increasingly becoming a focus of PC member interest. Such individual members’inquiries would probably be facilitated by the proposed project-based budgeting system, but this level of planning should not in itself be a focus of PC activity. Considering that ICARDA is entering a new phase in its evolution, and that the BOT will soon need to select a new DG and Chair, the “traditional” style of oversight may no longer be appropriate. Recommendation 4.2 The Program Committee and the full Board should assesstheir mechanisms for oversight and reach a fresh judgement as to whether the traditional roles remain appropriate given the new challenges of the strategy, the new Medium-Term Plan, and the increasingly constrained funding situation. The BOT encourages its PC members to visit ICARDA field operations but few availed themselves of the opportunity. The Panel suggests that the BOT assign specific responsibility for scheduling members’visits to a Board officer (perhaps the Vice-Chair) or to a committee (EC or NC) for doing so. Management can continue to make the necessarytransport and logistical arrangements, and advise on the most suitable and convenient times for such visits. A common issue agendafor field visits would. provide the Board with a more useful and representative view of the Center’ s operations, and would make most efficient use of the members’time. In January 1993, the PC Chairman initiated a thoughtful and potentially useful evaluation of PC performance by distributing questionnaires to both the members of the PC and to research program leaders who collaborated with the PC during the MTP review. The results were to be available for PC and BOT review during the May 1993 meeting. 4.2.5 Management and Operations Oversight The AC is responsible for overseeing the accounting, auditing, financial and administrative processes of ICARDA. The EC, on an ad hoc reactive basis, deals with special problem situations as they arise. The full BOT appoints the DG and, on the recommendation of the DG, other key management officials (DDGs, ADGs, Directors of Finance and Administration, and Secretary to the Board). An annual review of the performance of the DG is made, but this is not linked to the annual increment 73 determination. There is no formal review by the BOT of the performance of the other appointees who are evaluated within the annual staff performance review. Recommendation 4.3 The BOT should introduce a more systematic and objective process for annual evaluation of the performance of the DG and for the oversight of the evaluation of other top management officials. This could usefully be done prior to the final selection of a new DG, so that there is a clear mutual understanding and agreement that this is a condition of employment. This function might be assigned explicitly in the By-Laws to the EC, or to a smaller Compensation Committee established for that purpose. Board relationships with Management are cordial, open and trusting. Information requests of the trustees are met promptly and fully. Management reports quarterly to the trustees -- a frequency that will be changed to three times a year by mutual agreement. No attempt has been made to define carefully the distinction between “policy” and “management”decisions per se. The principal focus of managementoversight rests with the AC, which consists of four members elected annually by the BOT. The DG does not serve on the AC. The AC is relatively new in ICARDA’ s history, having been established only five years ago. None of the current members of the AC is specifically trained or experienced in accounting or financial management, although three of the four have training in economics and all members bring to bear much relevant experience. The AC now meets at least twice a year, at the beginning of each of the annual Board meeting and the autumn meeting of the EC as well as during extraordinary Board meetings. It carries out its functions in a systematic and energetic manner but there is no formal written report to the BOT, only an oral report by the AC Chair, which is entered in the minutes of the meetings. The AC should adopt a practice of filing a formal annual report to the BOT, signed by the Chair, in addition to the customary oral report. While the traditional Board/Management relationship may have been suitable in the past, given the DG’ s style of managementand the Board’ s composition, it may not be as appropriate in the coming years when the demands of the new thrusts in the SP and MTP confront increasingly constrained financial resources. The impending change in ICARDA’ s Management will provide an excellent opportunity for the BOT to re-assessits own role in managementoversight with a view to a more assertive Board role, albeit with a clearly defined separationbetween careful oversight and excessiveinterference in operating decisions. Recommendation 4.4 The BOT should re-assess its self-defined role and strategy in overseeing operations and management of ICARDA. At a minimum, the BOT should assign explicit responsibility for reviewing and assessing the full range of ICARDA’ s administrative and management systems, either as an expansion of the Audit Committee’ s role or as an assignment to a separate standing committee established for that purpose. 74 4.3 Leadership ICARDA’ s current DG took up his position in 1988. Under his leadership, ICARDA has completed a Strategic Plan and two Medium-Term Plans. As noted in section 4.1, the Center now has systematic managementprocesses and transparent controls, and a capable management team in place. ICARDA has made progress since 1988 on many fronts, which is a credit to the DG and his management team. Currently the Board is conducting a search process for ICARDA’ s next DG, who is expectedto assumeleadership within about one-and-a-half years when the current incumbent retires. The successor will need time to get to know the Center before beginning to contemplatedecisions necessaryfor effective leadership. Thus, in the view of the Panel, the remaining tenure of the current DG is a time to continue to press forward with difficult decisions and effect change in the interests of ICARDA’ s long-term future. The DG has done an outstanding job in reforming the “management side” of ICARDA and could now achieve analogous reforms and advanceson the “research side” of the Center. It should also be a time to forge ahead on the fundraising front, utilizing past experience and feeling confident that Center operations are in good hands. The Panel believes that these objectives could best be met if the DG delegates more to the management team. Currently decision making at ICARDA is highly centralized and, given the capabilities of the individuals involved, greater decentralization would be beneficial. Currently the DG is assisted by two Deputies, one for Research and the other for Operations (DDG-R and DDG-0). The Panel agreeswith the Center’ s decision not to replace the DDG-0 when the current incumbent completes his secondment later this year, as the management systems he was responsible for developing are largely in place and the Directors below him are capable of moving things forward. The 1988 EMR described the leadership style of ICARDA’ s former DG as “personalistic, top down and bureaucratic” (p.9). The 1993 Panel is pleased to report that the personalistic style of the past has gone. Yet, while the DG is open to input into decision making, there is still a ways to go towards a more appropriately decentralized leadership style. 4.4 Research Management In order to help assessthe current status of research managementat ICARDA and contribute to deliberations on possible options for future improvement, the Panel conducted a survey (section 5.3.2) of ICARDA’ s scientific staff. A questionnaire was circulated in January 1993 and by April the Panel received responses from 51 out of approximately 80 of the scientific staff. The survey form and summary of responses may be found in Appendices 5 and 6, respectively. Many of the themes that emerge from the responsesare covered below. 4.4.1 Research Structure As shown in Figure 1.2, ICARDA’ s four research programs, international cooperation activities (IC), and research support units al! report to the DDG-R. Structurally this differs from the 1988 arrangement in that formerly IC was also led by a DDG who reported to the DG. Consolidation of IC into Research has served ICARDA we!!, bringing training, information services and outreach activities 75 closer to the primary research program. Now, outreach research staff have somewhat dual reporting responsibilities (programmatically to the Program Leaders and administratively to the ADG-IC), which has operated surprisingly well, although the balance between independence and controls, discussed in section 4.4.2., requires modification. The 1988 external reviews recommendedthat, in developing its strategic plan, ICARDA consider alternate structural models for organizing research that would facilitate implementation of the strategy. The reviews discussed criteria that should be taken into account (integration of activities, linkages with the environment, authority and responsibility for scientists, and simplicity), and suggestedthat some form of managerial matrix be considered. ICARDA has considered numerous options for matrix organization and has retained its four-program structure. Within this structure, multidisciplinary research operates well at the Program level, although cross-Program interaction - particularly between FRMP and the three “commodity” Programs -- could be improved. (Mechanisms to achieve this are discussed in section 4.4.9.) Otherwise, in the view of the Panel, the current structure serves ICARDA’ s strategy well. 4.4.2 Decision Making and Controls The 1988 EMR described a managerial culture at ICARDA dominated by “strong (bordering on authoritarian) leadership; managementby exception; decision making by status or who you know; and attention to managing one’ s own unit well, at the expense of cooperation across units” (EMR, p.i). Significant effort has been expended in transforming the Center to one governed by rational, transparent and equitabIy implemented poIicies. Systems of control and accountability are strong at ICARDA (as discussed in sections 4.3 and 4.5) but, in the opinion of the vast majority of research staff the Panel surveyed and interviewed, these systems are too restrictive in terms of decision making authority, and thus they constitute something of an impediment to effective research management. This said, the Panel found a high degree of freedom to conduct research (to make research decisions) at ICARDA -- and the research staff acknowledge and appreciate this. Their concern is with what they consider to be the rigidity of the system of administrative and financial controls. Management considers centralized control essentialin a time of fiscal uncertainty and contends that the processesfor seeking approval are quick and pro forma if properly followed. The Panel believes changesare required, and reemphasizesthe sentiment of the 1991 Interim EMR, “despite the continued financial austerity that is needed, we believe further devolution of authority for program decisions is possible and needed. This will require some continuing adjustment in the management approaches of the DG and DDG-R, and improvements in the management systems [accomplished by 19931 and skills at the Program and Unit Leader levels” (p.5). Recommendation 4.5 The BOT should oversee the development and implementation OF a plan delineating delegation of authority, that strikes a new balance between Program freedom and fiscal/administrative control in an effort to devolve more authority to the Programs. A component of this plan would relate to project-based budgeting (section 4.5.1.3). Although this may exist to some degree at ICARDA, it is not a well-defined system that entails a wide degree of budgetary responsibility for scientists or project task managers. In the view of the Panel, a comprehensiveproject-based budgeting system would be highly desirable. It could help monitor research inputs and outputs, thereby augmenting institute-wide planning and review processes, and could help 76 strengthen research decision making and management at the project level - assuming project task managers receive adequatetraining to take on the new responsibilities. In order to be most effective, the system should be planned collaboratively by research and financial/administrative personnel, so that it best meets the needs of all involved. Steps in this direction are being developed and are to be reviewed by the ROT at its meeting that follows the submission of this Report. 4.4.3 Research Leadership A consequenceof the environment of centralized controls is that the DDG-R is obliged to authorize many Program-level decisions, which infringes on time he could be devoting to research leadership. Concurrently, scientific staff contend that, as the DDG-R has in the past year or so been so consumed with institutional matters (ranging from ones they consider administrative details in which Management shouId not involve him, to CGIAR System-level demandssuch as the arduous strategic and medium-term planning processes), he has little time for substantive program-related matters (such as organizing an Annual Program Review in 1992). Scientific staff - and the Panel - consider that the current DDG-R is clearly a capable researchleader, but see his energies being dissipated in other and too many directions. Program Leaders are, overall, providing effective leadership of their Programs, but the institution-wide dimension of research leadership and oversight should be enhanced. Recommendation 4.6 If the current organizational structure is retained, ICARDA’ s Management should examine primary responsibilities and demands on its members, in efforts to identify what the boundaries of responsibibty should be for the DDG-R. The plan for delegation of authority (recommendation 4.5) should include a carefully reasoned work program for the DDG-R that enables the incumbent to focus on research leadership and oversight. 4.4.4 Strategic and Medium-Term Planning The long-term vision for ICARDA’ s research is elaborated in the Strategic Plan (ICARDA 1989). In developing its Strategic Plan, ICARDA drew on many information sources, including its own considerable experience, various TAC studies, the reports of the 1988 External Reviews, the FAO and IFPRI forecasts on future food supply and demand in countries covered by ICARDA’ s mandate, as well as dialogue with NARSs over some three years. With the information available, the Panel believes that the procedures followed were thorough and reasonably well executed. Consistent with CGIAR practice, ICARDA develops its MTP in the context of its Strategy. Since the 1988 reviews, ICARDA completed a MTP 1990-94 and a MTP 1994-98, which was recently endorsed by TAC. The Panel comments, in the course of this report, on how effectively ICARDA has followed and achieved the aims of the MTP 1990-94. The comments here concern the medium-term planning process, and relate to the preparation of the MTP just completed. The MTP process -- described in the MTP -- was a time-consuming one for ICARDA, heavily involving the DDG-R and Program Leaders, and also including participation of ICARDA research staff and NARS collaborators. Program Leaders and many of the researchstaff involved were rather frustrated by the demands of the exercise, which they felt could have been lessenedby better process planning and leadership. 77 In addition to internal inputs, the process included efforts to solicit input from ICARDA’ s collaborators in the NARSs, which is a difficult endeavor considering that there are 24 WANA countries with which ICARDA works, whose priorities and capabilities differ. Nonetheless, ICARDA consulted widely. NARSs’ views were solicited through a number of channels - many of which are part of “business as usual” at ICARDA: scientist-to-scientist contact, regional meetings and workshops, the Office of the Regional Coordinator and, most formally, through the annual ICARDA/NARSs Coordination and Planning Meetings held throughout the WANA region - which involve “a minimum of 500 national scientists” and are organized on both in-country and cross-country regional bases. In preparation for the recent MTP and ER processes, ICARDA initiated additional dialogue with NARSs through a formal questionnaire. NARSs personnel were requested to respond to two lists of open-ended questions. The first series of questions entitled “NARSs inputs into planning ICARDA’ s program” sought NARS response to 14 broad questions. Based on the responsesto this questionnaire, a second series of 13 questions was addressedto the NARSs relating to “Modalities of NARSKARDA Interaction. ” The Panel had the opportunity to observe the Program Committee of the BOT discuss the outcome of this ICARDA/NARS dialogue and considers that the Center has made genuine and effective effort to involve its national partners in the preparation of its work plan for the medium-term future. Nevertheless, some of ICARDA’ s NARSs collaborators met by the Panel expressedconcern that they are not included adequately in ICARDA’ s planning processes. They appreciate the opportunity to inform ICARDA of their views, but they believe their collective influence on ICARDA to be small. The Panel suggests that ICARDA provide feedback to the cooperating NARS personnel in a brief document that summarizes the NARSs’ inputs and explains how ICARDA is responding to these. 4.4.5 Research Review Processes The Program Committee of the BOT has main responsibility for oversight of ICARDA’ s programs (section 4.2.4). The PC’ s role has primarily been in guiding and overseeing strategic and policy issues concerning the research program. The Panel suggeststhat it could play a stronger role in setting policy for ICARDA’ s researchplanning and review mechanisms,and overseeing that these operate effectively. Based on responsesto the Panel’ s survey of research staff and interviews, the Panel believes that review processescould be better planned and formalized at ICARDA and recent positive efforts at the Center to improve them indicate that the ICARDA Management shares this view. In recent years, when the annual program review has been conducted, its rigor has been of declining value. Although these reviews may involve an external peer component, this does not occur on a sufficiently systematic basis. In the view of the Panel, peer review -- during the annual review or at some or-herjuncture - should be a systematic aspect of ICARDA’ s internal review process. This said, ICARDA scientists do benefit from interaction with visiting scientists and experts, who may comment on or review their research. Publication in refereed journals adds further critical peer review to a research output, but cannot comment on either output vis-a-vis inputs or the research plan and objectives. The same might be said about ICARDA’ s seminar program, which provides a valuable opportunity for feedback and interchange that supplements more formal review mechanisms. In addition to conducting a well-planned Annual Internal Review, one mechanism the Panel suggestsfor strengthening internal review processesis that of internally-commissioned external reviews of Programs or activities, which other CGIAR centers find valuable. Another practice ICARDA might 78 consider is a system of “milestone reviews,” under development at CIMMYT, for instance. This process will entail a rigorous peer review of each of the senior scientific personnel every four years (beginning with the longest-serving scientists). Analogous suggestionsare made below (section 4.5.2.6) concerning promotion procedures for senior research personnel at ICARDA. 4.4.6 AMU~ Planning and Resource Allocation Processes Review and planning should be closely linked. In the view of the Panel and scientific staff surveyed, currently these processesare not (at least formally) linked at ICARDA. Currently, research planning (and much of the review effort) is conducted at the Program level -- and is considered to be effective there overall - but seemsnot yet adequatelyhandled at the cross-Program and institutional level. The present work of the DDG-R and TRAC (section 4.4.7) to re-activate and revitalize the annual program review will be helpful in moving forward in this regard. More than is evident in current practices, resource allocations should be part of a broader system of research planning and review. The current system begins with the Director of Finance, who develops target budgets based on MTP projections and the prior year’ s Program expenditure. These are modified after discussions/negotiationsamong those involved (which would include, of course, the DG and DDGR), before proposals are presentedto the BOT. As actual budgets have fallen well below MTP projections (53% of approved level in 1992), the practice has been to retain past ratios across Programs -- a simple solution but not necessarily one that takes into account the shift in institutional priorities that probably would accompany such a decline in funds. Related is the practice of “freezing“ some senior staff positions when vacancies occur; again, although a simple short-term solution, this practice threatens to divert ICARDA’ s longer term priorities. Given the changing prospects of ICARDA’ s funding, priorities need to be reexamined on an institutional basis to a greater extent. The new MTP should provide an appropriate context for this. 4.4.7 Committees and Research Research policy matters could conceivably be discussed by the Management Committee but, in practice, the only committee with strong and regular involvement in research managementis the Training and Research Advisory Committee (TRAC). TRAC consists of the heads of the research and training units, is chaired by the DDG-R and meets monthly. It provides a forum for discussion and advises the Director General on research issues that are of Center-wide concern. Discussions with members of TRAC reveal that TRAC seemsto function fairly effectively and deals with wide-ranging and important research and training issues. 4.4.8 ResearchEnvironment and Teamwork Despite the frustrations that research workers have with administrative and Management-related matters -- which the Panel believes is endemic to research organizations - the research environment at ICARDA is a positive one. Research workers are generally enthusiastic about their work and are committed to ICARDA’ s mission. Although cross-Program collaboration could be better, in the view of the Panel, this has improved since 1988 when it was found to be quite deficient. The Panel commends ICARDA for this progress and encouragesfurther efforts to boost internal collaboration and teamwork. 79 4.4.9 Options for Structural Change As noted in section 4.4.1, the Panel considers that ICARDA’ s research structure has been reasonably effective in the past, although cross-Program interaction, particularly between FRMP and the other three Programs (CP, LP and PFLP) could be improved. In the light of this, and with an awareness of the need to critically assessthe imperative of management positions - as ,well as all other positions at ICARDA -- in this time of financial cutbacks, the Panel felt obliged to consider a number of structural options for ICARDA’ s future. These included the status quo, and new options for the consideration of ICARDA Management: (a> Co) cc> (4 W mergers of CP and LP, and FRMP and PFLP, the merger of FRMP and PFLP, retaining CP and LP as at present, appropriate incorporation of FRMP into CP, LP and PFLP, appropriate incorporation of FRMP into a merged CP/LP and PFLP program configuration, and the status quo strengthened by a formal mechanism to integrate FRMP activities more effectively across the other Programs. In discussing these options, the Panel became increasingly conscious of the need for closer interaction between non-Research Management and Program Leaders in terms of research planning and direction, research management and administrative support. The importance of an effective direct line structure from the DG’ s offrce to program managementalso heavily influenced the Panel’ s consideration of the different options. The Panel gave careful consideration to suggestionsthat emerged from its survey of researchstaff and from informal discussions with senior ICARDA personnel. All options considered have possible positive advantages. All have costs associatedwith both change itself and, in most cases, also with postchange implementation, especially in terms of disadvantagesthat are perceived to be implicit. After much debate, the Panel saw the “slimmed-down” closer-knit managementstructure, as depicted in Figure 4.1, as the alternative it would encourage ICARDA to consider, as staffing changes over the next year or so present opportunities for structural change. Program Imnlications At the Program level, this proposal would entail the mergers of CP and LP, and FRMP and PFLP. The Genetic Resources Unit (GRU) would be incorporated into the merged CP/LP, thereafter the Crop Germplasm Program (CGP). The merged FRMP/PFLP might aptly be named the Natural Resource Management Program (NRMP). This Program configuration would stren,tien and focus ICARDA’ s “critical scientific mass“ in germplasm conservation and enhancement in one department, enabling a concentration of part of the Center’ s program on strategic (upstream) research. The Natural Resource Management Program would facilitate the integration of ICARDA’ s research activities into a cogent research program on crop and livestock production within a framework of natural resource conservation. This bimodal structure would be consistent with the sentiments embodied in the CGIAR Priorities and Strategies for International Agricultural Research, which on the one hand, ask for an IARC focus on strategic upstream research and, on the other hand, call for a concentration of research on NRM to evolve within the TACKGIAR concept of ecoregionality. 