"
I

I

+&@ Minutes of the CDC Meeting held in Nairobi in May, 1995

Contents
1. Summary of Agreements Reached 2. Detailed Minutes of the Meeting 3. Agenda for CDC Meeting, MTM May, 1995, Nairobi 4. Participant List, CDC Meeting, MTM May 1995, Nairobi

-.

1. Summary of Agreements Reached
During the CDC meeting, the following agreements were reached: Center directors should contact Wanda Collins and Uma Lele to discuss Center collaboration with US universities and World Bank research involvement. ISNAR will send the requested Centers' host country agreements to the CGIAR Secretariat, and will contact centers for which it does not have a copy of the agreement. The Information Sub-committee should become a Sub-Committee of the DDGs, reporting through G. Hawtin to the CDC. Individual centers should not sign agreements for commercial distribution of center information and documentation materials through the INTERNET until CDC discusses this topic.

P. Sanchez, H. Fitzhugh and J. Ryan should prepare a proposal for a joint CDC-TAC-CG Secretariat effort to prepare guidelines for matrix management.
C. Bonte-Friedheim will look for someone knowledgeable of the EU and residing in or near Brussels, to work for the CDC part-time, on a cost basis, to lobby and follow up on work at the EU. The principle was established that in inter-center proposals, each center should charge full overhead on the money it spends and a small "pass-through fee" (e.g., 2-5%) on funds channeled to other organizations. Concerning inter-center IPM work, the following agreements were reached: 0 to approve the draft IPM policy statement 0 to approve establishment of a System-Wide Program on IPM 0 to formally establish an Inter-Center Working Group on IPM 0 to update the program of work for the System-Wide Initiative, considering, in particular, linkages with the ecoregional initiatives The aim is to submit a final SWNM proposal at the December TAC meeting.

Horton\cdcminUune26, 1995

1

The CDC Chair will comment on the study of CGIAR involvements in West Africa in the MTM, emphasizing general dissatisfaction with the way the study was managed and carried out, and the need to improve the objectivity of future studies. The CDC Chair will communicate with Mr. Jaycox, Vice President of the World Bank, to confirm that SPAAR can admit CGIAR centers without the usual membership fee. On the topic of MTA's and GAA's, the following was agreed: 0 IPGFU will explore w i t h FA0 the possibility of F A 0 negotiating general umbrella agreements with countries 0 IPGRI will revise the draft agreements and circulate new versions in a week or so, with a request for a quick response 0 The revised MTA will take into account the concerns of the DG's; it will aim to be simple, and meet only the requirements of the agreements signed with FA0 and will not take into account issues such as derivatives and sharing of benefits 0 All responses fiom Centers should be signed by the DG (so as to be consistent with the consensus of this meeting)
r .

Center Directors endorsed a proposal for IPGRI to contract a paper and organize an intercenter meeting on ethical concerns relating to genetic resources, subject to availability of funds. PARC was requested to negotiate the requested support of US $100,000 with the Crawford Fund. PARC should discuss the issue of levies on individual centers to cover specific PA activities, and present a proposal at the next CDC meeting. Centers operating in the same countries were encouraged to share information on local staff remuneration and service conditions, in order to benefit fiom the accumulated experience and move toward more uniform practices, where appropriate. ISNAR will distribute a new draft questionnaire for the NGO survey for comment by the centers. Center Directors should propose to D. Winkelmann suggestions for names of suitable candidates for the TAC Executive Secretary (fiom a LDC) and for TAC (2 fiom Africa, 1 fiom LAC, one fiom WANA, particularly in the areas of livestock, economics and natural resource management). In order to tap USAIDs new "Research Constraints Project," a center should prepare one proposal, in collaboration with a US university, for around US $100,000; there will only be funds for about four proposals. CIFOR will make available to other Centers, the forms it has collected on board evaluations. AIARC and the Benefits Committee should in future be on the main agenda of CDC meetings, not in "other business." Center Directors should send proposed topics for the DDGs meeting to C. BonteFriedheim by July 15. The Executive Committee will meet during the MTM and assign new CDC members to the sub-committees.