80 Center Management ImDlications The Center management implications are twofold. First, the proposal implies a significant reduction in senior managementpositions. As envisagedby the Panel, the proposal would facilitate more direct and effective input by the Program Leaders/Directors into Center management, indeed, Program Leaders/Directors would assumemany of the functions currently carried out by the DDG-R. The Central Directorate, consisting of the DG and Program Directors, would provide the formal framework for decision making. More generally, the implicit interactions and collaborative management processes between the DG and senior staff in the flattened structure should enable better interactive communication and decision making within ICARDA. Comment The Panel is aware that there has already been much discussion of structural possibilities within the Center, and that the process is continuing. In advancing for consideration the preferred option of Figure 4.1, the Panel wishes to emphasizeits limited time available for addressingthis issue and thus its agreement with the principles embodied rather than with the particularities (e.g., the placement of research support units) as displayed. Nonetheless, the Panel would encourageICARDA to move towards such a structure, as opportunities arise. Figure 4.1 Proposed Center management structure for ICARDA DG L Assistant to the DC Central Directorate , Directoi CGP Director* NRhIP Director International Cooperation Director Administration Director Fiice l Sub-Programmanagementstructuresare presumed 81 4.5 Resource Management 4.5.1 4.5.1.1 Budget and Finance Financial condition and budget strategy For the time being, ICARDA continues to enjoy a sound financial position with a high degree of liquidity, and it has not had to resort to short-term borrowing to manage its cash flows. However, ICARDA also continues to be heavily dependentupon core funding (80%), and two donors (USAID and IBRD) continue to supply the largest shares of this. The recent, and probably continuing, reductions in core grants will place increasing strains on ICARDA’ s budget, and will likely require drawdown of cash reserves. ICARDA Management has assuredthe professional staff that the Center can manage the current budget shortfall without terminating employees. By fully exploiting economies in support services, freezing positions as they become vacant, and drawing upon cash reserves, Management feels that ICARDA can get by for a few years. This strategy, however, can only be regarded as “successful” if the shrinking core budget is soon supplemented with substantial increases in non-core funds. If the funding gap is not quickly closed, ICARDA’ s liquidity will soon be critically impaired. Management is, in effect, following a passive/defensivebudget-coping strategy. Relying heavily on freezing vacancies as they occur and drawing on cash reserves (running a budget deficit), ICARDA seeks to minimize short-term organizational turbulence. Unfortunately, such short-term “solutions” are not likely to deal effectively with long-term problems. Pursued too long, this approach could lead to a serious financial crisis with the potential for a much more damaging effect on research programs and institutional stability. Under the circumstances, ICARDA is faced with three potentially complementary budget strategies, namely, (a) seek to persuade traditional donors that ICARDA’ s mandate, mission and plans are so highly congruent with donor priorities that ICARDA should receive an increasing share of a declining System-wide core budget, (b) mount a major new campaign to develop substantial levels of complementary funds, especially from non-traditional donors, and significantly reduce reliance on core funds and (c) adjust on-going research programs and projects within existing priorities to scales that can be financed with smaller core budgets. The recent MTP effort was based essentially on the first alternative, at least initially. ICARDA is simultaneously pursuing the second alternative, and has been for several years. Indeed, the 1988 EMR strongly suggestedthat ICARDA “develop and implement a fund-raising strategy aimed at expanding its funding base” (p.43-44). Some limited successhas been achieved, notably engaging the participation of Japan and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, and reaching agreement with the Government of Iran to initiate a collaborative project and establish a research institute near Maregeh for research on drylands problems of Northwest Iran. But there has been no substantial change in the Center’ s fundamental reliance upon the two major traditional donors. ICARDA has recently stepped-up its efforts and is devoting more resources to the task. For instance, it has recently assigned one economist half-time (soon to be close to full-time when the project she is directing finishes in mid-1993) to the task of preparing project proposals and conducting related activities. However, there is no indication at present that these limited efforts will close the funding gap. 82 The third alternative of adjusting the research program to a more sustainable level under a reduced budget scenario is one that Managementhas not yet chosen to adopt but, should donor support not changesignificantly from the present, it intends to addresshalf-way through the 1994-98 MTP period. ICARDA understandably should continue to make its best case to the CGIAR for preferential treatment in the overall allocation of core funding. Prudence suggests, however, that expanding the shrinking funding base is more likely to occur through a major expansion of complementary funds and engaging the participation of new donors -- especially donors from the WANA region itself. It seems unlikely that the present level of effort will do the job. Recommendation 4.7 ICARDA Management, working closely with the Board, should develop aud implement a detailed, explicit, long-range funding strategy. This strategy might include (a) developing and implementing a Center-wide plan and procedures for targeting project proposals and fund appeals to individual donors, (b) establishing an ad hoc Board committee comprised of trustees with fundraising experience to work closely with Management, (c) establishing an endowment fund and more aggressively promoting the fund to private-sector as well as to government donors, (d) exploring the possibilities for utilizing debt conversion opportunities as a source of local and regional currencies and (e) instituting more aggressive cash management and investment activities and policies to seek higher returns. 4.5.1.2 Financial management The 1988 EMR was extremely critical of ICARDA’ s financial planning, managementand control processes. Citing deficiencies in staffing, organization, accounting and reporting systems, and the absenceof internal auditing, the Report contained numerous recommendations -- including repetition of some of the 1984 EMR recommendationsthat had not been implemented by Management. By the time of the 1991 Interim EMR, most of the identified deficiencies had been corrected or were being dealt with effectively by the new financial managementteam. Today, ICARDA has a core financial managementstaff of well-qualified, energetic and innovative professionals. Although systems problems remain, the staff have identified needed changes and are implementing appropriate solutions. The most immediate and significant change underway is the installation of a modem computer and a versatile accounting/administrative package of programs. The new DEC computer was delivered in August 1992, the local area network was operational in November 1992, and new business software and scientific software packages have been installed. ICARDA expects to complete conversion of financial and administrative applications by the end of 1993. Training programs for scientific as well as administrative staff are well underway. The computer installation effort is being carried out by the Computer Services Unit under the leadership of an experienced director recruited for this purpose. The presently planned changesin financial systemsare, however, not conditioned by an over-arching systemsdesign concept that would integrate strategic planning, medium-term planning and annual budget development, execution and reporting. 83 4.5.1.3 Integrated planning and budgeting - project-based budgeting A new integrated research planning, budgeting and managementsystem was recommended by the 1988 EMR, to be based upon a matrix structure and project budgeting. The 1991 Interim EMR noted that some progress had been made, particularly in the areas funded by special-project grants. The assumption explicit in both reviews was that such a change would require that there be substantial delegation of program and budgetary authority to lower levels of managementand to research workers. While ICARDA Management endorses matrix management and project budgeting in principle, an extensive debate continues within its ranks (and within the Board) as to the specific project structure expected to emerge and the extent of delegation of authority to be experienced. There appears to be a lack of common understanding about the nature of the concepts and the terminolo,T being used. For instance, the concept of a project budget does not imply any necessarydegree of delegation, either in the discretionary use of financial resources or in the freedom to employ and deploy staff. A “Project Budget” simply defines the set of activities to be carried out, the resources to be available, the outputs or results expected and the person responsible for project performance - while leaving to be resolved the degree of centralization/decentralization for various types of management decisions. There are many research workers in ICARDA who may be overly optimistic about the benefits to be realized at the working level in terms of delegated authority, and insufficiently aware of the disadvantagesthat may be experienced (e.g., increased paperwork and frequency of reporting). Much Board time has been spent on discussion of these issues with Management, and between Board members, without resolution of the many different issues involved. Management has been slow to proceed with the extension of a project budget system to the core research programs, perhaps in part because of the perception that the current budget procedures offer maximum flexibility for Management to deal with financial constraints and uncertain funding support. There is (as of early May 1993) no documented plan elucidating the structural concepts as they are to be applied in ICARDA, no time-phased schedule of tasks and events, no provision for systematic orientation and training of staff, and no clear explanation of the precise manner in which the new computer-based financial and administrative systems will support the program/project planning, budgeting and management processes. It is to be hoped that the final result in due course will be a fully-integrated system that effectively links strategic planning, medium-term planning, annual budgeting, and managementcontrol and reporting processesin a timely manner that meets the varied needs of the Board, Management and research workers. The Board took an initial, and important, first step in the right direction in January 1993 when it passed a resolution directing Management to present to the Board in May 1993 a concept paper outlining Management’ s view of a preferred project budget structure and supporting financial management systems, including a recommended degree of devolution of financial responsibility, and an elaboration of the controls considered necessary. 84 Recommendation 4.8 When the Board and Management reach agreement on the basic concepts and outline of a project-based budgeting system, ICARDA should: (a) designate a single project manager to be responsible for coordinating the total system design and implementation effort; (b) assign the project manager the task of developing - collaboratively with research and financial/administrative personnel - a timephased systems design and implementation plan, including staff orientation and training components, with appropriate milestones; and (c) establish a regular reporting schedule to the Board on progress, problems and contemplated changes in the approved system design, if any. 4.5.1.4 External audit ICARDA’ s external auditing has been performed by Arthur Anderson & Co. since 1987 and audit results have revealed a marked improvement in ICARDA’ s financial managementprocesses during the intervening years. ICARDA Management has responded promptly to audit recommendations and recent audit reports and management letters have revealed no material shortcomings. The audits have been professionally performed by regional employees of the firm under close supervision of a senior partner operating out of Geneva. Relationshipsbetweenthe external and internal auditors are cordial, cooperative and professional. Although Arthur Anderson & Co. has performed in a responsive and professional manner, at a reasonable price, for only five years, the AC decided in 1991 to change external auditors. Responding to a suggestion from the CGIAR that all centers should adopt a policy on the retention or rotation of external auditors, the AC will propose to the Board during the May 1993 meeting that the Board adopt a policy of changing audit firms every five years, a frequency chosen to coincide with the external review cycle. A detailed, systematic and objective procedure for soliciting and evaluating offers from competing firms was developed by the AC with assistance from the Internal Auditor. After a careful review of bids from seven firms, the AC selectedone international firm and plans to recommend that firm to the Board in May 1993, providing that several minor technical issues can be resolved satisfactorily. The process followed by the AC was exemplary, and could well serve as a model for other centers. However, a decision to automatically change external auditors every five years should be approached with care. Five years is a relatively short time frame for rotating external auditors. Because of the unique characteristics of the IARCs (compared, for example, with the typical commercial firms with which most audit firms are familiar), one must expect a significant drop-off in the effectiveness during the first year as a new external audit team becomes familiar with the Center and its varied activities. There is also likely to be some decline in the effectivenessof the internal audit process, since the burden of “training” the new audit team is likely to fall largely on the shoulders of the Center’ s Internal Auditor. Depending on the firm employed, there might even be some degradation in performance during the last year or two of the five-year tour if it was a foregone conclusion that the contract could not be extended beyond the fifth year. The temptation to assignjunior staff to an expiring non-renewable contract, for training proposes, might be too strong for some firms to resist. The issue of rotating external auditors has been under consideration by the CG Secretariat for several years, largely prompted by the practice of some centers never to change audit firms. At one time 85 the suggestionwas made to adopt a policy of rotating firms every seven years. This proved unacceptable to many, and the current view is simply that each Center should at least have an explicit policy concerning rotation. In short, there is not widespread agreement on the frequency with which external audit firms should be rotated, though there does seem to be a consensusthat rotation should occur. The ICARDA Board might prefer to consider a policy that provides more flexibility to adjust rotation periods in response to circumstances, including the quality and cost of performance, likely changes in the frequency of ERs, changes in Management, and major changes in the scope and complexity of ICARDA’ s financial arrangements. 4.5.1.5 Internal audit One of the principal recommendations in the 1988 EMR was that ICARDA should establish an internal audit function with an operational audit focus as well as a financial audit focus. The 1991 Interim EMR noted that the newly appointed Internal Auditor had done some useful work but had not yet undertaken significant audit work per se, and had not performed operational audits. It is gratifying to be able to report that substantial progress in both areas has been made since 1991. The current Internal Auditor was appointed to the position full-time in January 1991. He is a capable and energetic professional who is a Chartered Accountant. He has had over 20 years experience in South Asia and Africa as well as in the WANA region and is thoroughly familiar with ICARDA -having served as its Budget Officer from 1987 to 1991. Reporting directly to the DG, and concurrently to the Board through the AC, he has unrestricted accessto all official records, correspondenceand data. He works directly with Program Leaders and Unit Heads in the development, execution and follow through of audit activities and findings, and he appears to enjoy open and cordial working relationships. His quarterly and annual reports are closely monitored by the AC, and are comprehensive and detailed. They reveal a high degree of concurrence in, and implementation of, audit recommendationsby ICARDA staff and Management. The scope of the audits is comprehensive, covering outposted field operations as well as headquarters, and includes operational auditing. Three operational audits were completed in 1992 and four are planned for 1993. However, operational audits are still somewhat limited in scope, emphasizing controls, procedures and asset management, with only limited attention to the identification and analysis of the cost effectiveness of alternative methods, procedures or organizational arrangements. In part this limited approach is due to the need to gain experience with a new approach to auditing, and in part a reflection of the training and professional experience of the Internal Auditor (accounting and law, rather than managementand economics). The Internal auditor would benefit from additional training if he were to conduct the kind of operational audits that might optimally contribute to the efficiency and efficacy of Center operations. Expenses of the members of the BOT have not been audited, although such expensesclearly fall within the jurisdiction of the Internal Auditor. There is no separateline item in ICARDA’ s budget for the Board, nor is a separate annual report prepared on actual Board expenses. While Board expensesare not sizeable enough to warrant an annual comprehensive audit, a periodic audit of expensesshould be scheduled. The knowledge that expenseswould be audited at least once every three years (i.e., once in the term of each trustee) would help sensitize members to the need to be aware of their own spending 86 practices and the importance of being able to demonstrate concern for fiscal propriety and budgetary economy. 4.5.1.6 Importation of Syrian currency (“the Lebanesewindow”) ICARDA has been importing Syrian currency (purchasedwith US dollars) from Lebanon since 1985, interrupted only by a Board-ordered temporary suspensionin 1989 lasting through the early months of 1990. This practice, while legal and secure, has been a source of some concern to some Board members and the CG Secretariat in the past. Syrian Government regulations allow the importation into the country of any amount of Syrian or other currencies, but has required ICARDA to convert about US$3 million per year through official channels, an amount sufficient to meet payroll requirements. To cover non-salary expenses in local currency, the Board has authorized the importation of Syrian currency to a ceiling of the equivalent of US$2.5 million. The logistical and financial arrangementsand procedures have been substantially improved since 1988. There are adequatechecks to assure integrity in the transactions, current practices assure security of the cash movements and the personnel transporting the funds, cash in transit is covered by insurance (as are the couriers), and cash movements are limited to relatively small amounts to minimize risk. The overall security situation in Lebanon has improved markedly, although ICARDA has never experienced interruption in its Lebanon operations (either in Terbol or Beirut) during the past 17 turbulent years. All currency transactions are processed expeditiously and reliably. Both the external and internal auditors report that they are satisfied that all necessaryprecautions have been taken, and that control procedures are adequate and are enforced. Although conversion rates from Syrian to US currency in Lebanon are still favorable, the differentials are less now than before. As the Syrian Government continues to liberalize currency controls, the advantagewill continue to decline and, perhaps, disappear altogether. In any event, at some. point the difference in rates may become so narrow that it will no longer be worth the added trouble and expense to continue the practice. The present Board monitors the situation carefully, as does ICARDA Management. Over the years, currency exchangegains have made an important and significant contribution to ICARDA’ s favorable liquidity position, and continue to do so. Management is to be commended for its imaginative yet prudent exploitation of this opportunity to strengthen ICARDA’ s financial base. 4.5.2 Human Resources The 1988 EMR found many deficiencies in human resource managementat ICARDA. The 1991 Interim EMR commented on changesand improvements, particularly in areas relating to (a) development of a new personnel policies manual in 1989 that greatly helped overcome problems of “ad hocism” identified in the 1988 EMR, (b) implementation of the new policies, resulting in greater standardization in areas of recruitment and staff appraisal, among others, (c) introduction, for regional staff, of new salary grades that are periodically reviewed, and the initiation of a Center-wide job-equivalency study (involving specification and analysis of the organization charts for all units and updated descriptions of all jobs). 87 The 1991 Interim EMR also highlighted areas (identified in 1988) still requiring further improvement and advised that ICARDA should (a) recruit internationally to appoint a professional to head human-resource efforts, in order to provide the Center with a more forward-looking approach in this area (with specific mention of more systematic training and career development), (b) develop institutional mechanisms for anticipating and dealing with human resource issues, including - (i) more effective and systematic communication, counselling and grievance resolution, (ii) wider sharing of responsibility of “people management”(and strengthening skills of managers to do this effectively), (c) further improve personnel policies (and communication regarding these) and (d) develop a proper safety program. The Panel finds that progress has been made on some fronts. These include further development and clarification of personnel policies, the completion of the job-equivalency exercise and classification, attendance by senior managers in management training, and an increase in staff training overall. In addition, an Ombudsman Committee was appointed and the DOA has reactivated the Safety Committee. The Panel is pleased to find that personnel policies, overall, appear rational and equitably implemented. The Panel is encouraged that the work environment created by many managers at ICARDA appears highly positive, and that the DOA has initiated efforts to meet broader concerns of human resource planning and development raised by the Interim EMR (e.g., development of a middle-managementcourse to be run in 1993). However, its overall assessmentis that human resource management at ICARDA continues to be problematic at the institutional level, in aspectsidentified by earlier review panels along with other aspects noted below. A new Personnel Manager is under recruitment to replace the current incumbent who will be retiring later this year. (ICARDA is undergoing difficulties in identifying a suitable candidate.) The new incumbent, who will report to the DOA, may bring a fresh approach to human resource management. The following are highlights, concerns and ideas proposed by the Panel to improve human resource managementat ICARDA. 4.5.2.1 Personnel policies The Panel is pleased to find that ICARDA does not treat its personnel policies in a static manner, and efforts continue to update and clarify these. Despite these efforts, many international staff with whom the Panel spoke expressed strong concern regarding the logic or clarity of certain policies. In addition, the manual, which covers international and regional staff, is only available in English ICARDA’ s official language. Thus, the Panel suggests that Management redouble efforts for improvements in this area, and consider the translation of the document into Arabic a high priority. It understands that this is presently under-way. The process of reaching personnel policy decisions is important and strongly influences staff morale. Some efforts have been made to include staff in decision-making processes, such as those underway concerning ICARDA’ s housing policy for international staff, but in recent years this has not been the norm. The Panel encourages more efforts in this vein. Although staff consultation need not always be necessarily appropriate, further efforts might be made by Management to communicate how and why decisions are taken. 4.5.2.2 Regional staff This staff category encompassesall who are hired regionally and locally. Their salaries are denominated in the currency of their post (e.g., Syrian for those employed in Aleppo). While regional 88 staff met by the Panel were generally positive about the work environment at ICARDA and turnover is low, morale is low as well. Staff raised a number of concerns (section 4.5.2.9). While staff in general indicated that a reasonably effective system of feedback exists in their units/Programs concerning performance, they perceive little link between the assessmentand rewards. Since 1988, 10% are eligible annually for promotion and 10% for merit/bonus. Given these strict limitations, some supervisors “reward” on the basis of “who’ s been waiting longest,” making staff feel they have little incentive to excel. Furthermore, over 50% of regional staff have reached the ceiling of their salary grade so, unless they are among the promotion/bonus minority, they will receive no monetary reward (no step increase) for effort. The Panel realizes this problem of “career ceiling” is not unique to ICARDA. Related to the appraisal system is that of the compensation package. Apart from the limited incentive system, structural adjustments to base salary have been modest in recent years relative to inflation, and staff see their earnings eroding. Management has been conscientious in the conduct of “local compensationsurveys” that find ICARDA above local comparators -- although the data have been interpreted differently by staff -- and, in holding down salary increases, the relative advantage of ICARDA pay is deteriorating. The existing arrangements of ICARDA’ s compensation practices for this group of staff are historic and complex, particularly as the package includes both local currency and dollar components comparable to UNDP but not local compensationpractices. The Panel did not have the time to study the cost-benefits of the package for ICARDA and its staff, or to compare these with alternative options. The Panel, however, urges ICARDA to examine short- and long-term implications of alternative practices. The Panel believes that a package designedto provide attractive incentives for hard work and excellence, and that is comparable (i.e., similar) to practices of better employers in the local market, would be appropriate and should be implemented. 4.5.2.3 “Casual” work force ICARDA currently has about 185 non-seasonaldaily workers who have been working long-term for the Center. As the number has not changedfrom 1988, it would appear that this group comprises an ongoing and essentialpart of the ICARDA work force (indeed the vast majority of these workers have been employed by ICARDA for over five years). However, these individuals do not enjoy the benefits of regular regional staff. The Panel urges Management to consider the role of the casual work force when developing the “human resource planning and development strategy” discussedbelow. All attempts should be made to restrict a casual pool to seasonalor other short-term activities. 4.5.2.4 International staff “International staff” at ICARDA is composedof “P” (Principal and Managerial) and “RA2/RA3” (Research and Administrative) staff. These employees are, by policy, internationally-recruited and compensated in dollars. (There is also an RAl category of professional staff who are grouped with regional staff as they are recruited and compensatedon a local basis.) 89 Comnensation ICARDA’ s salary structure for international staff is based on a system of grades and steps that, although perhaps surprisingly mechanistic for an organization as small as ICARDA, results in a distribution that does not appear unreasonably inconsistent internally - which was not the case under ICARDA’ s former (pre-1988) administration. It is difficult to compare salary and benefits across CGIAR centers - and with other international comparator organizations - as circumstancesand packagesdiffer. The Panel commends the DG for conducting a salary survey in 1992 in efforts to compare P-level salaries of ICARDA with salaries at other centers. The analysis forms a broad comparison but, given the lack of information on the population under survey (e.g., all international staff or only senior?), more in-depth coverage is needed. The CGIAR Center Directors’ Benefits Committee (which ICARDA’ s DG chairs), has commissioned consultantsto undertake a comprehensivesurvey of compensationacross centers. The Panel welcomes this initiative, and believes that this will provide a much firmer basis upon which to evaluatehow competitive ICARDA is. The Panel urges that, when the results of the survey are available, the Center gives serious consideration to changesthat may be needed to keep ICARDA competitive, as well as innovations that may be possible to improve the value of the package, without altering the overall cost (e.g., offering more of a “cafeteria style” compensation package). Performance Annraisal and Rewards As with regional staff, while international staff feel the appraisal system generally works reasonably at the Program level, they feel the system could be improved at the institutional level. They consider the link between appraisal and rewards to be weak and observe that rewards are extremely limited (the average structural plus merit increase has been about 4% per year over the past few years, with minimal variation in the percentage of merit-increase awarded staff). Furthermore, some staff perceive performance criteria to be somewhat unclear and rather narrow, with recent emphasison journal publication relative to other factors (e.g., training, impact) that reflect ICARDA’ s objectives and the orientation of many positions. Of course, publication in good journals surely has several virtues not always recognized, such as offering “cheap” additional peer review and, for those successful at it, greater mobility from ICARDA when career moves are later considered. In the view of the Panel, ICARDA Management, in consultation with staff, should work towards improving the criteria for performance appraisal. In addition, it urges Management to strengthen the directness of the Iink between performance and rewards. Svstem of Classification As noted in Table 1.1, currently ICARDA has approximately 60 P-level and 38 RA2/RA3-level staff (section 4.5.3-l discussesthe ratio of internationally-recruited administrative to research staff). The system of classification has at least two aspectsof concern to the Panel: . Benefits’ Differential International staff at RA and P levels have different packagesconcerning important benefits (e.g., insurance, dependents’ education allowance, housing). In the view of the Panel, the needs of individuals of these two groups, who live as expatriates in a foreign country, would be the same and the benefits package should reflect this. Perhaps as a result of this differential, many RA staff feel that they are treated as second-classmembers of the international staff by all in the ICARDA community. 90 . Principles of International Recruitment and Cost Although the policy states, “international staff will be recruited by international advertisement,” there are many R42/RA3 positions where this has not been the case, again due to “historical” reasons. Notwithstanding this recognition, the Panel raises its concern in the light of equity issues (relating to competition for a position) and cost considerations(the cost differential between regional and international positions). Management is aware of this issue and has been making an effort to reassessRA2/RA3 vacancies when they occur, then to recruit internationally or reclassify the job as regional and recruit accordingly. In the view of the Panel, financial stringency may dictate a more proactive policy of evaluating international positions, identifying those that by their nature require international recruitment and those that do not, and initiating a fair and rational plan for change. 4.5.2.5 Human resource planning and development The DOA - in consultation with Program Leaders and others - has been involved in an ongoing effort to plan future staffing scenarios for ICARDA that reflect its changing financial situation. In the view of the Panel, this effort should be linked with a proactive human resource planning and development strategy. In terms of staffing, the strategy should take into account international-regional staffing requirements of the future and should correct for past classification discrepancies. It should also address the long-term employment of “casual” workers. The plan should include modifications required in the regional staff compensationpackageto keep it competitive and locally comparable. It should also contain incentives for excellence for all levels of staff. The strategy should also contain a skills/career development component -- which the Panel is pleasedto see has received more attention in recent years (e.g., in Finance staff are encouraged and many have enrolled in an accounting correspondencecourse). Other important aspectsfor consideration include systematic management/leadershiptraining and leadership successionplans. While senior Management will take the lead in developing this plan, the new Personnel Officer should be qualified to play an important role in its design and implementation. The Panel has no desire to second-guessthe elements that will finally be included in such a strategy but it will surely include consideration of the sabbatical leave scheme, its status as a privilege vs. a right and its experience at ICARDA in fostering the sustainedscientific productivity of participants. It will also doubtless give due attention to the special needs of those research personnel assignedto relatively professionally isolated postings in the outreach program. This will probably mean giving higher priority to outreach staff, including the Regional Coordinators, for sabbatical leave -- perhaps also on a shorter cycle than the conventional one. It should also consider a policy for actively rotating staff between headquarters and outreach postings, as discussedin chapter 3. Recommendation 4.9 ICARDA should draw up and implement a human resource planning and development strategy. This should include a comprehensive “human resource needs plan,” a skills/career development component, leadership progression/succession considerations, and a model of appraisal/rewards that is fiscally responsible and organizationally sound. 91 4.5.2.6 Promotion of P-level research staff The current promotion procedures at ICARDA could be enhanced to provide the healthy esprit du corps needed to maximize individual and thus Center-wide productivity. Rather than relying only on internal evaluation of staff progress and merits for promotion, external evaluation of staff by international experts in the candidate’ s field of expertise should be incorporated into the process. This is consistent with the international nature of ICARDA’ s very existence. Since 1988, an in-house evaluation committee is formed to conduct the annual evaluation of all P-level research staff. The committee is comprised of the DDG-R as Chair, the ADG(IC), Program Leaders and a head of one of the research units. It is suggestedthat, for each promotion action, the inhouse evaluation committee for P-level staff (especially P3 and P4), in consultation with the candidate, should select his or her research material to be sent to, say, three external evaluators, with at least one located at another CGIAR research center and, especially if the candidate is outposted in the NARSs, at least one person from NARSs in the region should be included in the set of reviewers. In the latter case, there should be a request for an evaluation also by NARS collaborators of the person’ s effectiveness. The external recommendations would be considered by the in-house committee, which naturally should consider the full range of ICARDA’ s advancementcriteria and would then proceed with recommendations according to the current procedures. Recommendation 4.10 An external evaluation of P-level (especially P3 and P4) staff by international experts in the candidate’ s field of expertise should be incorporated into the promotion review process. 4.5.2.7 Turnover rates and center effectiveness The rate of turnover of research staff can be used to investigate problems of instability or ageing that may affect Center effectiveness. A member of the Panel attempted to address this issue with data generated by the Center for P-level scientists who had left since the beginning of ICARDA until the time of the main phase of the Review. It is generally accepted that the period for a plant breeder to be effective will usually be around eight to 14 years, and the period for physiologists, pathologists and other disciplines may be shorter, say, perhaps up to five years. The data indicate that non-breeder scientists do turn over relatively quickly, with about 60% leaving in the first four years and thus possibly creating an unhealthy degree of instability in the program. The average length of stay for practicing breeders, however, is about 10.5 y, which seems appropriate for ICARDA’ s scientific program. Another set of turnover rates was assembled to compare WANA and non-WANA scientists. ICARDA scientists from outside WANA turn over rapidly and, in that sense, could perhaps be less valuable “investments” for ICARDA. Over one-half of non-WANA scientists had left ICARDA within their first four years of tenure, in contrast to less than one-fifth of WANA scientists. Over one-half of WANA scientists stayed nine years or longer, compared with only one-fifth of non-WANA scientists. Monitoring of turnover may help to provide data for Management to make possible adjustments and maintain a “healthy balance” in various dimensions of staffing. Needless to say, any considered intervention will be difficult in a time of shrinking total budgets. 92 4.5.2.8 Gender and staffing The Panel notes that the proportion of women on the international staff (including post-doctoral fellows) is 13%, which is close to the recent CGIAR average (12% in 1991), as is the proportion in the senior scientist category (7% vs. 9%). Women international staff interviewed by the Panel noted difficulties ICARDA faces in recruiting women to their group, including spouse employment and misperceptions that outsiders have of the region. They commented that they find the environment very safe, tolerant and hospitable (albeit conservative by Western standards), and work-related travel in the region has not presented gender-related difficulties (as some had believed it might). Many international staff at ICARDA consider spouse employment a major factor affecting their well-being and ICARDA’ s prospective recruitment efforts (as at other IARCs). The consultantsfrom the CGIAR Gender Program who visited ICARDA recommended the establishment of a Gender Staffing Committee (in addition to the Gender Analysis and Research Committee), to advise Management on spouse employment and related stafftng issues. The Panel believes that such a Committee could contribute a great deal to Center efforts to addressthese important issues, and urges Management to act accordingly. 4.5.2.9 Grievance procedures Regional staff raised a number of personnel matters in which -- as a group or individually -- they felt they were treated unfairly by the Center. They gave examples of benefits being reduced, individuals being hired for jobs at levels below those advertised, “errors” in contracts that could not be rectified in a reasonable manner, and what they perceived as the Center’ s unreasonablerigidity in applying promotion criteria. International staff also raised a number of personnel issues that, they felt, they could not satisfactorily resolve with the Center. In 1991 the DG appointed an Ombudsman, the ADG-GL, who now chairs an offtcial committee for handling grievances. Since the Committee was appointed, it has handled four cases, recommending solutions to the DG. The Committee has no formal authority and, as it merely makes recommendations to the DG, staff find it easier to go directly to the DG, who has an open-door policy. Other options for staff wishing to resolve grievances include going to the Regional Staff Association or the ICARDA Senior Staff Association, but these associationsserve large constituenciesand are hardly suited to handle personal grievances. The volume of grievances and complaints aired to the Panel convinced it that perfection has yet to be reached in ICARDA’ s machinery for handling grievances. With due regard to the need to be sensitive to personal, cultural and gender considerations, the Panel suggeststhat Management consider modification of the Ombudsman arrangementsto, perhaps, feature a different type of person 1- someone not from Management, possibly female, who is recognized as a sympathetic approachable person. 4.5.2.10 Personnel officer The 1991 Interim EMR strongly recommended that ICARDA hire a P- or RA3-level internationally-recruited professional in human resource managementto lead the Personnel Unit, repeating a need identified in 1988. Although, in the Panel’ s estimation, the appointment of a senior personnel manager would be desirable, the Panel believes that ICARDA’ s decision to instead hire a slightly more junior but professionally-qualified individual at RA2 level (when the current incumbent retires later this 93 year) is responsible under current circumstances. The Panel expects that this individual will work in close consultation with the DOA in addressing the human resource challenges that face the Center, and will effect appreciable changes. 4.53 Administration “Administration” at ICARDA is seen to cover all non-Research and Research-related activities. The Panel first comments on this aspectof Administration and then covers the branch of the organization that comprises the administrative services and facilities. 4.5.3.1 Administration vs. Research - status, staffing and bridging the gap It’ s not unusual in research organizations to find internal frictions between Research and Administration, particularly in the CGIAR, where the Administration often is a large complex designed to provide services that are (or were) not readily available in the local environment. Research and Administration could not exist without each other. Clearly they would both operate a lot more smoothly if they were more attuned to each other’ s interests and work demands, and responsive to these. Better communication is fundamental to improvement. One topic of contention at ICARDA is staffmg levels, and requirements in Administration vs. Research. As Table 1.1 (section 1.3) indicates, since 1988 there has been close to a 36% decrease in the total number of administrative staff at ICARDA. Currently ICARDA has 21 internationally-recruited (dollar-compensatedP and RA2/RA3) staff in Administration (broken down to Management-5, Financed, Administration-lo) compared with 77 internationally-recruited staff in Research (ten of whom are outposted). (The ratio changessomewhat if visiting scientists, post-doctoral fellows, CIMMYT/ICRISAT staff, and the teachers at ICARDA’ s school are included.) Since 1988, this ratio has declined, when it was 74 internationally-recruited staff in Research and 24 in Administration. In the view of the Panel, this staff mix is one important aspect for Center review under the “human resource planning and development strategy” (discussedwith a recommendation in section 4.5.2.5). 4.5.3.2 Administrative services and facilities The 1988 EMR reported that administrative units at ICARDA were not performing well. The current Director of Administration (DOA) assumed his position in 1991 - about two years after the former Director had left. One of his initial activities was to conduct an organizational review of the Administration, in efforts to rationalize the departments and units under his span of control and to explore opportunities for improvement. Thereafter, he modified the organization and has reduced his staffing level -- aiming, among other considerations, to replace dollar-compensated positions with locallycompensatedones, when vacancies and position requirements allow. There is a wide array of departments/servicesin the Administration at ICARDA. These include: Personnel (section 4.5.2), Visitors Office, Travel, Purchasing and Supplies, Stores, Security, International School, Facilities Management, Engineering Services, the Damascus and Beirut Offrces, and other administrative services. The calibre of service (and the nature of problems) varies across these operations. Overall, improvements have been made and, in the Panel’ s view, the DOA has the skills to improve the efftciency and quality of his operations further. Comments on some areasdeserving attention follow. 94 Safety The 1988 EMR and 1991 Interim EMR both recommended that a qualified person be designated as safety officer with responsibility for the implementation of an active safety-awarenessprogram. An individual has not been appointed to assumethis responsibility, due at this stage to budgetary constraints. A satisfactory alternative solution has not been developed. The DOA recently revived ICARDA’ s Safety Committee, and perhaps it will actively change what many staff consider an area of serious concern to the Center. The Panel reiterates the recommendationsof the earlier reviews, that ICARDA designate a point-person in the Center to take charge of safety-related matters. Medical Related to the issue of safety, there are also concerns at ICARDA about the adequacy of the clinic, and ICARDA in general, to respond to medical emergencies. (The clinic is staffed by nurses who provide first aid, and there is a consulting doctor who comes in once, and sometimes twice, a week.) The test of a recent emergency drew attention to the need for improvements in this area. The DOA considers this a priority of his. Communications The Syrian telephone system was recently upgraded to an electronic exchange and telephone and telephone-basedcommunications -- which had been extremely problematic for ICARDA in the past have improved. The Syrian Government granted permission to ICARDA to operate fax machines. Electronic mail messagesare still routed through ICARDA’ s office in Turkey, which is less than ideal. DamascusGuest House ICARDA’ s Damascus Guest House has four rooms and is located in the rental space of ICARDA’ s Damascus Offrce (where a number of administrative activities are conducted). The Office has had some difficulties in stafftng the Guest House (and stafftng is low). The quality of the facilities is not well regarded and improvements could be considered. The DOA expects to explore the costs and benefits of other rental options in Damascus, which the Panel would encourage. Inventories The combined efforts of the Internal Auditor and the Directors of Administration and Finance have resulted in a significant reduction of 32% in the Center’ s inventories of supplies and materials, from US$2.2 million to US$1.5 million by the end of 1992. Further reductions should be possible without impairing the effectiveness of research programs, especially since continuing budget constraints will reduce inventory requirements. Contracting Services Some limited use has been made of contracting with local Syrian sources for services that can be performed effectively at a lower cost (e.g., cleaning services, travel agent services). The Syrian economy has improved in recent years, and satisfactory commercial services are becoming more readily available. Additional opportunities for contracting-out commercial-type activities may be available and should continue to be monitored (e.g., cafeteria services and automobile maintenance and repairs). 