HortonkdcminUune 26, 1995

2

PARC will review a proposal to include the CGIAR logo on all center publications. Until further notice, there will be no change in existing practice. ICRISAT agreed to represent CDC in the Working Group of the WMO’s Committee on Agricultural Meteorology.

2. Detailed Minutes of the Meeting
Welcome

.

P. Sanchez welcomed the group to ICRAF and briefly described the center’s facilities, including the ecoregional “home” under construction.

Item 1. Chairman’s opening remarks
Roger Rowe and Randy Barker were welcomed, as first-time participants of the CDC. It was announced that Grant Scobie will arrive later i n the day and David Seckler and George Rothschild will arrive after the CDC meeting. It was noted with deep regret that Larry Stifel and Martin Bicamumpaka had recently died and that Tom Hargrove was still being held in captivity. The following points were made during the Chairman’s remarks and the following discussion. The CDC will meet with the CGIAR Chairman on Thursday, May 25 at 15:30 hours. Kenya’s Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Nyachae, and the CGIAR Chair will be guests of honor at the CDC dinner on Tuesday, May 23. Two candidates were nominated for the post of TAC Executive Secretary, but neither was selected by the FA0 Director General, and it is likely that the selection process will begin over again. The new World Bank President will visit Uganda in June. C. Bonte-Friedheim will discuss with the CGIAR Chair possible action to arrange for one or two Centers to make contact with the president while he is in Uganda. There is growing competition from US universities for funding going to the CGIAR, and there are proposals to channel more money to the universities, who may, in tum, contract work with the Centers. Center directors should contact Wanda Collins and Uma Lele to discuss collaboration with US universities. The CDC Chair will discuss with Henri Carsalade the urgent need to strengthen TAC and its Secretariat.

I
l

e . .

Item 2. Adoption of the agenda
In addition to the items listed in the agenda, the following topics were proposed: 0 A meeting with Dana Dalrymple or Rob Bertram at 7:45 hours on Saturday 0 Preparation for ICW-95 0 Strengthening evaluation in the CGIAR 0 Request for host-country agreements

Horton\cdcminUune 26, 1995

3

d

ISNAR will send copies of the requested center host-country agreements to the CGIAR Secretariat, and will contact centers for which it does not have a copy of the agreement.

Item 3. Approval o f the Minutes o f the last meeting (ICW, 1994)
The following corrections were proposed: Page 1: "IIRI" should be "IRRI"(!). Page 3, para 9: This para is incorrect. Page 22: "IPR and Genetic Resources Sub-Committee" should be simply "IPR Sub-Committee." Fitzhugh has replaced Brader as chair of the FAOAARC Task Force. These corrections will be introduced into the minutes already distributed to members of the CDC. A copy of the corrected CDC minutes will be sent to MARC, which has established an archive of all available CDC minutes.

Item 4. Matters arising from the minutes
P. Pinstrup-Andersen reported that "Food and resources for the future," which the Joint TAC/CBC/CDC Committee on Priorities and Strategies had been signed off on earlier, was now considered by the PAA to be obsolete, and hence it would not be published. Zandstra reported that plans to publish "Preserving the options: Food production and sustainability" had also been dropped. The CDC Chair, on behalf of the CDC, has signed a contract with CIAT for implementing the IVDN. The equipment is being purchased through CGNet. Ten Centers are expected to be on the IVDN by year end. It was noted that participation in the IVDN will only be economical at high-volume sites (ie., center headquarters).

*

H. Zandstra distributed a report on case studies of the use of electronic conferencing in the CGIAR. (The report was prepared by R. Hart of INFORUM.)
The growing importance of system-wide information-related activities (like the IVDN) and the need for system-level coordination and decision-making were noted. Based on the excellent past work of the DDGs in this area, and the limited time of the DGs to attend to this area, it was suggested and agreed that the Information Sub-committee should become a Sub-committee of the DDGs, reporting through G. Hawtin to the CDC. In order to ensure the development of a corporate image for the CGIAR on the INTERNET, it was suggested and agreed that individual centers would not sign MOUs for commercial distribution of center materials through the INTERNET, without prior discussion of this topic by the CDC.