95 Service Orientation Administration service units have suffered staff cuts and users are quite aware of the hard work and effort of many administrative staff. Nonetheless, users feel that better services could be provided. The Panel notes concerns raised in its staff survey, and suggeststhat improvements may be possible by (a) reviewing, rationalizing and where possible eliminating “red tape” in administrative operations, co) ensuring that there is equitable provision of services and (c) strengthening quality controls within units. Clearly, an effectively applied system of appraisal-rewards can help promote good service. International School The International School is very important to many of the international staff and is considered by Managementto be an asset for ICARDA’ s efforts to recruit and retain quality people. Since the 1988 Review, four changeshave improved the situation of the school. First, it has been accredited by the Mid Atlantic States of the United States, although the accreditation may be withdrawn if the school fails to address a set of issues. Second, it has raised tuition, allowing ICARDA to reduce its subsidy from $200,000 to $60,000 and is moving toward financial self-sufficiency. Third, its School Management Committee has been changed to include more parent-members and is now more acceptable to the international staff whose children are in the school. Fourth, it has added grades 10, 11, and 12 and an International Baccalaureateprogram. Unfortunately, the Panel was literally barraged by criticisms of the school. A good number of people, both parents and teachers, are very upset becausethey judge the school to provide a poor quality of education. Their principal concerns involve the following perceptions: ICARDA is not committed to making the International School a good school, much less an excellent one; a number of teachers are unqualified to teach, some becauseof deficient credentials, training or experience and some becausethey are not proficient in English; many of the non-ICARDA school children are very poor in English and interfere with the education of the English-speaking children; and the Principal has used very poor judgement in recruitment and the use of monies, has poorly managed the school and has poor working relations with the staff. There is a group that calls for his dismissal. In the judgment of the Panel, the seriousnessof these complaints, the number of people making them, the intensity of their feelings and the importance of the International School to ICARDA’ s success require that the issuesbe addressed,and the new School Management Committee is attempting to do this. Each member met with five teachers individually and concluded that the complaints were largely overstatementsand that the situation is far better than perceived. It has also established a committee to participate in the screening and recruitment of candidates for local and international positions. Though the SMC has acted responsibly, the criticisms, nevertheless, continue. The Panel, therefore, suggeststhat Management consider hiring an educational consultant to study the problems of the school. Another issue that requires attention is the composition of the SMC, which is appointed by the DG. Presently it is chaired by the DOF and composed of ICARDA international staff. Previously, it only had one member who had children in the school and some 33 international staff petitioned that more parents of students be on the Committee. This change has been made and the SMC now has more legitimacy. With the move toward financial autonomy, however, ICARDA should consider adding a representation of non-ICARDA parents elected by the Parents and Teachers Association and might also well add someone elected by ISSA. 96 CHAPTER 5 - THE REVIEW PROCESS 5.1 Efficiency, Efficacy and Expediency Tradeoffs One of the establishedtraditions of the CGIAR System is the commitment to both planning and evaluation practices. The tradition of evaluation is the longer of the two. The rationale for both sets of practices is widely understood, is well-articulated (Qzgediz 1993) and need not detain the reader here. There are concerns, however, that one or both of these sets of practices is rather “overdone” in the System. Extreme statementsgo so far as to argue that the System is being “reviewed to death.” More sanguine observations are that the amount of resources consumed through review processes, and also planning processesas is observed in chapter 4, are consuming a significant share of a resource pie that is not growing and therefore, as must every other aspectof the System’ s work, come in for an ever-closer degree of scrutiny. Such thinking underlies the creation of a permanent Oversight Committee of the CGIAR being canvassedat the time of the Review. It is patently obvious that efficiency aspectsof the process must be - and indeed are being examined critically with a view to achieving greater economies. TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat have already suggested many efficiency-oriented innovations and several (section 5.4) are embodied in the present Review. What is not so readily amenable to attention is the efficacy of the process. Most of the efficiency-oriented changesthat have been introduced have been clearly economizing but they may have had some slight effects in reducing efficacy. Even this latter proposition is not immediately obvious as it may appear, for instance, that a small panel can reach consensusmore quickly than one of the larger more traditional-sized review panels. There are many unknowns in the issue of efficacy. That these remain unknowns is attributable to the inherent diffkulty in, and also the additional cost of, “reviewing the reviews” and measuring any research-productivity-enhancing effects of reviews. Some attention has been given to this, however, although the findings are yet and perhaps necessarily somewhat subjective (Fuglie and Ruttan 1989). Another enduring tradition of the CGIAR review processes is that of “objectivity” and “independence.” Perhaps it is this tradition that has led to less consideration having apparently been given to the third of the “Big El’ s of the title of this section, namely, expediency. It can be anticipated that, should the “budget crunch” continue, this aspectwill necessarilyrise closer to the top of the agenda of those who plan and manage the reviews of the System. Several principles that might guide a more expedient approach include the following: (a) select panel membership with more emphasison continuity rather than novelty of service, (b) experiment with extremely small rather than just smaller panels, (c) eschewfield visits in favor of considering other forms of documentation concerning regional program activities, ideally supplied by both the respective center and a good cross-section of collaborating NARSs, (d) rely more and also more explicitly on input from those donors who already operate an effective and ongoing monitoring and evaluation system applied to investments in IARCs, such as USAID and World Bank to take not random but major-donor examples, and (e) use more resources from and more directly involve input from the personnel of the two Secretariats serving the System. This particular Panel has not had the opportunity to reflect extensively and hardly even briefly on these complex questions. Becauseit is indeed a small Panel and the time allocated for the Review was already abbreviated, the opportunity for doing so was even more limited than it might have been in most casesin recent years. This Panel does, however, feel that the optimal solution in seeking the best point on the tradeoff frontier across these three “Big E” aspectshas yet to be found. The Panel feels that it could have done a better job under different conditions -- for example, (a) had it taken more time and especially had it devoted more effort to more detailed and lower level interaction in NARSs, (b) had it profited from deeper examination of programmatic issues with members of the research staff, and in doing so would have wished to have more disciplinary expertise than was available within the Panel, and (c) had it enjoyed quieter and more conducive working conditions at both Center and hotel. In raising the issuesof efficiency, efficacy and expediency here, the Panel does not do so with any sense of final or even interim judgement but rather to commend to TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat the likely value of close and probably continuing examination of where the best point in the tradeoff may be. It may well be that the situations of the now 18 centers are all so different that there will be 18 different optimal points and, should this be the case, there will be a rather greater requirement for finetuned planning for any particular review. 5.2 Scope of Review and the CGIAR Dependency on NARSs Art aside, perhaps, perfection is seldom part of the human experience. Human institutions are necessarily imperfect, despite whatever efforts are made to make them less so. Such is the natural situation in agricultural research institutions in general and, unsurprisingly, given the multiplicity of its designers and maintenance structures, surely is the situation in the CGIAR system. ICARDA was establishedto work largely within the WANA region, with clear recognition of the difficulties, which range from complex and often troubled political situations between several nations, and even within some nation states,through to fragilities in both the natural environment in which agriculture is practiced and the institutional environment in which agricultural research is undertaken. Clearly, then, any reasonable assessmentmade of its work, either within its own organizational domain or with its partner national research systems, must be made against this background of difficulty and fragility. Perhaps fortunately for the ER Panel, determination of the state of NARSs in the region is beyond its terms of reference. Some judgments about their state are, however, necessary in any endeavor to chart a course for ICARDA. Given the restricted opportunity for forming such judgments, the imperfection of the ER process itself must be emphasized, and acknowledged at the outset as a major qualification to the conclusions ultimately to be drawn. To the extent that these judgments prove to be harsh or insensitive to national aspirations, the ER Panel expressesits regrets for its bluntness occasioned by its search for insight to ICARDA’ s desirable path. The NARSs of the region have developed unevenly, over space and time, from a stage (with a couple of notable exceptions) of rather general undevelopment around the time of establishment of ICARDA. The challenge faced by ICARDA, especially as recognition of the importance of institutional enhancementof NARSs has grown and gained declared importance and status among CGIAR objectives, has been and continues to be great indeed. Several aspects of the diagnosis of ICARDA’ s needs and research opportunities are best viewed as exercises in planning under uncertainty, although the extent of uncertainty has seldom been recognized as such in deliberations on these matters. Indeed, on the basis of the “fieldwork” conducted in NARSs in the coverage of this ER, some tentative hypotheses can be advanced. In doing so the intention is to suggest some lines of inquiry that the Panel believes might fruitfully be followed up in a separate investigation, since it is clearly beyond the scope of any particular CGIAR ER and, indeed, beyond even the mandate of a center such as ISNAR. In fact, ISNAR “misses out” on at least two grounds, namely, its obligatory (resource-constrained) concentration on relatively small and but few national systems, and, perhaps more significantly in the current context, through its role as a collegiate “helper” rather than stern appraiser. The latter creates some fundamental asymmetries, the effects of which are shared to an extent by all CG institutions. 98 These asymmetriesmay appear somewhat trivial but since they are encountered in the context of all ERs, including especially the present one, it is perhaps worth belaboring the point, since other ERs have seemingly judged the topic as excessivelythorny or too negatively political to raise. Some historical context may help introduce the topic in this brief consideration here. The “early generation” IARCs were widely regarded as useful, helpful, mission-oriented, sometimes successful, but often “arrogant,” particularly in their tendency to ride roughshod over the sensitivities of sometimes fledgling NARSs, as they got on with the imperatives of making “two blades grow where but did one.” The varied successesand fortunes surely contributed to the growing recognition that, ultimately, it was NARSs themselves that would have to take much responsibility for generating the productivity gains in the less-developedworld’ s food-producing sectors, whilst still protecting the integrity of the natural resource base. So it has come to pass that the CGIAR institutions now all feature an explicit commitment to help to build “capacity” (and, it is to be presumed, productivity) in NARSs. For an ER, this naturally leads to questions of NARSs and to the effectiveness of particular IARCs in fostering “capacity building,” whether this be through formal “human resource development” initiatives or through various forms of research collaboration. A major asymmetry is that NARSs, as NARSs, are seldom subject to the same type of ER process and, even if they were, perhaps the question of their overall efficiency might not come up, at least as it might be perceived by “outsiders” such as collaborating CGIAR centers. In fact, and not too surprisingly given the sensitivity of collaborative working arrangements, the centers have been remarkably reluctant to rate, or even be seen to rate, NARS research (or other) capacity. Thus, NARSs are being asked in some detail about the nature and quality of what they are receiving from the IARCs but the IARCs are obliged to be very circumspect about what it is that they believe they should be offering (differentiated by client), and are naturally inclined to overstate what it is that they have been and are offering (usually not very clearly differentiated by individual NARS recipient). In keeping with the tradition of a focus on the reviewed Center, this ER too will largely be silent on assessingthe NARSs with which ICARDA works, but other observers are not so confined. To take the case of just one NARS, and one judged by most as a relatively large, strong and mature WANA NARS, the World Bank (1992, p.13) has opined that, in Turkey, me “main constraints for an effective development of agricultural research . . . have included: (4 ineffective priority setting for planning, programming, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation stemming from inadequatepolicy guidance and... the coordination of all research in MARA; the overall fragmentation of the former MAFRA’ s agricultural research with its 67 research institutes in four General Directorates and with partly overlapping responsibilities...; cc> 60 low staff morale due to inadequate schemesof service compared with other Turkish institutions and comparable positions (universities) and frequent transfer of research personnel...; and concentration of research activities, personnel and facilities in the more developed regions of Turkey to the neglect of research in the less developed regions...” These and other difficulties are widespread in the WANA region and it is salutary to reflect upon them whilst contemplating ICARDA’ s achievementsand challenges. Readers may be surprised to encounter these discursive remarks in an ER Report. The Panel felt it useful, however, to place these concerns “on the table” to help develop the context, especially regarding 99 NARS linkages. There are several prongs to the evolving CGIAR approach, notwithstanding its institutional expansion in the absence of resource growth, including ecoregional initiatives and NARS capacity-building emphases. It is the latter that has particularly troubled the Panel as it has struggled to deal with the demanding questions that naturally arise, including the following questions extracted from the current Terns of Referencefor ERs: (3 Does the Center’ s strategy reflect a thorough understanding of the needs of the Center’ s principal clients and of the relevant activities of its partners and collaborators? Are national authorities satisfied with the Center’ s strategy? How effectively does the Center’ s training program meet the needs of national research systems? How successful has the Center been in managing its relations with clients in developing countries.. .? Is the Center’ s strategy for collaboration with national research systems appropriate considering the sizes and stagesof development of these systems ? Are the priorities for collaborative work accorded to individual countries . . . appropriate? What contributions has the Center made to strengthening national research systems through training, institution building, collaborative research and technical assistance? (6) (12) (43) (44) (48) Since NARSs’ “needs” and other related information are hardly assessable or even identifiable in a Panel visit of a day or two, the discomfort inevitably felt by Panel members will be all too evident. Worse, NARS leaders and other offtcials are practiced and skilled in sharing perspectives and situation analyses with members of the donor community, of the IARC community and visiting peripheral groups such as ER panels in a manner that is naturally (and properly) self-serving and that is not necessarilyvery readily incorporated into a balanced overall assessment of how and how well a center has been operating and how much better it might be. These discomforting observations lead this Panel to suggest that some fresh approaches to ER tasks are required if NARS-oriented issuesare to be adequately dealt with in future reviews. Minimally, it seems to the Panel, the same sort of judgmental torch might well, with their agreement, be shone on the relevant NARSs - perhaps on some rotational basis from ER to ER -- as on the center itself. Only in this way could a holistic assessmentof internationally or externally funded agricultural research interventions be properly made. 5.3 Some Potentidly Useful Instruments 5.3.1 A Survey of NARS Clients and Collaborators The growing and proper recognition of (a) the importance of capacity-building work towards the sustainablefunctioning of NARSs and (h) the vital need to engagethe research personnel of NARSs more effectiveIy in the work of IARCs has been emphasizedat several points in the Report (notably in section 3.3, sub-section 4.4.4 and more generally in section 5.2). It is thus consistent for the Panel to have sought the views of people in NARSs as a key input to this review. 100 This process had three main elements, two explicit and one implicit. The implicit element is that (unfortunately) only one of the Panel members happens to be from the WANA region NARSs. Indeed, he directs the largest NARS in the region and -- quite apart from the disciplinary skills and research administration experience for which he was invited to join the Panel -- brings a perception of and sensitivity to the NARSs’ needs that otherwise would have been unavailable to the Panel’ s deliberations. The explicit elements, were, first, the country visits made by Panel members, discussedelsewhere in this chapter, and second, the questionnaire survey of selected research workers and administrators in NARSs, administered by the TAC Secretariat. Description of the survey, the major results and some evaluative comment are all reported in Appendix 4. Meantime, a few comments on the process are in order. Respondentsare not chosen at random and hence the response data are not easily amenable to statistical analysis. It also clearly emerged in the qualitative responsesof the respondents that individual bias, be it a local, institutional or personal bias, was strongly reflected in the responses. Individual bias and commitment to specific programs is inevitable in surveys such as this. At issue is the method of sampling and the eliciting of client opinion, which, in the view of the Panel, is essential to the Center’ s program. The Panel considers that the present survey method should be redesigned or, unless changed for the better, abandoned. 5.3.2 A Survey of ICARDA Research Staff The Panel designed and administered a questionnaire of Center research staff, to solicit their views on a number of research managementissues. The research staff responded in large numbers and many provided relatively thorough answers. In fact, some were very insightful and articulate. The responseswere very useful in obtaining feedbackon strengths and weaknesses of ICARDA’ s Management from the point of view of the researchers. It alerted the Panel to many issuesto follow up on the second stage of the review. It was an efficient method (from the point of view of the Panel) for obtaining researchers’perceptions. It may not have been time-efficient from the point of view of the researchers, but it did give them the opportunity to provide input to the Panel on the management side in a way that can be synthesized relatively easily. It should be pointed out that the results of the survey must be interpreted cautiously. The questions (Appendix 5) were open-ended so there was considerable variation in topics brought up in response. This means that it is difficult to assesshow much support there was for particular ideas or attitudes. Another problem with this method is its tendency to surface negative comments more than positive comments. Both the analyst and readers must take this into account when interpreting the data. Nevertheless, this negativity is functional in alerting the Panel to issuesthat need to be examined further in face-to-face interviews with appropriate informants. The Panel’ s experience with this method leads it to recommend its use in this type of review, but always with further follow up. It was pointed out to the Panel that the picture that emerges is bottom-up rather than top-down. It must be balanced with the Management view of the same issues. One suggestion for future use of this method is that a few close-endedquestionsshould be included on topics for which the distribution of staff opinions is desirable. Nevertheless, the bulk of the questionnaire should be open-ended questions that give the respondents freedom to express their views in their own terms. 101 5.3.3 Other Approaches to Data Gathering and Analysis There are, of course, many other analytical devices and approachesthat could find utility in a review of a center. For instance, a comparative analysis using financial data from several centers may help to throw light on the situation at one under review and this has been done in a number of recent reviews. Another process, adopted here, was to conduct interviews on an individual basis with all members of the Board, by a small subset of the Panel (including the Chair), and this seemed to work well. Other special-purpose analysescan be made, such as the one on researcher-turnover rate described in section 4.5.2.7, and these could be extendedto individualized “skills analyses”if there were perceived to be disciplinary deficiencies in a center. Analyses of publication trends and citations may also provide useful input to a Panel’ s assessment. 5.4 Exploratory Innovations and Lessons at ICARDA 1993 The main novel feature of the Panel’ s approach to gaining information from the Center was to attempt a transparent and iterative process. One aspect of this that has been used in some other recent reviews was the survey of researchstaff discussedin section 5.3.2; the Panel shared its summary analysis of the results of the survey with staff. Another possible departure from convention was the preparation of draft sections of the report, together with country-specific field-trip notes, that were shared with Center Management and staff in the weeks leading up to the second phase of the Review. This, in turn, permitted the Center to assemble written responses to some of the draft material for clarification of misunderstandingsapparent in the draft documents. It is easy to “overdo” such a process of convergence of understanding but, on balance, the Panel was inclined to think that it was probably a worthwhile step. Some surprise was expressedby some Panel members about some of their draft material being circulated when it was not expressly written for such purpose. The Chair of the Panel regrets having circulated some of these unpolished documents, but observes that sometimes a succinct blunt note can serve to sharpen and speed an exchange of views. Notwithstanding this observation about dialogue with Center staff, the Chair also regrets that draft Review documentsthat had not yet even been reviewed by the Panel itself were made available to Board members arriving before the Review was completed. 5.4.1 The Combination of Program and Management Review The combination EPR-EMR is no longer a novel feature of reviews since it has now been done on several occasions and has been agreed to be the norm for the future. This Panel agrees with the advantageof such a combination and notes, in particular, that at least one issue, which should have been addressedearlier at ICARDA, rather “slipped through the slats” in the context of an Interim Management (only) Review. This is the matter of an “improved” central management structure per se having the claimed negative effects on research morale and efficiency. Combined reviews would, it is believed, in all likelihood avoid such potential oversights in the future. It does suggest, however, that even interim reviews should consider aspectsof both program and management issues, even if they are concentrated on one side or the other. 5.4.2 Enhancement of the Panel by Consultants One of the ideas experimented with in the ICARDA Review was to supplement a small panel by one or more consultants chosen to make for a more complete set of relevant disciplinary experiences and expertise. In the present case, two consultantsjoined the Panel as effectively full members for the first phase of the review, including some of the field visits. Without getting into particularities, the Panel feels that this arrangement worked especially well. The Panel found the contributions of the consultants to be very useful in their interim and main-phasedeliberations. Indeed, taking this idea to its absurdity, one 102 could contemplate a review consisting of just one person working with a set of specialized consultant reports. 