Item 5. Preparation for meetings during the MTM
5.a. Meeting with the TAC Chair

The following topics were identified for discussion with the TAC Chair: Priority-setting processes (including erosion of TAC's role in system guidance) 0 Scheduling of meetings (prefer TAC meeting in March, not later) Issues of TAC membership and the Secretariat Functioning of joint CDC/TAC committees, on priorities and strategies and on plant genetic resources

Horton\cdcminUune 26, I995

4

0

0 0
0

Program and budget exercise: issues of terminology, clarity, transparency, ad hoc decisions, short-term expediency vs. long-term viability Guidelines for matrix Role of the CGIAR in Eastern Europe Role of NARS in TAC's priority-setting processes Remaining concerns with the TAC-commissioned study of CGIAR commitments in West Africa

5.b. Meeting with the CGIAR Chair
The CGIAR Chair has indicated that he would like to discuss the following topics with the CDC: 0 Implications of the World Bank's internal audit procedures for CG Centers: Erosion of the core budget concept 0 Program-Center matrix: How will the next priority-setting exercise bear on programs and budgets? Move to project and program funding. Erosion of core budget concept. Role of steering committees in program management. Need for guidelines for managing the matrix, and for Centers to be involved in preparing them 0 It was agreed that Sanchez, Fitzhugh and Ryan would prepare a proposal for a joint CDC-TAC-CG Secretariat effort to prepare guidelines for matrix management, for discussion with key stakeholders during ICW 0 Evaluation in the CGIAR 0 Expansion of the number of IARC's 0 Expansion of technical collaboration with Japan Center Directors proposed the following additional topics: 0 Is there life after the 18-month revitalization program? Concern was expressed over the sustainability of some funding arrangements beyond 1995. 0 Public awareness functions within the CGIAR Secretariat 0 Functions of M. Petit's unit
5.c. Meeting with EU representative

e

e

EU is one of the few donors where the CGIAR may be able to tap significant new funding. We need much better information, access and follow through. (CIRAD, for example, has an office there with 2 full-time people, and this has proved very useful.) It was agreed that the CDC Chair will look for someone knowledgeable of the EU, and residing in or near Brussels, to work for the CDC part-time, on a cost basis, to lobby and negotiate at the EU. When an appropriate person is identified, the other Center Directors will be contacted to discuss costs and cost sharing.
5.d Impact workshop

The CGIAR Chair has already announced the creation of a system-wide impact assessment (IA) group or unit. The issues now are: What should it do? How should it relate to Center I A activities? Where should it be located? Emphasis on ex-post vs. exante analysis, and use of ex-post results for priority setting.

Horton\cdcrninUune 26, 1995

5

Item 6. Report of the Lucerne meeting
A summary sheet on the meeting was circulated. Sanchez noted that the meeting was superbly organized and accomplished its goal (to make the high-level participants "feel good" about the CGIAR, and predisposed to support it). During the meeting, support was expressed for CGIAR work in Eastern Europe and in low-potential, poor and marginal areas. The main technical highlights during the meeting were: water; fish; and soil, water and nutrient management. Several Center Directors stressed the advances made in Africa.

Item 7. System-wide initiatives and eco-regional Programs
A major issue is how centers should charge overhead fees on inter-center activities. There are actually sub-issues: (1) different centers use different conventions for apportioning costs between direct and overhead categories; (2) different centers have different cost structures, and hence, overhead costs; (3) different centers have different views on the extent to which they should, or could, "subsidize" inter-center activities by subsidizing overheads with core funds. Overhead estimates range from 12%for CIAT; 20%for ICRAF and 40% for IFPRI. Pinstrup-Andersen noted that IFPRI simply could not subsidize overheads, because of its small unrestricted core. The principle was established that in inter-center proposals each center should charge full overhead on the money it spends and a much smaller "pass-through fee" (e.g., 2-5%) on funds channeled to other organizations.
7.a IPM