5.4.3 Active Involvement of Secretariat Staff A significant enhancement of the present “small panel” was achievedthrough having a more than conventional level of involvement and information-gathering activities by the two Secretariat staff members who participated in the Review. At the behest of the Chair, both of them for most of the Review served roles largely indistinguishable from those of Panel members. Both, however, chose not to be party to the Panel’ s decision-making process. Donors doubtlesswish to be assuredthat their expectationconcerning the degree of independence and objectivity is met in the conduct of Panel deliberations. The Panel itself was conscious of this requirement but has no regrets to express about the active involvement of the two staff members of the Secretariats in this particular instance. Indeed, the Panel wishes to express its gratitude for their continued, constructive and energetic efforts towards the completion of this report on the tight schedule that was set. 5.4.4 Shortened Main-Phase Visit The only real certainty in the main phase was the timing of the delivery of the final report to Management for reproduction for the consideration of the Board. Working back from this agreed date and deciding on a time that would be both more or less adequatefor the task ahead but economizing on time and resources of both Panel members and the affected Center was, as it always surely is, a matter of some judgement and subjectivity. In this Review, the Panel - at the Chair’ s suggestion -- decided during their initial visit to ICARDA to reduce the main phase from three weeks to two. In allowing merely a two-week period for this process, and with due regard to the iterative and consultative aspects noted above, the operation proved to be a very tight one indeed. There were surely several “costs” implicit in the tightness that emerged. One was the more restricted time available for consultation of individual Center staff members with the members and Chair of the Panel. Another “cost,” and surely a more serious one, was the highly constrained time available for the Panel as a whole to deliberate on drafts and to seek balance of judgement and consistency of treatment across material of disparate nature and refinement. The Panel seesthis problem as yet another aspect of the imperfections alluded to in the opening paragraphs of section 5.2. That said, the Panel feels that it is sufficiently aware of the complex of issues raised by staff who approached the Panel and that more extensive consultation on such more personal perspectives and grievances may not have yielded much additional insight to its deliberations. 103 Appendix 1 Terms of Reference for the Third External Program and Management Review of ICARDA Backoround The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has charged its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) with the responsibility of conducting External Program Reviews (EPRs) of those International Agricultural Research Centers (Centers) that it supports financially. The CGIAR has assigneda similar responsibility to its Secretariat for External Management Reviews (EMRs). TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat normally discharge these responsibilities by commissioning either separate panels or a joint panel to conduct the reviews. In commissioning panels, neither TAC nor the CGIAR Secretariat delegates its responsibility for reviews, but both use panels to facilitate the process. Panels submit their reports for consideration by TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat before they are transmitted to the CGIAR. While the main recommendationsmade by panels are normally endorsed both by TAC and the CGIAR, such endorsement cannot be presumed by either the panels or the Center under review. Equally, as autonomous institutions, Centers are not obliged to implement the endorsed recommendations. In practice, however, they usually implement most, if not all of them. Puruose Through its support of International Centers, the CGIAR aims to contribute to increasing sustainable crop, livestock, fish and tree production in developing countries in ways that improve the nutritional level and general economic well-being of low-income people. The purpose of external reviews is to help to ensure that the Centers continue to implement strategies and programs that are relevant to these goals; that they maintain or enhance their record of achievement; and that they are efficiently managed. In these ways, external reviews reinforce mechanismsof accountability within the System. EPRs and EMRs are also essential components of the CGIAR’ s integrated planning process. The context in which they are undertaken is to be found in the document “Review Processesin the CGIAR.” The Review Against this background, the panel is requested to make a thorough and independent appraisal of the Center and all its activities, following the broad topics below, as well as the appended list of questions and guidelines. Panels are encouraged to set their findings in the broader context of the CGIAR System, where this is relevant to the activity or program under review. Appendix 1 Terms of Referencefor the Third External Program and ManagementReview of KXRDA Page 105 A. Recent Evolution of the Center Important changesaffecting the Center since the previous external review. B. Mandate The continuing appropriatenessof the Center’ s mandate in relation to the mission and goals of the CGIAR. C. Stratew and Programs The policies and strategies of the Center, their coherence with CGIAR strategies, and the mechanismsused for monitoring and revising them. The extent to which the Center’ s strategy is reflected in its current programs; the rationale for any proposed changesby the Center and their implications for future activities. The quality of current programs and activities. D. Center Guidance. Values and Culture The overall effectivenessof the Center’ s Board of Trustees in governing the Center, and the effectivenessof leadership throughout the Center. The Center’ s guiding values and culture, and their influence on the Center’ s performance. E. Program Owanization and Manapement The mechanismsin place at the Center to ensure the excellenceof the programs and costeffective use of resources. The adequacyof the Center’ s organizational structure, and the mechanisms it uses to manage and coordinate its research programs and related activities. F. Resources and Facilities, and their Management The financial resources available to the Center in relation to its present and future programs. The land, laboratories and services available for supporting the programs. The Center’ s human resources. The Center’ s information resourcesand facilities. Appendix 1 Terms of Referencefor the Third External Program and ManagementReview of ICARDA Page 106 G. External Refationshius The Center’ s relationships with national research systems’in developing countries. Collaboration with advanced institutions in research and training, in both the public and private sectors. Collaboration with other CGIAR Centers and international agricultural research institutions, and undesirable overlap of activities. The Center’ s relationships with the government of its host country or countries and with institutions therein. H. Achievements and Impact The Center’ s overall impact, its contribution to the achievement of the mission and goals of the CGIAR, and the methods used for making such assessments. Recent achievementsof the Center in research and other activities. The potential of the Center’ s current and planned activities for future impact. The ReDort and Recommendations Panels are requestedto prepare succinct reports in plain language (understandable to nontechnical readers), in which factual material is kept to the minimum necessaryto set the conclusions in context. Reports should include clear endorsementsof the Center’ s activities where appropriate, as well as recommendations and suggestionsfor changes. Recommendationsshould be justified by the analysis and approved by panel members. Recommendationsfor increasesin staff or activities should be accompaniedby analyses of their resource implications. Reports should be formally transmitted to the Chairman of TAC and the Executive Secretary of the CGIAR by panel Chairs. ’ National research systems include all those institutions in the public and private sectors, including universities, that are potentially capable of contributing to research related to the development of agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Appendii 1 Terms of Referencefor the Third External Program and ManagementReview of ICARDA Page 107 List of Questions for External Reviews These questions supplementthe Terms of Reference and illustrate the types of question the panel should consider in each category. They apply to most, but not necessarilyto all CGIAR Centers. In addition, TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat usually compile a short list of questions that are specific to the Center under review. In preparation for each review, the questions are circulated to the members of the CGIAR and the Center inviting them to comment and, if considered essential, to add supplementary questions. The panel is not required to answer all questionsexplicitly, but to take them into account in making its own assessment of the most important ones. A. Recent Evolution of the Center 1. What important changeshave taken place in the Center since the previous external review? What were the principal reasonsfor change? What are the likely effects of these changeson the future performance of the Center? How responsive was the Center to the previous review? 2. B. Mandate 3. 4. How appropriate are the Center’ s operational mandate and mission statement in relation to the changing mission and goals of the CGIAR? How well do the present and planned activities of the Center relate to the mandate and the mission of the Center? C. Strategv and Proprams 5. Does the Center have an up-to-date and well-reasoned strategy statement? In particular, does it: G-9 reflect a thorough understanding of the needs of the Center’ s principal clients and of the relevant activities of its partners and collaborators? environment? s external Co> take into account the major changesexpected to occur in the Center’ cc> 60 03 spell out the Center’ s aims and objectives in different program areas and provide a clear justification for them? take into account the Center’ s internal strengths and weaknessesand the financial constraints likely to be faced? provide a clear justification for the future scale of the Center’ s operations? Appendix 1 Terms of Referencefor the Third External Program and ManagementReview of ICARDA Page 108 6. 7. 8. Are national authorities satisfied with the Center’ s strategy and did they have adequate opportunity to contribute to its formulation? Does the Center’ s allocation of resources to its programs reflect the priorities appropriately? Are the planned directions and priorities within programs appropriate? Does the Center’ s strategy sufficiently take into account the determinants of sustainableproduction, the alleviation of poverty and preservation of the quality of the environment? Has the Center analyzed the operational implications of its future strategy and priorities in terms of finance, staff and other aspects? How well is the Center’ s current strategy reflected in its programs and activities? How successful has the Center been in reaching its major objectives in each major program area since the previous external review? Have the approaches adopted been the most appropriate for the problems to be solved? What has been the quality of the Center’ s work in each program area? How effectively does the Center’ s training program meet the needs of national research systems? How much attention has the Center paid to gender considerations in planning and implementing its program activities? Is this adequate? Does the Center give appropriate attention to post-harvest technology? Has the Center made adequateprovisions from its core funds for work on genetic resources? How effectively is this work exploited for the benefit of developing countries? 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. D. Center Guidance. Values and Culture 16. 17. Is the Center’ s legal status appropriate for fulfilling its mission? How effective has the Center’ s board been in determining policy and providing oversight? How effective has it been in managing its internal affairs (e.g., planning, internal board structure, member selection and development, managing meetings, etc.)? Are board-management relationships based on openness, respect for each other’ s roles, and mutual trust? Does the board regularly assessand provide feedback on the performance of the director general on the basis of explicit and objective criteria? 18. Terms of Referencefor the Thii Appendix 1 External Program and ManagementReview of ICARDA Page 109 19. How effectively has the Center been led by the director general and the management team since the previous external review ? How well do senior managers work as a team? What principal guiding philosophies appear to shape the action of the board, management and staff? Are they conducive to high performance? (Among ‘ others, consider attitudes towards creativity, accountability, efficiency, and organizational change.) What are the main features of the Center’ s current organizational culture? Do aspects s organizational culture of this culture serve as barriers to performance? Is the Center’ in harmony with its strategy, structure and managementpractices? 20. 21. E. Program Organization and Management 22. Has the Center developed an organizational structure suited to good program performance? What coordination mechanismsare in place? Are they effective? Are there alternative structures that could serve the Center better in the future in the light of the Center’ s strategy? How effectively are the Center’ s decentralized activities linked with those at the headquarters? Do the staff outside the headquartershave adequateopportunities to contribute to overall planning and decision making? How effective are the Center’ s strategic and operational (i.e. medium term and ? How well are they linked to budgeting? Do these annual) planning processes processesensure sufficient consideration of the views of the Center’ s clients and other key stakeholders? Does the Center have an effective planning and managementsystem for projects or activities? How effective are the Center’ s program monitoring and internal review systems and processes? Does the Center have an effective peer review or a similar quality control process? Do staff work effectively in teams? Do the structure and operating procedures of work-groups facilitate cooperation and teamwork? Do the Center’ s program organization and managementprocesses ensure efficiency and internal accountability? Are they conducive to innovation? 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. F. Resources and Facilities 29. How effective has the Center been in organizing, staffing and managing its human, financial, administrative and information resources? Appendix 1 Terms of Referencefor the Third External Program and ManagementReview of ICARDA Page 110 Human Resources 30. Has the Center been able to attract and retain international and local staff of the highest calibre? Is the turnover rate one that ensures program continuity as well as healthy infusion of new staff into programs? Does the Center have appropriate personnel policies for international and local staff stationed at the headquarters and outside it? Are they seen to be fair and consistent? (Consider policies for staff recruitment, orientation, compensation, performance planning and assessment,career development, tenure, spouse employment, retirement, etc.) Does the Center actively promote recruitment, retention and career development of women? Are there barriers to women’ s advancementin the Center? How successful are managers and supervisors in managing people? In particular, how skilful are they in planning, coordinating and delegating work, communicating effectively, and motivating, developing and rewarding staff? How satisfied are staff at all levels with their jobs? How are morale, trust, communication and teamwork perceived among the staff! Finance 35. How successful has the Center been in securing funds for its activities? How stable is the Center’ s funding? Does the Center have a fund-raising strategy, and how effectively is fund-raising managed? Does the proportion of the Center’ s budget received as restricted funding distort the Center’ s strategy and the priorities accorded to its various activities? How effective are the systems and processesused for financial management of headquarters and field operations? (Consider financial planning, analysis, reporting 0 internal and external auditing, and cash and and control, accounting, budgetin,, currency management.) How strongly is financial managementlinked with program management? How much financial responsibility do the program staff have? Administration 39. 40. How successful has the Center been in establishing an administrative infrastructure that meets the needs of staff in an efficient manner? How cost-effective are the systems and policies used for managing the Center’ s: 31. 32. 33. 34. 36. 37. 38. Appendix 1 Terms of Referencefor the Third External Program and ManagementReview of 1CARDA Page 111 property (e.g., maintenance,development, construction, rental); general services (e.g., security, housing and dormitories, food services, transport, travel services); procurement operations (e.g., foreign and local purchasing, receiving, stores)? Information 41. 42. How successful is the Center in acquiring, generating and managing the information it needs for decision-making, communication and integration of activities? How effectively are information services and technology managed? (Consider computerization, telecommunications,records management, archives, library, and documentation.) G. External Relationshios 43. How successfulhas the Center been in managing its relations with: clients in developing countries; institutions in the host country of its headquartersand of its substationsin other countries; public and private sector institutions in developed and developing countries (including other CGIAR centers); donors, the CGIAR and TAC; the media and the general public? 44. Is the Center’ s strategy for collaboration with national research systems appropriate considering the sizes and stagesof development of these systems? Are the priorities for collaborative work accorded to individual countries (in particular, the host country) appropriate? Does the Center actively promote a strategy of collaboration in international research with national systemsand regional research organizations? H. Achievements and Imnact 45. 46. what mechanisms does the Center have in place to monitor its achievementsand impact? Are these adequate? How does the need to demonstrateimpact influence the Center’ s priorities and strategies? Is there a tendency for long-term consideration to be sacrificed for shortterm gains? Appendix 1 Terms of Referencefor the Third External Program and ManagementReview of ICARDA Page 112 47. 48. What have been the most notable achievementsof the Center since the previous external review? What benefits have developing countries derived from the Center’ s work since the previous review? What contributions has the Center made to strengthening national research systems through training, institution building, collaborative research and technical assistance? What is the Center’ s potential for further impact, given its planned activities? Do these justify continued donor support for the Center? Is there a case for increasing the Center’ s funding level? Could funding be reduced without seriously affecting the Center’ s potential for further impact? 49. I. List of Sunnlementarv Ouestions 1. 2. 3. Should ICARDA’ s role and mandate be reassessedat this stage in light of the very significant changes in Eastern Europe and Central Asia? In view of the rapidly increasing food deficit in the WANA region, should ICARDA’ s mandate be broadened to include irrigated agricultural production systems? What is the current status of ICARDA’ s research program on broad (faba) bean in reference to TAC’ s recommendation (1988) that this program (with the exception of germplasm collection) should be phased out by 1992? What is the outcome of ICARDA’ s in-depth cost\benefit analysis of research on lentil as recommended by the 1988 EPR and endorsed by TAC? How does the Center justify its low allocation of resources to livestock research relative to its high investment in food legumes in view of the importance of livestock in the region, as highlighted in ICARDA’ s Strategic Plan? Does the Center undertake socioeconomic research to underpin its research prioritization work and to strengthen its research planning mechanisms, its evaluation of research findings, technology transfer and impact assessment? 4. 5. 6. Appendix 2 ICARDA External Review Team Dr. Jock R. Anderson (Chair) Agriculture and Natural Resources Department World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 Dr. Kurt Finsterbusch Department of Sociology University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742 Dr. Adel S. El-Beltagy First Undersecretary for Land Reclamation Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Cairo, Egypt Mr. Graham Jenkins PBI Cambridge Maris Lane Trumpington Cambridge CB2 2LQ England Dr. Peter Trutmann Department of Plant Pathology Cornell University 334 Plant Science Building Ithaca, New York 14853-5908 Mr. William Carlson (initial phase) 4620 Butterworth Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20016 Dr. John McIntire (initial phase) Senior Agricultural Economist, Rm I 7107 World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 Ms. Elizabeth Field CGIAR Secretariat, Rm N 5061 World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 Dr. Vivian Timon TAC Secretariat/FAO Via delle Terme di Caracalla Rome 00100, Italy Appendix 2 Panel Composition and Biographical Information Page 114 Jock R. Anderson Jock Anderson is an Australian agriculturalist, Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Economics at the University of New England, Armidale N.S.W., presently serving as a Principal Economist in the World Bank’ s Vice-Presidency for Environmentally SustainableDevelopment. He has worked for and with many elements of the CGIAR system, including in 1984-5 as Director of the CGIAR Impact Study. He is a Fellow of the World Academy of Productivity Science and a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science. Adel El-Beltagy Adel El-Beltagy is currently Director of the Agricultural Research Center, Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture. In this position he coordinates and initiates worldwide agricultural activities between the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation and international agricultural organizations. Plant stress physiology being his area of expertise, Dr. El-Beltagy develops and supervises a multidisciplinary experimental research program in this specialization. He has supervised, coordinated and chaired numerous development projects conducted by organizations such as UNDP, FAO, World Bank, USAID, and Finida. Since 1991 he has chaired the Egyptian Steering Committee for the Regional Program for Nile Valley, which is coordinated by ICARDA. Amongst many other professional responsibilities Dr. El-Beltagy serves as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands (ACSAD) and General Secretary of the International Commission for Desert Development. Kurt Finsterbusch Kurt Finsterbusch is a professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland, U.S.A. and is currently working on a book on development project effectivenessand sustainability. He has conducted research for both USAID and the World Bank on the factors contributing to successful projects and on ways to improve organizational performance in less-developedcountries. He has studied the agricultural research system of Sri Lanka, developed methods for assessingthe social impacts of projects and programs, and examined the role of participation in externally funded development activities. Graham Jenkins Graham Jenkins is presently the Plant Breeding Director at Plant Breeding International Ltd., Trumpington, Cambridge, U.K. (formerly the Plant Breeding Institute). He has spent most of his career in cereal breeding, initially with rice in West Africa and later with oats, barley and spring wheat in the U.K. From 1979-83 he was Scientific Adviser for Plant Breeding at the Agricultural and Food Research Council in London. On his return to Cambridge as Head of Cereals and Deputy Director of the Institute he was involved in its transition to a private company in October 1987 as the Acting Director. Appendix 2 Panel Composition and Biographical Information Page 115 Peter Trutmann Peter Trutmann is a Swiss plant pathologist specializing on Integrated Pest Management, who presently is a ResearchFellow at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. He has conducted research on temperate and tropical pastures and both grain and forage legumes. From 1984-1991, he was a senior scientist for CIAT in Africa and Colombia. William Carlson William Carlson is an independent consultant on agricultural/development planning and management. Retired from the U.S. Department of Agriculture after 23 years of service, the last five as Director of the Department’ s Office of Planning and Evaluation, he has served as consultant in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America as well as to agenciesof the U.S. Federal and State governments. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of CIAT. John McIntire John McIntire is a Senior Agricultural Economist with the operations area of the World Bank, presently concentrating on agricultural and rural resource development and reform in Mexico and Central America. Dr. McIntire worked on technology assessment and livestock policy analysis for ICRISAT and ILCA for nearly 10 years in Africa before joining the Bank. Elizabeth Field Elizabeth Field is a managementspecialist at the CGIAR Secretariat in the World Bank and has participated in many external reviews of CGIAR centers. Prior to joining the Bank, she worked. as a management systems analyst at IITA. Vivian Timon Viv Timon is presently Senior Agricultural ResearchOfficer in the TAC Secretariat. Trained in animal breeding, he worked in the Irish Agricultural Research Institute in different capacities (research officer to Assistant Director) from 1963-85. In this period, he also held lecturer and professorship posts in Animal Breeding at North Carolina State University and the National University of Ireland. Prior to joining TAC, he worked as Senior Officer in the FAO Animal Production and Health Division from 1985-92. Appendix 3 List of Persons and Institutions Contacted Middle East Region 1. Syria (January 29-31, 1993) Ministrv of Agriculture H.E. Dr. Asa’ d Moustapha, Minister of Agriculture Ministrv of Planning H.E. Dr. Abdul Rahim Subei, Minister of Planning Dr. Toufik Ismail, Deputy Minister of State for Planning Affairs Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and Drv Lands - Arab League (ACSADI Dr. Mohamed El-Khash, Director General Ing. Nuri M. Rohuma, Assistant Director General Dr. Muhammad F. Wardeh, Director, Department of Animal Wealth Dr. Jean Khouri, Director, Water Resources Division Dr. M.A. El-Shorbagy, Director, Plant Studies Division Prof. Arlani Abdelgawad, Director of Soil Division Ing. Ryad Saad Eddin, Economist Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOl Dr. Joseph Chami, FAO Representative United Nations Develonment Program rUNDP) Mr. Kyaw Lwin Hia, UNDP Representative Syria (April 20-21, 1993) Ministrv of Agriculture. Directorate of Agricultural Research. Douma Dr. Khalil Abdul Halim, Plant Pathology Section Mr. Salah Shaabi, Plant Pathology Section Dr. Ali Shehadeh, Deputy Head, Field Crops Section and leader of Cereals Research Division Douma Substation. Karhata Mr. Reiad Balish, Station Manager Mr. Ashmad Balleh, Barley Breeder Appendix 3 List of Personsand Institutions Contacted Page 117 Mr. Yousef Athman, Wheat Program Mr. Yehuja Abu Majena, Wheat Breeder Mr. Ziad Hallak, Wheat Breeder Directorate of Irrigation and Water. Douman Dr. George Some, Director Ministrv of Defense. Meteorological Denartment Research Dr. Dr. Dr. Mr. Dr. Mr. 2. N. Al-Shalabi, Deputy Director, Head of CIimatology Mahmun Hafez, Climatology Division Srour Al Hazim, Agro-meteorlogy Division Abdul Khadir Kurdi, Agro-meteorology Division Mahmum Tuneh, Computer Modelling Imad Khalil, WMO Liaison Jordan (January 31 - February 2, 1993) Ministrv of Agriculture H.E. Dr. Fayez Khasawneh, Minister of Agriculture . Jordan Universitv of Scienceand Technology (JUST) Prof. Naji M. Abuirmeileh, Dean Faculty of Agriculture and Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Dr. Mohamad Al Ajlouni, Assistant Professor of Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture Dr. Foud Al-Momani, Researcher Plant Biotechnology Mr. Abdullah Abu-Ein, ResearcherPlant Tissue Culture Dr. Rida Shibli, Assistant Professor Plant Tissue Culture and Physiology National Center for Agricultural Research and Technologv Transfer (NCARTT) Dr. Mahmud Duwayri, Director and Cereal Breeder Mr. Nabil Katkhuda, Assistant Director Dr. Kamal Tadros, Range Management Specialist Dr. Mohammad Ababneh, Field Crop Coordinator and Forage and Pasture Researcher Ms. Maha Q. Syouf, Genetic Resources Mr. Adi Masadeh, Cereal Researcher Office of Integrated Agricultural Develonment Dr. Subhi Qassem, President Appendix 3 Lit of Personsand Institutions Contacted Page 118 FAO/ESCWA Agriculture Division Dr. Sami Sunna, Chief Agriculture Division Mashrea Proiect Mr. Qasem Mamdouh, National Coordinator Universitv of Jordan CVOJ) Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Walid Abu-Gharabieh, Dean Faculty of Agriculture Bassam Snobar, Deputy Dean Faculty of Agriculture Awni Y. Taimeh, Soil and Irrigation Department Mahmoud Kasrawi, Plant Production Department El-Meshager Regional Center Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Khalid Zakaria, Director Akef Adeeb Al-Qassous, Legume Specialist Mahmoud Al-Haweian, Horticulture Specialist Mazen Faried Al-Rajabi, Soil and Irrigation Specialist Mahmoud Saleem Ali, Soil and Irrigation Specialist Fade1Ismail, Crop Specialist former ICARDA Board of Trustees Member Mr. Hassan Nabulsi, farmer, chemistry, education consultant Forage Scientist Dr. Ziat Shorat 3. Turkey (February 3-6, 1993) Ministrv of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Alpaslan Pehlivantirk, General Director Dr. Giirbiiz Mizrak, Deputy General Director Dr. T. Tugrul Balikcioglu, Deputy General Director Prof. Dr. Erkan Benli, Undersecretary Prof. Dr. E+n Istanbulluoglu, Deputy Undersecretary Dr. Hasim Ogiit, Deputy Undersecretary Ankara University Prof. Dr. Ali Erkan Eke, Vice President Appendix 3 List of Personsand Institutions Contacted Page 119 Prof. Prof. Prof. Prof. Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Giinal Akbay, Rector Y. Sabit Agaoglu, Dean, Faculty of Agriculture M. Liitfii @krnakci, Associate Dean, Faculty of Agriculture Cemal Talug, Department of Agricultural Economics Turan Giines, Faculty of Agriculture Central Research Institute for Field Croos Vedat Uzunlu, Acting Director Ismail Kiismenoglu, Coordinator-Food Legume Project Soil and Fertilizer ResearchInstitute Assoc. Prof. Dr. Necdet Yurtsever, Director United Nations DeveloDment Programme El Balla Hagona, Deputy Resident Representative 4. Pakistan (February 7-11, 1993) Pakistan Agricultural ResearchCouncil (PARC) Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Zafar Altaf, Chairman Sulaiman Hamid, Member (Natural Resources) Umar K. Baloch, Acting Member (Crops) Mohammad Bashir, SSO (Pulses), NARC Naeem Hashmi, Director, Crops Research Institute A.L. Wadhwani (Deputy Director, Regional ResearchOffice) Arid Zone Research Institute (AZRI) Dr. Mr. Mr. Dr. Dr. Dr. B. Roidar Khan, Director Sarfraz Ahmad, Staff member (Plant Breeder) K.N..Babar, Staff member (Agronomy) Sarwat N Mirza, Staff member (Range) Usman Mustafa, Staff member (Agricultural economics) Shahid Rafique, Staff member (Livestock) Chemonics International Consulting Division Dr. Albert L. (Staff) Brown, Associate Director Appendix 3 List of Personsand Institutions Contacted Page 120 USAIDIMART Proiect Dr. Dr. Mr. Mr. Ronald S. Senykoff, Agricultural Development Officer Muhammad Khalid, Project Management Specialist D. Weller, Division Chief O/ARD A.L. Brown, Consultant Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Muhammad Rafiq, Director General FAO/UNDP Mr. H.H. Heemstra, CTA, PAK/88/071 North Africa Repion 5. Tunisia (February 3-5, 1993) Ministrv of Agriculture Mrs. F. Larbi, Directorate of International Cooperation Tunisian National Institute of Arxonomv CINAT) Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. H. Ben Hamouda, Director A.B.K. Dahmane, Professor and Chief Agronomy Division M. Harrabi, Professor of Agronomy and Plant Physiology Mnaouar Djemali, Professor and Animal Breeder Tunisian National Institute of Agronomic Research CINRAT) Dr. Gley Khaldi, Director Dr. Mohmand Deghais, Breeder Cereal Group Mr. A. Haddad, Cereal Group Mr. M. Jendoubi, Cereal Group Mr. A. Maamouri, National Coordinator Mr. H. Seklani, Chief, Pasture and Forages Laboratory Ms. Aziza Zoghlami, Researcher, Pasture and Forages Dr. Mohamed Chakroun, Researcher, Pasture and Forages Mr. Hassen Hamadi, Pasture and Forages Mr. Mohamed Kharrat, Food Legume Mr. H. Halila, National Coordinator Appendix 3 List of Personsand Institutions Contacted Page 121 Institute for the Research and Higher Education of Agriculture (IRESAL Dr. Abderrazak Daaloul, President Dr. A. Salmi, Director General Dr. Mohamed Mounir Hedri, Director of Research Dr. Noureddine Akrimi, President Director General, Arid Regions Institute Medenine Dr. Amor H. Yahyaoui, Director Higher Agriculture S,choolLe Kef, Cereal Breeder/Pathologist 6. Algeria (February 5-7, 1993) Ministrv of Agriculture Mr. Mouradi Benzaghou, Cabinet Chief Technical Institute for Large Cultures 0TCG) Dr. Kamel Feliachi, General Secretary Mr. M.S. Mellouhi, Director General Mr. Mohamed El Hadi Maatougui, Director Sidi Be1 Abbes Station Mr. Rachid Sayoud, Director Guelma Station Mr. Abdelkader Benbelkacem, Director El Khroub Station Dr. Abdelhamid Khaldoun, Cereal Coordinator Flautes Improvement Service Ing. Mohamed Laddada, Head of ResearchDepartment Dr. Kumar Assabagy, Services Department Chief National Center for Control and Certification of Seeds Mr. 0. Ait Amer, Director National Institute for Aoronomic Research CINRAA) Mr. Kamel Saka, Deputy Director General National Institute of Agronomv (INA) Mr. Abdelaziz Kedad, Director General Dr. 2. Bouznad, Pathologist National Institute for Plant Protection flNPV) Mr. M. Ouffroukh, Virologist Appendix 3 List of Personsand Institutions Contacted Page 122 7. Egypt (February 3-6,1993) Agricultural Research Council (ARC) Dr. Abdul Salam Goma’ a, Deputy Director Dr. Safa M. Sharshar, Wheat Agronomist Dr. Rashad Adou El Enien, Director of the Field Crops Research Institute Dr. Mokhtar El-Sattour, Director of the Plant Pathology Research Institute Dr. Galal Moawad, Director of the Plant Protection Institute Dr. Magdy Madkour, Director of the Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Institute Dr. Mohamed El-Sherbeny, Coordinator of the National Legume Program Dr. Sami Reda Sarby, Wheat Breeder, and Acting National Wheat Program Coordinator Dr. Ahmed Sarby El-Gamal, National Barley Program Coordinator Dr. Maher Noaman, Barley Breeder, Giza Dr. A.E. Aboul-Ata, Virologist, Giza Dr. Salah EldeinSerif, Wheat Pathologist, Giza Dr. Mossad Mohamed Abdel-Aleem, Wheat Agronomist, Giza Dr. Nabil Soliman Hanna, Wheat Breeder, Giza Dr. Dorreiah F. Salem, Pant Pathologist, Giza Dr. Mohamed Azmi Rizk, Lentil Agronomist, Giza Dr. Ahmed Helmi A-Hussein, Faba bean agronomist, Giza Dr. M.W.A. Hassan, Lentil Breeder, Giza Dr. A.M. Khattab, Chickpea breeder, Giza Dr. Risk Abdel-Khalek Risk, Barley Pathologist, Giza Dr. Horny Abdel Rolnman, Pathologist, Giza Dr. Ahmed El-Bakri, Tissue Culture Specialist Dr. Adel M. Gouda, Team Leader, Sakha Station Dr. Mamdouh m. El-Shami, Wheat Breeder, Sal&a Station Dr. A. H. Abdelatif, Wheat Breeder, Sakha Station Dr: Farid A. Assad, Barley Breeder, Sakha Station Mr. Khairy A. Amer, Barley Agronomist, Sakha Station Dr. Mohamed A. El-Borai, Legume Agronomist, Sakha Station Dr. I. Amer, Legume Breeder, Sakha Station Dr. Mostafa M. Radi, Legume Breeder, Sakha Station Dr. Mahmoud B. Abib, Legume Breeder, Sakha Station Mr. Ahmed A El-Soradi, Legume Agronomist, Sakha Station Mrs. Aola A.M. El-galaly, Legume Breeder, Sakha Station Dr. Hassan Moawad, Chairman of the Microbiology Department Euronean Economic Communitv tEEC1 H.E. Mr. Michael Barrie McGeever, Ambassador, Head of Delegation Mr. Erhard Loher, Councellor Appendix 3 Lit of Personsand Institutions Contacted Page 123 Food and Agriculture Organization IFAO) Dr. Mr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Atef Bukhari, FAO Regional Representative M. Gaieb, Deputy Regional Representative Sgaier, Regional Plant Production Officer Gaddes, Regional Range Management Officer M. Taher, Regional Plant Protection Officer I. Haudan, Regional Research and Agro-Industries Officer S. Galal, Regional Animal Production and Health Officer A. Tabet, Regional Program Officer Ford Foundation Dr. David Nygaard, Regional Representativefor the Middle East and North Africa International Develooment Research Centre CIDRQ Dr. Fawzi Kishk, Regional Director, Middle East and North Africa Dr. Eglal F. Rashed, Senior Program Officer, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Middle East and North Africa United States Agencv for International Develonment mSAID> Dr. David Delgado, Agricultural Officer 8. Morocco (February 6-9, 1993) Centre Regional de la Recherche Agronomiaue de Doukkala, Abda, Chaouia (CRRAX Settat Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. M. El-Mourid, Director, C.R.R.A.,INRA-Settat A. Amri, Barley Breeder, INRA-Settat M. El-Yamani, Virologist, INRA-Settat M. Margoum, Bread Wheat Breeder, INRA-Settat N.Nasrallah, Durum Wheat Breeder, INRA-Settat Bouhssini, Entomologist, INRA-Settat Fatemi, Faba Bean Breeder, INRA-Douyet R. Dahan, Agronomist, INRA-Settat M. El-hadi, Chickpea Breeder, INRA-Settat M. Lamnouni, Legume Pathologist, INRA-Settat T. Gillard-Byers, Project Leader, Economist, USAID-MIAC KM. Moore, Sociologist, USAID-MIAC M. Moussaoui, Economist, MIAC-INRA-Settat Mr. M. Elgharous, Soil Scientist Appendix 3 Lit of Personsand Institutions Contacted Page 124 ENA - Meknes Dr. Dr. Dr. Mr. Mr. Mr. My. Mustapha El Youssoufi, Director of Studies and Research, ENA-Meknes M. Boulif, Professor of Pathology, ENA-Meknes M. Ouknider, Professor of Agronomy, ENA-Meknes M. Zeddini, Pathology Trainee, INAT, Tunisia (JJNDP funded) N. Bendif, Pathology Trainee, ITGC, Algeria (UNDP funded) A. Belkhiri, Pathology Trainee, ITGC, Algeria (UNDP funded) National Institute for Agronomic Research (INRA) - Douvet Station Mr. T. El-Maljodu, Director of Douyet Experimental Station, DPV-MARA Dr. H. Be& Regional Coordinator of the Faba Bean Program, GTZ IAV-Hassan II Dr. M. Sedrati, Director, IAV-Hassan II United Nations Develoument Programme CUNDP) Ms. Kadija Belfakir, Assistant RepresentantResident, UNDP-Rabat MARA H.E. A. Meziane, Minister of Agriculture, MAR4 Dr. H. Faraj, Director General, INRA Mr. Abdellatif Rami, Director of Crop Production, Ministry of Agriculture Latin American Region 9. Mexico (March 26-29, 1993) CIMMYT (Jnternational Center for the Imorovement of Maize and Wheat) Dr. Roger Rowe, Deputy Director General for Research Dr. Tony Fischer, Director Wheat Program Dr. George Verughese, Deputy Director Wheat Program International Organization’ s Headouarters Food and Agriculture Organization CIAO). Rome. Italy Dr. Eric A. Kueneman, Senior Officer, Field Food Crops Group Dr. David G. Crespo, Pasture Improvement Specialist Appendix 4 Survey of ICARDA Clients: Assessment of Past Performance and Future Needs Method In February 1993, the Executive Secretary of TAC on behalf of the ICARDA External Program and Management Review Panel, issued a questionnaire to persons (n = 231) in the WANA region whose work relates directly to ICARDA’ s mandate and programs. ICARDA provided TAC with a mailing list of the potential respondents, most of whom were staff members of the NARSs in the region. The objective of the survey was to elicit respondents’ opinions on (a) the relevance and usefulness of ICARDA’ s program and activities over the past five years, and (b) the projected importance and prioritization of ICARDA’ s work over the next 5 to 10 years. The respondents were asked to retrospectively score each of ICARDA’ s six program areas as having been: extremely valuable = 5, very valuable = 4, valuable = 3, slightly valuable = 2 and no value = 1. Likewise they were asked to assign a score to each of the six program areas to reflect their perspective and prioritization of ICARDA’ s future program on a 5 to 10 year horizon, using the following scale: 5 = very high priority, 4 = high priority, 3 = medium priority, 2 = little priority and 1 = low priority. Each program area was evaluated in terms of research, training and information activities. Additionally, the respondents were asked to briefly explain their future rankings of the six program areas. A succinct definition of each program was provided. The respondents were asked to indicate their current position, type of institution, nature and length of relationship with ICARDA and to identify their gender; otherwise, the respondents were anonymous. Resnonse Sixty eight questionnaires were returned, representing a responseof 29%. Among the respondents 40% were research scientists, 20% were research administrators, 22% research scientistscum-research administrators, while the remaining 18% described themselves as government administrators, university teachers or extension personnel. Thirty four (51%) of the respondents worked in NARS and 19 worked in University research departments. Two-thirds of the respondents had collaborated with ICARDA, in most cases (80%) for three years or more. There was only one female respondent. The respondents’ geographic coverage extended across 21 countries in the WANA region. Statistical Analvsis Average scores for each of the program and sub-program areas on each activity (i.e., research, training, publications, workshop) were obtained from the response data (see Tables A4.1, A4.2 and Figures A4.1-A4.3). In order to compare the scores over program/sub-program areas, homogeneity of sampling variances was checked using Bartlett’ s chi-square test before carrying out a weighted analysis of Appendix 4 Survey of ICARDA Clients: Assessment of Past Performance and Future Needs Page 126 variance. For the activities where homogeneousvariances across program areas were detected, the weights were determined using a pooled error variance over program areas, otherwise the respective variances were used to compute the weights. The variability in 31 program/sub-program areas was partitioned across sources representing program comparisons (five degrees of freedom) and comparisons within each individual program, the sub-program versus program, and between subprogram areas were made. Tables A4.1 and A4.2 show the comparison of ratings for subprogram activities. The relationships among the sub-program areas in terms of similarities of scores on activities in the past five years and priority ranking of future activities were obtained using non-hierarchical cluster analysis based on single linkage and city-block similarity measures. The resulting dendograms (Figures A4.4 and A4.5) show the interrelationships among the program areas. Results Sampling errors for each of the four activities in the past five years were homogeneous across the 31 program/sub-program areas. They were heterogeneousfor the three activities in the next five years. This indicates that ratings of ICARDA’ s work in the past five years differ to the same extent (consistent) for each program area whereas the variabilities in the future rating change over the program areas. There is an increase in the ratings on all areas and activities in future projected work when compared with the same area and activity in the past. Thus the respondents would like to see ICARDA doing much more work in the future on all fronts. Research The results suggest that respondentsranked ICARDA’ s main researclr programs over the past five years as having been valuable (3.06 - 3.61), with little distinction between programs in terms of relevance and effectiveness; the slightly higher scores for germplasm enhancement(3.61) and the outreach program (3.60) are significantly different from the other programs. At the subprogram level the noticeably lower scores for the agroecological characterization of the desert (1.78) and for the Arabian Peninsula outreach program (1.86) reflect ICARDA’ s lack of attention to these areas. Of more immediate relevance is the contrast of scores assignedto past and future research programs, which is shown graphically in Figure A4.1. On aggregate, it is clear that respondents attach high priority for the future to all programs with little distinction between them; scores ranged from 4.07 to 4.52. The consistent and distinctly higher scores on the prioritization of ICARDA’ s program for the future, in contrast with past program relevance and contribution, could be interpreted as indicating that the respondentswant more and greater impact from ICARDA in the future, and in particular from the Resource Management Conservation program area. At the subprogram level, small differences emerged with the Latin America Regional program (2.50) and the agroecological characterization of the desert (3.08) being assigneda medium to low priority. The ratings among the program areas differ significantly both for rating of past and future prioritization. The overall rating did not differ from the average of the sub-program rating with one exception (resource management). This indicates consistency in the rating and a clear sense of priorities at program and sub-program levels. However, significant differences in the priorities were Appendix 4 Survey of ICARDA Clients: Assessment of Past Performanceand Futh Needs Page 127 found between sub-program ratings of research (except in the resource management and impact assessment sub-programs) over the past five years and for the future with regard to germplasm conservation and enhancementand impact assessment. During the past five years, the top two performing areas were germplasm enhancement(3.61) and outreach (3.60). For the future, the data indicate a shift in priorities to resource managementfollowed by germplasm enhancement, and higher priorities to be assignedto all sub-programs than in the past. Training The pattern of the respondent scores on training is very similar to the results on research, and the aggregate scores for the two activities were not different. At the program level, ICARDA’ s training program over the past five years was considered to be reasonably valuable (scores ranged from 2.77 to 3.0); at the subprogram level, training areas such as characterization of the desert (1.67) and outreach training the Arabian Peninsula (2.00) and Latin America (2.00) was considered to be of little value, in contrast with training activities on food legume germplasm (3.69) and outreach programs in West Asia (3.71) and North Africa (3.60). Again, the contrast between past and future training programs (Figures A4.1, A4.2) reveals a strong demand for greater ICARDA activity in this area. Respondentsplaced highest priority on Resource Management Conservation (4.57), followed by germplasm enhancement (4.05) and conservation (4.16). The data would suggest a demand for greater input by ICARDA on training in land use management,soil degradation and soil erosion. The ratings between sub-programs, based on work in the past, differ significantly for agroecological characterization, germplasm enhancement,and outreach programs, whereas priorities for future training do not differ except for the outreach programs. Respondentsgave highest rating to training on germplasm enhancement(2.89) and farm resource management(2.94), but would like to see a change in training priorities in future to farm resource management(4.57) followed by impact assessment (4.26). Information The largest difference between respondents’ rankings of ICARDA’ s past and future programs was in the area of information dissemination. At the program level, past activities were not ranked highly; all scores were below 3 (valuable). Subprograms in germplasm enhancement (cereals and food legumes) and outreach activities in West Asia, the Nile Valley and North Africa scored best. With the exception of sub-programs 1.1 (agroecological characterizationof the desert) and 5.6 (Latin America outreach programs), the information support to all other subprogram areas was ranked as deserving high priority in ICARDA’ s future activities. In the evaluation of the Center’ s past program, the respondentsdid not distinguish between workshops and other forms of information dissemination. Past ratings of pubhcations differed significantly over the subprograms in agroecological characterization, and germplasm enhancementwhile for the future the importance attached differs only for the outreach programs. In the past, respondentsperceived that ICARDA performed best in the areas of farm resource management(2.94) followed by outreach (2.86). In future they would like Appendix 4 Survey of ICARDA Clients: Assessment of Past Performanceand Future Needs Page 128 to see ICARDA attach priority in the area of resource managementpublications (4.57) followed by publications on impact assessment (4.37). All Activities Together Cluster analysis of ratings of all past sub-programs (Figure A4.4) exhibit the following relationships. At the 95% level of similarity, the respondents identify four clusters: (a) Co> t c> (4 Steppe, land-use management, degradation and soil erosion; Water, soil structure, soil nutrients, crop-livestock systems, adoption of research finding and effectiveness of networks; Germplasm conservation and improvement for pasture and forage crops, cereal cropping systems, cereal-legume cropping systemsand agroecological characterization in the barleylivestock zone (200-350 mm rainfall); and Germplasm enhancementfor cereals and North Africa Regional Program, whereas other areas were not related at this level of similarity. In future they would like to see ICARDA attaching similar importance (based on research, training and publications) to the areas of: (a> 0) (cl Arabian Peninsula and Nile Valley Regional Program; Agroecological Characterization in barley-livestock zone (200-350 mm rainfall), wheat-based zone (350-600 mm rainfall) and highlands mixed farming zone (> 1000 m); and Al1 other program areas except desert, and West Asia and Latin America Regional Programs. Conclusions Overall, the survey data suggest that ICARDA is held in esteemby its clients and its activities in research, training and the dissemination of information have made a valuable contribution to the technical problems constraining the development of agriculture in the region. Whereas some respondents commented that certain subprograms were particularly effective, this was not reflected in the average programs scores. On average, all six programs were ranked more or less equal. Individual subprograms that scored markedly different from the rest, and on which some strong comments were made, include activities relating to the desert zone and the Arabian Peninsula outreach program. However, it is important to emphasizethat the respondents, with a few exceptions, assigned low priority to these areas. This would indicate that ICARDA’ s low input to these zones has general approval. Perhaps the most interesting and pertinent result of the survey emerges in the contrast of past and future scores for each of ICARDA’ s activities (See Figures A4.1, A4.2 and A4.3). These contrasts may be interpreted to suggest that ICARDA’ s clients want more effective output from the Center in the future, particularly in training and information activities. The program that appearsto need greatest strengthening is resource managementand conservation. Many of the individual comments indicated that the NARSs want more training and information in this program, especially on research methods to describe, quantify and monitor change in the natural resources of their region, a research area that they regard as being important, but in which they have little expertise. The next Appendii 4 of Past Performanceand Future Needs Survey of ICARDA Clients: Assessment Page 129 priority area is the germplasm enhancement. They would also like to see work published on impact assessment. Summary remarks concerning the process described in this appendix, and the Panel’ s rather critical appraisal of the value of the information yielded by it, are reported in section 5.3.1 of the main part of this Report. Appendix 4 Survey Of ICARDA Clients: Assessment of Past Performanceand Future Needs Page 130 Table A 4.1. Assessment of the effectiveness years (1988-l 992) of JCARDA’ s Activities over the past five I- Agrosaabgicd Desert steppe ( 1,000 conscwvstion ‘ &S8.. 0.19 0.16 0.20 s 3.13 3.22 2.79 . .-j;ool : 3.50 3&S 2.94 ;.&# 2.53 2.32 2.89 2.83 2.68 : 2=Ij. 2.52 2.00 3.71 3.12 &;& 0.13 0.20 0.19 G.zs’ . A 0.21 0.18 0.21 :ki21 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.21 T .q&y. :. 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.21 and fotaae ctoos 3.17 \&St G 0.18 0.13 0.21 p* 3.1 3.2 3.3 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.. 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 g ‘ .. 6.1 6.2 Cereal crops Food legumes Pasture Resource Water. and forage crops -conservation soil nutrients degradation. 3.80 4.02 3.10 3.0s. 2.73 3.47 3.54 2.83 2s 2.47 2.32 2.86 2.36 2.65 B 0.18 0.18 3.22 2.55 -2.63 2.32 2.00 2.47 0.19 0.20 7 0.22 0123. 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.18 ~management soil structure, E 0.22 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.21 ‘ -0i2S. 0.26 0.43 0.25 0.34 0.24 0.58 0.22 -0g26 0.18 0.13 A i &$ 0.20 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.21 Land use management, Cereal cropping Ceteai-legume Crop-livestock soil erosion 2.61 3.14 sy8tems cropping systems 3.11 2.94 2.69 2.26 8YStSttlS utJ~~&;~:.~ Highland Arabian West RcpbRJ -:Pwilrn&a : . ..j:. Program z 3.09 1.86 3.47 s 0.24 7 & 0.21 : .::'&y+ :..... 2.80 1.67 3.33 3.25 3.21 2.00 2.37 0.25 0.45 0.3; 0.31 0.25 0.73 0.26 Ptogmtn Regional Program Program Program Program 2.95 2.29 3.77 3.23 3.32 2.40 3.04 gg 2.58 2.61 0.28 0.40 0.26 0.36 0.25 0.48 0.31 0.31 0.24 0.73 0.26 : 0.23 0.20 0.20 Asia Regional Regional Regional Nile Valley North Africa 3.39 3.81 Latin America Seed Production Regional 2.00 3.12 0.50 0.26 impect:dsesssmsntiRd Adoption of research vnh&lxtileti: findings of netwotiw : A --3.1:3. 2.87 2.85 s ..:'. 0.19 ,.; : ::.:-:: i::*&J 2.33 2.56 0.18 0.21 Role and sffectiveneas - 0.18 Appendix 4 Survey of ICARDA Clients: Assessment of Past Performanceand Future Needs Page 131 Table A 4.2. Prioritization of ICARDA’ S future (5-10 year horizon) 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 Desert Steppe (C 200 mm rainfall) zone zone (350600 mixed farming mm rainfall) m) 3.08 3.54 3.84 3.96 3.83 .‘ ~. 4.16.: 4.02 4.15 crops 4.38 0.26 0.21 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.21 0.15 0.13 0.11 2.97 3.41 3.56 3.67 3.71 4.16 3.90 3.98 4.16 0.27 0.22 0.14 0.17 0.17 3.16 3.54 3.87 3.87 3.88 0.27 0.25 0.14 0.16 0.19 Sariey-livestock Wheat-based Highlands zone f > 1,000 : Gerrnplasmconeeron Cereal crops Food legumes Pasture end forage -&24.. ,:.,., +$ 0.15 0.13 0.13 4.10 4.19 4.36 <, ,, ..; ;&:. 0.14 0.12 0.10 3.1 3.2 3.3 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Cereal crops Food legumes Pasture Resource Water, and forage crops conservation soil nutrients degradation, soil erosion : ’ : 4.20 4.29 4.41 ‘ .. ’ 4.52 4.18 4.30 3.78 systems 4.04 4.31 .. 4.07 Program Regional Program Program 4.33 3.61 4.50 3.64 3.97 2.50 3.97 0.14 0.13 0.10 *.rf0.13 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.26 0.14 0.33 0.14 0.27 0.23 0.36 0.19 3.96 4.04 4.27 ;.::&,:. 4.16 4.23 3.83 4.00 4.13 0.14 0.13 0.11 ::.‘ &a; 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.12 4.13 4.17 4.34 ;.; .:.:&:I 4.19 4.24 3.80 4.02 4.14 : 4&;i~:.4.24 3.71 4.44 3.75 4.13 2.69 3.97 i,. 0.13 0.12 0.11 :&;j3 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.12 ,i&& 0.13 0.30 0.14 0.26 0.21 0.33 0.17 menagemeni soil structure, Lend use menagement, Cereal cropping Cereal-legume Crop-livestock Outreach-program’ . Highland Arabian West Regionel Penineula Asia Reionsl Regiond Regional Regional systems cropping systems ii:. 5.s3,+.i::‘ &n-::,:; 4.28 3.47 4.22 3.63 4.00 2.31 3.86 0.15 0.34 0.15 0.29 0.22 0.30 0.19 Nile Valley North Africa Program Program Program Latin America Seed Production Figure A 4.1. Ranking for Research Program! Agroecologlcal 5: 4 3 2 1 0 WI c P - Past Five Years vs. Next Five Years Germplasm Enhancement Characterization Germplasm Conservation 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 and 1.5 2 2.1 Outreach 2.2 Program 2.3 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 a Resource Management Conservation impact Assessment 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 f?J Past Five Years q Next Five Yeara Sub-program Codes 1, Agroecdogicel characterization; 1 .l, Desert; 1.2, Steppe (< 200 mm rainfall); 1.3, Barley-livestock zone; 1.4, Wheat-based zone (350-600 mm rainfall); 1.5, Highlands mixed fanning zons (> 1 ,ooO m); 2, Gennp!esm conservation; 2.1, Cereal crops; 2.2, Food legumes; 2.3, Pesture and forege crops; 3, Germplasm enhencemsnt; 3.1, Cored crops; 3.2, Food legumes; 3.3, Pasture and forage amps; 4, Resource management conservedon; 4.1, Water, soil structure, soil nutrients; 4.2, Land use ; managemsnt, degredation, soil erosion; 4.3, Cereal or-ping ryetems; 4.4, Cereal-legumecropping systenu; I).&~,rtbp-liveetock systems; 6, Outreach program .; 6.4, Nile Valley Regional Program ; 5.6, North 5.1, Highland Redonal Program ; 5.2, Arebien Penineula Regional Program ; 6.3, West Ads Regional Progrm ; 6.6, Latin America Rsgiond Program ; 6.7, Seed Produotion; 6. Impsot assea$rnent and enhancement; 6.1, Adoption of research findings; Africa Regional Program 6.2, Rde and effeotfvsnsss of networks. Figure A 4.2. Ranking for Training Program 41 Agroecologlcal Characterlzatlon Germplasm - Past Five Years vs. Next Five Years Germplasm Enhancement Conservation c” % oc f 4 3 2 1 0 ‘ : cl 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 and 1.5 1 1.1 Outreach 1.2 Program . 1.3 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 Resource Management Conservation Impact Assessment 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 6 6.1 6.2 Paet five Years Next Five Years Sub-program. Codes 1, Agroscdogioal oharecterization; 1 .l, Desert; 1.2. Steppe f < 200 mm rainfall); 1.3, Barfey-livestock zone; 1.4, Wheat-based zone f3SO6OO mm reinfall): 1.5, Highlands mixed farming zone (> 1,000 m); 2. Germpfasm conservation; 2.1, Cered crops; 2.2, Food legumes; 2.3, Pasture and forego crops; 3, Germpfasm enhancement; 3.1, Cereal crops; 3.2, Food /egurws; 3.3, Pssture and forage orope; 4, Resource management conservation; 4.1, Water, soil structwa. soil nutrisnts: 4.2, LBnd 1~88 ; management, degradation, soil erosion; 4.3, Ceraaf cropping rystems; 4.4, Cersd-lsgurw oropping systeme; 4.6, Cropfivestock systems; 6, Outreach program ; 5.5, North : 5.4. Nile Valley Regiond Program ; 6.3, West Asia Redond Program ‘ ; 5.2, Arabian Paninsula Redond Progra\ 5.1, Highland Regional Progrrun ; 5.7, Seed Production; 6, lmpect arsessnwnt and enhstwarnent; 6.1, Adoption of research findings; Afdca RegionalProgram ; 5.0, Latin America Regional Program 6.2, Role and effsotive~ss of natworke. Figure A 4.3. Ranking for Publications Agroecologlcal 5ti Characterlzatlon in Program Germplasm - Past Five Years vs. Next Five Years Qermplasm Enhancement Conservation 2 Resource Management and Conservation and 2.1 Outreach 2.2 Program 2.3 Impact Assessment 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 6 6.1 6.2 q Past Five Years q Next Flve Years Sub-program Codes 1, Agroecologicdchsracteriration; 1 .l , Desert; 1.2, Steppe (C 2GGmm rainfall); 1.3, Berfey-livestock zone; 1.4, Wheat-based zone (356-666 rrs-n rainfall): 1.5, Highfends mixed farmfng zona (> 1,GOG m); 2, Germplasm conservation; 2.1, Cereal crops; 2.2, Food legumes; 2.3, Pasture and forage crops; 3, Gemplasm enhancement; 3.1, Cereal crops; 3.2, Food legumas; 3.3, Pasture and forage crops; 4, Resource management consenration, * 4.1, Water, soil strucNre, soil nutrients; 4.2, Land use ; management, degradation, soil eroeion: 4.3, Cereal cropping systems: 4.4, Careal-faguma croppfng 0~; 4.6, Crop-fivestock systema; 6, Outreach program ; 5.6, North .; 5.4, Nile Valley Regional Program ; 5.2, Arebian Peninsula Regfond Program ; 5.3, West Asia Regfonal Progrem 5.1, Highland Regionsf Program ; 6.7, Seed Production; 6, lnrpwt essassmant end enhencement; 6.1, Adoption of research findings; ; 5.6, Latin America Regionsi Program Africa Regionef Program 8.2, Role and effeotiveness of networks. Appendix 4 Survey of ICARDA Clients: Assessment of Past Performanceand Future Needs Page 135 Figure A 4.4. Relationship among program areas: Single linkage dendogram based on four activities in the past five years ICARDA 1.56.7! I ” 4 2.1 I - 2. 2 r - -4.15 6.2 2.3 4.4 3.3 4.3 I. 3 1 1 6.' l-r 1 Figure A 4.5. Relationship among program areas: Single linkage dendogram based on three activities (research, training & publlcatlon) over the next five years. ICARDA I I 6.8 70% 75% -‘ -’ 90% 95% 100% I A :!--r-. I 6.2 4.31.51 31.46.72.1 5.54.46.22.23.1 4.1 $24.64.26.1 6.1 3.32.36.3 Appendix 5 Survey of ICARDA Research Staff: Questionnaire Please comment briefly on the following topics cfeelfree to use the back of this sheet as necessary) 1. 2. 3. Research structure. [Is ICARDA’ s research structure optimal given the Center’ s strategy and research goals? Should modifications be considered, and if so what?] Research leadership. [How effective is research leadership and monitoring/oversight?] Research nlanning and review urocesses. [How effective are ICARDA’ s (a) research planning and (b) review processes ? Is there adequatelink between planning and review? Is there an appropriate level of staff input into annual, medium-term and strategic planning?] Proiect-based budgeting svstem. [Should ICARDA adopt a project-based budgeting system -YES/NO ? Are decision-making and financiai accountability sufficiently decentralized currently?] Research environment. [How would you characterize ICARDA’ s research environment? (e.g., comment on communication, teamwork, etc.)] Annraisal svstem. [How rigorous is the performance appraisal system for research staff? What is rewarded?] Administration and nroeram surmort. [How responsive are finance, administrative and program support units to your needs?] OveraIl assessment. what do you consider the major advantagesand drawbacks of working at ICARDA? How satisfied are you with your job and employer?] Institutional resnonsiveness. [How responsive is ICARDA to the region’ s research and training needs, and how effective are the mechanismsused for understanding these?] Other comments. [Please comment on any other matters that you feel are relevant.] 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Appendix 6 Survey of ICARDA Research Staff Summary of Responses Introduction This report is based on the responsesof 51 of the 80 ICARDA research staff who were given the questionnaire. It asked for comments on ten topics with some questions supplied as guides. This type of survey tends to obtain more negative than positive comments but, even taking this bias into account, it is clear that there is a lot of discontent with the managementof ICARDA. It should be noted that, say, three respondents giving roughly the same specific comment to a general question would normally imply that it deservesparticular attention, but one cannot determine exactly the degree of support for that opinion. In the discussion that follows, the answers to the topic were coded as + = good/satisfactory/adequate,0 = average/mixed/moderate, and - = bad/unsatisfactory/inadequate. It should be noted that the statistics are for the answers that were given for the given question. Relevant comments from other parts of the questionnaire were not applied to that question in order to standardize the reporting of results. If that material had been added, the dominant statistical patterns would have been even stronger. (1) Research Structure - The research structure was satisfactory for most research staff who gave an opinion, provided that the funds are available for current staffing levels. Otherwise, eight recommended combining CP and LP and thereby eliminating duplicate specialists, and five recommended combining FRMP and PRLP. Here, and elsewhere in the survey, quite a few recommended decentralizing authority closer to the scientists and reducing the administration/research staff ratio. Some other points that were made were the need to define and justify the role of the FRMP, the need to redefine the role and place of the outreach program in the organization and the role of the regional coordinators, and the need to further strengthen cross-program interaction and problem-oriented research teams. Research Leadership -- Answers that were unspecified regarding level of the leader or referred to the DDG-R and DG were as follows: + (lo), 0 (5), and - (18). When referring to Program Leaders, the answers were: + (ll), 0 (3), - (1). The research staff were relatively positive toward the Program Leaders, except the comments indicated that this support was uneven across Programs. The problems that were cited regarding Management were: they are too consumed with details and non-research issues and were not focused enough on broad strategic issuesand interactions with research staff; authority is too centralized; and monitoring and oversight needs strengthening. Research Planning and Review Process - The results for research planning are like the results for research leadership. Planning and review within the Programs were viewed positively but at the Center level were viewed negatively. At the Center or unspecified level, the responses were: + (ll), 0 (5), and - (17). Within Programs they were: + (6), 0 (2), - (0). In general, the planning was viewed more positively than the review process. The links between the two were judged as follows: + (5), 0 (0), and - (7). The adequacyof staff input in the process was judged as follows: + (8), 0 (0), and - (6). Review, in particular, needs strengthening, and some noted that it is not critical enough and lacks a peer component. (2) (3) Appendix 6 Survey of ICARDA ResearchStaff: Summary of Responses Page 138 (4 Project-Based Budgeting System - The research staff clearly favor project-based budgeting and the decentralization of decision making and financial accountability. They voted 30 in favor of project based budgeting, 6 against and 1 mixed. Only one judged ICARDA to be sufficiently decentralized, 1 was mixed, and 28 judged it to not be sufficiently decentralized. Some of these 28 may not have been critical but just observing that it is highly centralized, but the majority opinion is that the centralization is dysfunctional. Several concerns were voiced: the scope and size of projects need to be defined before a system can be implemented, the system should promote teamwork and not just create new boundaries, and the system should not “turn scientists into accountants.’ Research Environment - The overall research environment was judged quite positively. Some respondentswere thinking of their own Program, and others were thinking more generally, but it was not possible to separatethe two types of responses. The question asked about ICARDA’ s research environment, so it is to be assumedthat most respondents were thinking generally. The results were: + (22), 0 (3), and - (3). Their judgement on communication was: + (13), 0 (l), and - (5). Their judgement on teamwork was: + (lo), 0 (2), and - (7). Despite these generally favorable results, there were some strong criticisms that centered on the administration and on discrimination. Some perceived that teamwork is hampered by ethnic barriers, so greater cultural sensitivity may be required. Appraisal System -- The appraisal system is also highly criticized. The main complaint is that few rewards are given out. Promotions or two-step raises are rare and bonuses are minimal. Other serious complaints are that the final review committee is not perceived as a good judge or fair, that low performers are not fired, that personal relationships and group or cultural prejudice play a large role, and that the emphasison publications is perceived as causing important work to go unrecognized or unrewarded. Nevertheless, the appraisal system is a popular process at the program level. In sum, the process is perceived as well-designed but the results are perceived as unsatisfactory and a major reason for low morale. The failure is in the perceived “stinginess” of the reward system. The following are the statistics behind these observations. The scientists’general attitudes toward the appraisal system are: + (5), 0 (l), and - (16). Their judgments on how rigorous it is are: + (2), 0 (l), and - (12). Seven complained that discrimination abounds in the system. Four complained that there is too much charity in the system. Seven called for more recognition and rewards for important work other than journal publications. (5) (6) (7) Administration and Program Support -- The picture on this topic is complex. The general evaluation of administration is positive, but there are some negative judgements of the administration department and the finance department, and throughout the questionnaire there were strong negative attitudes toward the increasedbureaucratization of the Center. According to the research staff, there needs to be an improvement in the service orientation of the administrative and support staffs with particular attention to the need for greater availability, less rigid rules and “red tape,” reducing the amount and level of approvals, reducing perceived favoritism in service provision, increasing quality control from within because errors take time to straighten out, and applying the incentive and appraisal system rigorously to promote quality service. Appendix 6 Survey of ICARDA ResearchStaff: Summaryof Responses Page 139 The overall attitudes toward administrative and program support are: + (19), 0 (lo), and - (4); toward the Finance Department: + (7), 0 (l), and - (6); toward the Administration Department: + (3), 0 (0), and - (9); and toward the support programs: + (S), 0 (l), and (0). Five scientistscomplained that the administration/researchratio is too high. (8) Overall Assessment -- The overall assessment by researchstaff of ICARDA was quite positive, but that is becauserespondentsansweredthe question largely in terms of job satisfaction. Accordingly, they evaluatedICARDA as follows: + (30), 0 (I), and - (2). Advantages of working for ICARDA include challenging and interesting work, contributing to an important mission, and a positive researchenvironment. Under the disadvantages,10 cited the isolation of being cut off from the outside world, 6 cited the administration, 4 low advancementopportunities, 3 the problem of schooling for their children, 3 the poor social life in Aleppo, 3 the poor opportunities for their spouse, and 3 problems concerning the school fee allowance. Institutional Responsiveness to WANA Need’ s - The scientistsoverwhelmingly see ICARDA as responsiveto the region’ s needs: + (30), 0 (4), - (0). They also favorably judged the current mechanismsfor finding out the region’ s needs: + (8), 0 (l), and - (1). Some of them, however, criticized the quality or value of the training given to the NARS scientists. Other Comments -- The feedback on this question cannot be easily summarized. Most of the comments are reflected in the summariesof questions 1 to 9. A few suggestionsthat have not been mentioned above are: the need for a more flexible mandate to work with the NARSs, extension planning should be part of ICARDA’ s training courses,the relevanceof activities to the NARSs should be a major criterion for prioritizing work and for personnel evaluations, and the need for better insurance coverageand maternity leave. (9) (IO) Appendix 7 An Agroecoiogicai Approach to Research Current Philosophy, Organization and Future Scenarios - A Concept Despite our improved ability to predict their onset and modify their impact, inevitable and recurrent drought remains a foremost singular factor affecting world food security, and it affects the condition and stability of land resources from which that food is derived. The 198Os, as for the preceding decade, began with drought, and such continues into the 1990s. In the less-developed world, the problem has been widespread and serious. Drought has hastened the collapse of many unstable, fragile food-production systems. It is therefore highly appropriate today, as was the case at ICARDA’ s inception in the late 197Os,that strategiesto minimize drought impacts on the rural community and on the stability of marginal land resources be developed, transferred and secured. One thought embodied in establishing ICARDA as an IARC was to provide as many as possible applied options for research and development programs in the dry areas. There is, therefore, a variety of programs dealing with food and fodder production, livestock production management, resource management, marketing, economics, environmental and social interaction, and the provision of a sustainable and economic way of life to the farmer. Few IARCs can, in fact, adopt and maintain this approach because of the associatedcommitment of human resources, physical facilities and financial support. With the abundant diversity and needs of dryland agriculture, taken in conjunction with the continuing population pressures, ICARDA has seen fit to diversify and expand some of its research activities and related educational programs. Greater focus and integration of its research activities, as argued in chapter 2, are deemed by the Panel to be necessary. The 1988 EPR recommended that “ICARDA review the staff resources devoted to the agroecological characterization project to ensure that sufftcient priority is accorded within the program to bring the project to a timely completion and facilitate the transfer of technologies to national programs, as appropriate.” ICARDA has, indeed, initiated steps to decentralize part of its research program towards strategic locations in the region. The diversity of the agroecological zones and farming systems within the mandated WANA region underscores the urgent need, strategically and quickly, to diversify and focus research activities to include a wider range of ecological settings. It is readily apparent that ICARDA’ s available resources, both human and financial, required to accomplish this necessarymove will seriously hamper ICARDA’ s efforts. Decentralization in conjunction with enhancedcoordination through fostering greater collaborative effort with selected NARSs, representsa potentially more cost-effective strategic solution. ICARDA covers several distinctive agroecological zones in its mandated ecoregion. Recognition of these distinctions requires the development of a new structure that will enable ICARDA to meet more adequately the challengesof its mandate. One of the main operational objectives is to collaborate with and foster cooperation and communication among other national, regional and international institutions in the adoption, testing, and demonstration of improved crop, livestock and integrated farming systems. It is suggested,therefore, that the tasks of ICARDA outreach offtces be changed to meet these cogent objectives. In attaining these goals, several, say five, main agroecological zones could be selected in collaboration and cooperation with the NARSs. The results of research at representative sites within these zones could then be more readily transferred to similar agroecological zones in the region. The outreach Coordinator would focus on the joint research program implemented at these sites with NARS scientists, An essential first step is to identify zones within the dryland areas/countries served Appendix 7 An Agroecoiogical Approach to Research:Current Philosophy,Organization and Future Scenarios- A Concept Page 141 by ICARDA’ s research and outreach programs that have designatedkey environmental features and that capture the diversity of systemsof production-managementsystems within WANA as a whole. Each zone should be served by a “center of excellence”in applied/adaptive research activities. Ongoing larger scale research endeavorsshould be used as the “trunk” activities to identify improved germplasm, cultural practices tailored to stress-tolerant advancedgenetic materials, and the development of outreach tools to disseminatethe information to end-users. SateIlite locations would then represent “branches” to further test, refine and deliver technology to a widening array of endusers in comparable agroecological zones. The essenceof this arrangement is depicted in Figure A7.1. Some of the existing ICARDANARSs links and working arrangementsapproximate this schemealready but what is presently missing is a more comprehensive coverage of the major agroecologiesin the WANA region - a coverage that may prove challenging to accomplishunder the present and prospective funding scenario - and a reorientation to the client-driven, capacity-building, persistent, NARS-based, subecoregional programs now addressed. For the reasonsbriefly outlined above, the Panel suggeststhat ICARDA might achieve greater impact, greater coherenceof activities and greater resource-useefficiency by more fully integrating, cooperating and collaborating with NARSs. Sufficient databases,it is felt, have by now been generated to select satellite research centers that (a) reflect major agroecological zones consistent with ICARDA’ s primary focus, and (b) represent production systems(with targeted crops and farming systems) that could serve as models to characterizebetter and improve their efficiency and sustainability. Strengthening formal links with these selectedNARSs would allow ICARDA to capitalize on host-country resources and personnel, provide greater accessto (and generation of) databasescharacterizing features of the climate, soil and water, land-use patterns and practices, cropping systemsand efficiencies, and soil erosion and land degradation. Such improved linkages would also offer greater precision in characterizing and understanding farming systems, in assessing the impact of adopted technologies and their interaction with microclimate variations and, more importantly, in facilitating- a higher probability of successin identifying comparable agroecological areas for extension of identified new and improved technologies. ICARDA has a strong history of working with national programs. Strengthening formal linkages with core NARSs selectedon the basis of agroecological zones and of host-country commitment will have numerous advantagesfor ICARDA. It provides for greater coherence in the research mandate, both by unifying a systematicelement in the research program and by building an effective network for the adaption and adoption of technologiesfrom the main research program. Satellite centers also have a potential advantageof facilitating information flows, training networks and in monitoring and documenting the consequences of farmers’ adoption of modified technologies. This concept outlined in this appendix is in complete harmony with TAC’ s recently articulated ecoregional approach (TACKenter Directors Working Group 1993). There are three key aspectsto this approach: (a) applied and strategic research on the foundations of sustainable production systems in the ecoregion, (b) the improvement of productivity in the ecoregion by drawing in appropriate global research activities and (c) strengtheningof cooperation with national partners and development of transnational mechanismsof collaboration. In the transition from the medium to the long term, and as national systemsbecome stronger, CGIAR ecoregional activities will be progressively replaced by work in national programs and transnational networks. of Research. , Egure A7.1 Schemefor an AgroecologicalOrganization Appendix 8 Assessment of ICARDA’ s Response to the Recommendations of the 1988 External Program Review The 1988 External Program Review (EPR) of ICARDA made 19 recommendations. ICARDA’ s responseto these recommendations has been taken into account in the appropriate sections of the Report. The Review Panel’ s assessment of the Center’ s response is summarized in this Annex. Assessment of ICARDA’ s Appendix 8 Response to the Recommendations of the 1988 External Program Review Page 144 I. EPR Recommendations: Research Programs Recommendation Research Programs: Implementation Full (F) Partial (P) or None (N) Comments (section referencesare to those of this Report) Recommendation1: That ICARDA review the staff resourcesdevoted to the agroecologicalcharacterizationproject to ensure that sufficient priority is accordedwithin the program to bring the project to a timely completion and facilitate the transfer of the techniquesto national programs as appropriate (para. 3.1.7. EPR report, page 30). Recommendation 2: That a full-time core (P-level) position for a social anthropologistbe added to the FRMP, and that provision be made for researchassistance for the socioeconomic group. Recommendation 3: That, in view of the importance of livestock in the future program of ICARDA, one of the current core (P-level) economicspositions be assignedto work on livestock production systems,and that this position be transferred from FRMP to PFLP. P ICARDA has not increasedthe staff support to this project but has taken steps to strengthenthe work in other ways, These include (a) better computer facilities to support the work, especially the crop-growth modelling work, (b) training of NARSs scientists to use the “Packageof Agroecological Characterization(PAC)” in Morocco and Turkey,.(c) further developmentof the weather generator model, and (d) training of its own staff in the use of crop growth models. An anthropologistwas appointedin January 1990 to study adoption. Two economistshave been recruited, .one on a visiting scientist basis. As noted in sections 2.6.3 and 2.6.4, researchassistanceto the group is still inadequate. An economist was transferred to PFLP in September 1990. Assessment of ICARDA’ s Appendix 8 Response to the Recommendations of the 1988 External Program Review Page 145 Recommendation Implementation Comments Recommendation 4: That, in view of the importanceof livestock in the future program of ICARDA, one of the current (P-level) economicspositions be assignedto work on livestock production systemsand that this position be transferred from FRMP to PFLP (para. 3.2.7. page 39). Recommendation 5: That researchon annual pasturelegumes, grazing management and livestock husbandrybe extendedto important farming systemsoutside Syria. F Sameas Recommendation No.3, which has been implemented. F ICARDA has expandedits work on pasture legumes and crop rotation to Algeria and Morocco. In 1991 it establisheda Regional Pastureand Forage Legume Network. Grazing managementand livestock husbandry activities form an integral part of the evolving outreach programs in West Asia, North Africa, and the Highlands. ICARDA has establisheda small herd of goats for use in grazing management trials. The Center also imported Awassi sheepfrom Turkey to evaluatetheir milk yield potential in comparison with Syrian Awassi Sheep. A livestock scientist (ruminant nutrition) was recruited in 1991; a second post was advertized but was subsequentlyfrozen becauseof financial cutbacks. Recommendation 6: That mixed-speciesherds and genotypes of different production potentials be included in researchon management of livestock feed resourcesto obtain substantial increasesin milk and meat. Recommendation 7: That the number of livestock scientists be increasedby two additional P-level positions. Recommendation 8: That ICARDA and CIMMYT reexamine, as a matter of urgency, their respective stanceson wheat improvement in the WANA region, taking a long-term view of the strengthsof national programs and the shifts in emphasisof their own research. They should strive to reach formal agreementas soon as possible, incorporating all aspects of work on wheat by both Centers in the WANA region (para. 3.3.7. page 49). F A formal agreementbetweenICARDA and CIMMYT was signed in March 1989. The agreementappearsto be operating fairly well. ICARDA is providing administrative support to a CIMMYT project in Egypt and office facilities to a CIMMYT scientist outposedin Turkey. (See section 3.3.3.4). Assessment of ICARDA’ s Appendix 8 Response to the Recommendations of the 1988 External Program Review Page 146 Recommendation Implementation Comments Recommendation 9: That ICARDA undertakean analysis of existing evidenceon the value of legumesin production systems of the region with respectto both their contribution to soil fertility under stressful conditions, and the possibilities for expansionin their use as livestock feed. The results of this analysis should be used to determine ICARDA’ s strategy for future researchon food and forage legumes(para. 3.4.7 page 57). Recommendation 10: That work on lentil improvement be continuedat the present level for two years and, in addition, ICARDA should immediately embark on an in-depth assessment of the potential payoff of further researchinvestment on the improvementof lentil (taking into account the contribution to human nutrition, foreign trade and the sustainability of production systemsin the region) in order to determine the appropriateallocation of its resources. F ICARDA with the support of IFPRI completed the suggestedstudy in May 1990 and has implemented its main recommendations. Researchon food and feed legumeshave been combined into a single legume program (LP). The forage legume scientist in PFLP has been transferred to the LP. Currently, one senior scientist in LP (the PFLP transfer) and a postdoctoral fellow are working on forage legumes. (see box 2.2 - top right para) The ICARDA/IFPRI study recommendedthat work on lentil should continue at the present scale becauseof its contribution to the sustainability of farming systems in the WANA region. The report also recommendedthat, resourcespermitting, work should be initiated on the Indian subcontinent. A seminar on lentil researchwas held in New Delhi (March 1991) in collaboration with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research(ICAR). The meeting recommendedthe initiation of researchon lentils in South Asia in consultation with NARSs and basedon special project funds. These funds have not as yet materialized. [see box 2.21 The Panel observesthat the work hardly constitutes “in-depth assessment of the potential pay-off of further investment.” This recommendationhas been implemented. In 1989 ICARDA transferred its work on faba bean to Morocco, and researchon the crop (except germplasm conservation)at ICARDA’ s headquarters was discontinued The final transfer was effected in 1992, when BMZ/GTZ agreedto fund and execute the “North Africa Regional Network on Faba Bean Improvement Research”, in cooperationwith INRA, Morocco. ICARDA’ s role is now confined to technical advice when requested.(but see box 2.5 for commentarv) F Recommendation PI: That ICARDA proceed to implement the CGIAR decision on faba bean as expeditiously as possible. F Assessment of ICARDA’ s Appendix 8 Response to the Recommendations of the 1988 External Program Review Page 147 Recommendation .’ Genetic Resources Implementation ‘ . . .:. ., ;,.., ,., :., .., ;;.:.;; .;:.; ;, ..:. x ...I .. .‘ ,. ..:.. .: :’ Comments :., ;;,;;, ,,,, ,, .::.: ,’ ‘ , ..;;;;;.: :.. . .‘ ..‘ . .’ ‘ :. Recommendation 12: That ICARDA review the overall staff requirements and the distribution of responsibilitiesin the Genetic Resources Program and its associated laboratories. Any deficienciesin staffing should be brought to the attention of TAC, which has accordedhigh priority to work on genetic resourcesand related seed health activities (para 3.5.7. page F The MTP (1990194)staff projections have been executedas proposed. The Unit now has a leader, a cereal curator and a legume curator. Other senior staff are involved in collection and seed health work. Special projects and collaboration with IBPGR have raised staffing to above MTP projections. In addition, IBPGR has located its Middle East Regional Office in ICARDA. Recommendation 13: That before ICARDA enters into a contract involving special project funds, there should be an appraisalof a proposal in relation to ICARDA’ s mandated responsibilities, the likely contribution to the Center’ s research programs, and the effects on the intendedbeneticiaries. All proposalsshould be examinedagainst predeterminedcriteria listed at Annex VII (para 4.6.6. page 86). Recommendation 14: That special fund projects should, in addition to making a contribution to overheads,be required to make a financial contribution to the core activities of the Center directly related with the objectives of the project. The Center should consider making a matching supplementarycontribution. P Center Managementacceptsthe need for stringent criteria against which special projects are evaluated. The Center also statesits intention to ensure that special project funding does not divert its work from its declaredobjectives. N This condition is outside the control of ICARDA - short of turning down special projects that do not also make financial contributions to core activities. With the new nomenclatureof core and complementary and its implications for the substanceof acceptablespecial funding, the conditions of matching funds becomeless relevant, as long as donors finance approvedactivities. Substitution of core expenditureis, in effect, indirect core funding. Assessment of ICARDA’ s Appendix 8 Response to the Recommendations of the 1988 External Program Review Page 148 Recommendation Implementation Comments Recommendation 15: That since the needsof national systems for the effective developmentand operation of the subregional networks should drive the training priorities, this be explicitly recognizedin ICARDA’ s strategy (para 5.1.7. page 93). F The Center’ s strategy acknowledgesthe implicit challengeof ensuring that the training offered by the Center is in support of the needsof NARSs in the various regional programs. In consequence, ICARDA has placed the oversight of both Training and CODIS with the ADG(IC). Yearly planning meetingswith NARSs decide on training needsboth for individual countries and regions. Recommendation 16: That ICARDA establish a Publications Committee with an initial task of developing a publications policy (para 5.2.7. page 97). A Publications Committee has been operational since October 1988, comprising representatives from the various programs. Significant outputs have beena report on “Reorganizing the Scientific Information S&vices of ICARDA,’ and a “Publications Policy.” The recommendations of the Committee are being implementedin a phasedmanner. 17: That ICARDA consider introducing a matrix structure for organizing its future researchwork. T’ he dimensionsof the matrix should be determinedas ICARDA’ s strategic directions are identified (para 6.1.5. page 106). Recommendation P ICARDA has interpreted the introduction of a matrix structure to imply an arrangementthat avoids the negative aspectsof a purely disciplinary-based researchmanagement. The matrix operatesat two levels: the program and project/activity. All ICARDA programs are more or less matrices that mesh commodities and activities in a coherent whole. Further, several of the Center’ s projects are activities with a multi-disciplinary composition. Other linkages are brought about through the sharing of researchlaboratories, equipment and methods. The planning and monitoring proceduresinclude annual plans and budgets, review/planning meetingsboth in-horise and with cooperatingNARSs, discussionsin TRAC and the Board PC as well as interactions with visiting scientists. Recommendation 18: That ICARDA critically assessthe suitability of its current monitoring and review systemsto its future needs, in the light of its strategic plan, medium-term program, and project-basedmatrix management system. P Assessment of ICARDA’ s Appendix 8 Response to the Recommendations of fhe 1988 External Program Review Page 149 Recommendation 19: That the incipient microcomputer capacity be expandedand that scientists be encouragedin the use and developmentof their personalized,specializedsoftware on both microcomputersand the mainframe (para 6.2.4. page 111). F The Center now operatesover 200 microcomputers in its researchand administrative programs. In-house expertise is in place on hardware software selection and acquisition. The Computer and Biometrics Services Unit now supports numerous software packages. The mainframe has been replacedby a VAX 4000-500 and a local area network has been installed. The new system is fullv operational in 1993. Acronyms and Abbreviations* AARINENA AC ACSAD ADG ADG-GL ADG(IC) AFESD ALAD AOAD APRP ARC AZRI BMZ\GTZ BNF BOT CBSU CGKGIAR CIAT CIHEAM CIMMYT CIP CIS CIS CODIS CP CRRA csu DDG. DG DOA DOF EC EC ECU EMR EPR ER ESCWA FAO FLIP FRMP FSU GEF Association of Agricultural Research Institutions in Near East and North Africa Audit Committee* Arab Center for Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands Assistant Director GeneraI’ Assistant Director General - Government Liaison’ Assistant Director General - International Cooperation* Arab Fund for Economic and Social Developnient Arid Lands Agricultural Development Program Arab Organization for Agricultural Development Agricultural Research Project, Egypt Agricultural Research Council, Egypt Arid Zone Research Institute, Pakistan Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation (Fed. Rep. of Germany) Biological Nitrogen Fixation Board of Trustees* Computer and Biometrics Systems Unit* Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research International Center for Tropical Agriculture International Center for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center International Potato Center Candidate Information System (of the CGIAR) Commonwealth of Independent States (of the FSU) Communication, Documentation and Information Service* Cereal Program* Centre Regional de Recherche Agronomique (France) Computer Services Unit* Deputy Director GeneraI’ Director General* Director of Administration* Director of Finance’ European Community Executive Committee* European Currency Unit External Management Review (of the CGIAR) External Program Review (of the CGIAR) External Review (=EMR +EPR) UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Food Legume Improvement Program’ Farm Resource Management Program* Former Soviet Union Global Environment Facility (administered by the World Bank) 150 Acronyms and Abbreviations, continued GM0 GRT GRU I ARC IBPGR IBRD IC ICARDA ICRAF ICRISAT IDRC IFAD IFDC IFPRI IIMI ILCA INAT INRA INTERPAKS IPGRI IPM IRRI ISNAR LP MART MAS MC MTP NARP NARS(s) NC NIS NRM NVP NVRP oc OFR P PAC PARC PC PCR PFLP HQ QQR QTL genetically modified organisms graduate research training* Genetic ResourcesUnit* Headquarter(s)* International Agricultural Research Center International Board for Plant Genetic Resources International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (“World Bank”) international cooperation activities* International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas International Council for Research on Agroforestry International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics International Development Research Centre (Canada) International Fund for Agricultural Development International Fertilizer Development Centre International Food Policy Research Institute International Irrigation Management Institute International Livestock Centre for Africa Institut National d’ Agriculture Tropicale Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique International Program for Agricultural Knowledge Systems (University of Illinois) International Plant Genetic ResourcesInstitute (formerly IBPGR) integrated pest mangement International Rice Research Institute International Service for National Agricultural Research Legume Program’ Management of Agricultural Research and Technology (project of USAID), Pakistan computerized financial and administrative system* Management Committee* Medium-Term Plan North Africa Regional Program* National Agricultural Research System(s) Nominating Committee* Newly IndependentStates (of the FSU) natural resource management Nile Valley Project* Nile Valley Regional Program’ Ombudsman Committee* on-farm research Senior Professional Staff or Principal Managerial* Package for Agro-ecological Characterization* Pakistan Agricultural Research Council Program Committee* polymerase chain reaction Pasture, Forage and Livestock Program* Quinquennial Review (of the CGIAR) quantity tract linkages 151 Acronyms and Abbreviations, continued RA RAPD RFLP RNEA SAREC SC SCOER SHL SP SSD SSM STIP su TAC TCC TCU TRAC UAE UNCED UNDP USAID VL WANA WANANET WMO Research and Administrative Staff random amplified polymorphic DNA restriction fragment-length polymorphism Regional Near East office of FAO Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation with Developing Countries Safety Committee* Standing Committee on External Reviews (of TAC) Seed Health Laboratory* Strategic Plan* single seed descent senior scientist months Scientific and Technical Information Services* Seed Unit* Technical Advisory Committee (of the CGIAR) Training Coordination Committee* Training Coordination Unit* Training and Research Advisory Committee* United Arab Emirates United Nations Conference on Environment and Development United Nations Development Programme United States Agency for International Development Virology Laboratory* West Asia and North Africa WANA Plant Genetic Resources Network World Meteorological Organization * ICARDA-specific acronyms and abbreviations 1.52 References (other than those standard for external reviews) Beck, D.P and Materon, L.A. (eds) (1988), Nitrogen Fixation by Legumes in Meditteranean Agriculture, Proceedings of a workshop, Martinus Nijhoff for ICARDA, Dordrecht. Bird, G.W., Edens, T., Drommond, F. and Grodon, E. (1990), “Design of Pest Management Systems for Sustainable Agriculture”, In Z.A. Francis, C.B. Flora and L.D. King (eds), Sustainable Agricuture in TemperatesZones, Wiley, New York. Buddenhagen, I. (1990), “Legumes in Farming Systems in Mediterranean Climates”, In A.E. Osman, M.H. Ibrahim and M.A. Jones (eds), The Role of Legumes in the Farming Systemsof the Medirerranean Areas, Kluwer for ICARDA, Dordrecht. Christiansen, S., Materon, L., Falcinelli, M. and Cocks, P. (1993), Zntroducing Ley Farming to the Mediterranean Basin, ICARDA, Aleppo. Fuglie, K. and Ruttan, V.W. (1989), “Value of External Reviews of Research at the International Agricultural Research Centres”, Agricultural Economics 3(4), 36580. Heichel, G.H. (1987), “Legumes as a Source of Nitrogen in Conservation Tillage Systems”, In J.F. Power et al. (eds.), The Role of Legumes in Conservation TtZZage Systems, Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, 29-34. Nordblom, T. Christiansen, S., Nersoyan, N. -and Bahady, F. (1992), A Whole-Farm ModeZfor Economic Analysis of Medic Pasture and Other Dryland Crops in Two-Year Rotations with Wheat in Northwest Syria, ICARDA, Aleppo. Oram, P. (1988), Prospectsfor Agricultural Production and Food De3cits in West Asia and North Africa: The Role of High-Elevation Areas, IFPRI, Washington, D.C. Oram, P. and Belaid, A. (1990), Legumes in Fatming Systems,ICARDA, Aleppo. Osman, A.E., Ibrahim, M.H. and Jones, M.A. (eds) (1990), The Role of Legumes in the Farming Systemsof the Mediterranean Areas, Proceedings of a workshop, Developments in Plant and Soil Sciences 38, Kluwer for ICARDA, Dordrecht. ozgediz, S. (1993), “Organization and Management of International Agricultural Research”, JournaZ of Public Administration and Development, in press. Pardey, P.G., Roseboom, J. and Anderson J.R. (eds) (1991), Agricultural Research Policy: International Quantitative Perspectives, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Singh, K.B. and Saxena, M.C. (1992), Disease ResistenceBreeding in Chickpea, Proceedings of the Consultative Meeting on Breeding for Disease Resistancein Kabuli Chickpea, ICARDA, Aleppo. 153 References. continued Smith, A. and Robertson, L. (eds) (1991), L.egume Genetic Resourcesfor Semi-Arid Temperate Environments, Proceedings of an International Workshop of Genetic Resources of CoolSeason Pasture, Forage and Food Legumes for Semi-Arid Temperate Environments, Cairo, Egypt, ICARDA, Aleppo. TAC (1973), Repon of the Research Review Mission to the Near East and North Apica, DDDR:IAR/73/18. Technical Advisory Committee, FAO, Rome. TACKenter Directors Working Group (1993), Ihe Ecoregional Approach to Research in the CGUR, Technical Advisory Committee, FAO, Rome. Tisdall, J.M. and Oades, J.M. (1982), “Organic Matter and Water Stable Aggregates in Soils,” Journal of Soil Science 33,141-63. World Bank (1992), Turkey: Agricultk-al Research Project, Report No.: 9890TU, World Bank: Washington, D.C. UMMYT 1990-94 World H%eatFacts and Trends, ICARDAKIMMYT, CIMMYT: Mexico. 154