In the CDC meeting held in New Delhi in 1994, it was decided that IITA would take the lead in developing a system-wide initiative on IPM, and that AVRDC and ICIPE would be invited to participate in it. All Centers were invited to participate in the first Working Group meeting, held at ISNAR in February 1995. A proposal for a system-wide IPM initiative was prepared and submitted to TAC, but the response was "confused." The following agreements were reached by the CDC at the present meeting: to approve the draft IPM policy statement prepared by the Working Group to approve establishment of a System-Wide Program on IPM (SWPIPM) to formally establish an Inter-Center Working Group on IPM to update the program of work for the System-Wide Initiative, considering in particular linkages with the ecoregional initiatives

H. Zandstra expressed concern about the inconsistent manner in which activities were selected for the program of work of the SWPIPM. He requested a more transparent and participatory approach to program definition.
7.b. S W M

The aim is to submit a final proposal at the December TAC meeting. The convening centers and their collaborators will meet in Feldafing, Germany, in mid-June to advance the SWNM planning efforts. At the same time, a Stripe Review sub-committee meeting will be held in Rome, and R. Havener will go from Feldafing to Rome to interact with the

Horton\cdcminUune 26, 1995

6

*

sub-committee. The expected outputs of the Feldafing meeting are four or five proposals to be submitted to the July TAC meeting.
7.e. CDC reactions to C G M Task Forces on eco-regional approaches and on sustainable agriculture

The reports were discussed. There was general agreement, but some observations were agreed upon. These were submitted to the CDC Chair for inclusion in his comment. (See also Item 9.d., below.)
7.d Stripe studies

Stripe studies are being carried out, or are planned for: roots and tubers, policy and management (or institutional strengthening), NRM and grains. There is apparently no common framework, methodology or TOR for the various stripe studies. The initial motivation for some of them was to assess possibilities for restructuring the system. This motivation is no longer present, and the current purpose and expected outputs of these exercises is unclear. TAC expects to use the Stripe Studies in the next priority-setting exercise, but how remains unclear.

e

Item 8. The matrix system and corefunding
Major discussion points included: (1) the diverse terminology employed in the system for different classes of activities and funding categories; and (2) concepts and operational aspects of matrix management involving many organizations, inside and outside of the CGIAR. Some specific topics and concerns: The fundamental problem may be that donors no longer feel ownership over the CGIAR agenda or its operations (including operation of the TAC). As a result, donors are increasingly interventionist in CG operations and allocations, introducing more restrictions on use of funds and demanding more accountability. At ICW-94, the impression was that the matrix was mainly for "flow-of-funds analysis," and for communicating with donors. But now it seems much more for managing the entire system. Discussion on this topic covered the following questions and points: How should core funding be used in system-wide and eco-regional initiatives? The term "agreed agenda'' is replacing the core concept. But what does it mean? Who agrees? The "agreed agenda" for 1996 is US $$299 million. This includes eco-regional initiatives, in which many activities are done outside the CGIAR system, using CGIAR funds. There is a lack of transparency in redirecting "complementary" items into the core program. Much of what donors used to call 'lcomplementary is now "restricted core." For some centers (e.g., IFPRI and ISNAR), the core ceiling has been increased by including previously TAC-approved core program activities funded by complementary funds. Does this imply that the core ceiling will fluctuate in future as restricted projects Vary?

iB

Horton\cdcrninUune 26, 1995

7

J

Who is accountable for eco-regional activities which involve many organizations: the lead center or the steering committee? Center Directors understand that accountability resides with the centers and their boards.

Item 9. Sub-committees Reports
9.a Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-committee

E. Terry presented the minutes of the sub-committee meeting, which covered the following points:

-

0 0 0 0

0 0

The inter-center training program Preparation of Lome IV/2 project proposals for EU funding The SPAAR meeting in Pretoria ILRI’s work in Africa GHAI Soil fertility, and the related activities of Ambassador Blake The TAC paper on West Africa

The CDC Chair will comment on the study of CGIAR involvement in West Africa during the MTM, emphasizing general dissatisfaction with the way the study was managed and carried out. The CDC Chair will communicate with Mr. Jaycox, Vice President of the World Bank, to confirm that SPAAR will admit CGIAR centers without paying the usual membership fee.
9.6. IPR Sub-Committee.

The Sub-committee has developed a draft text on CGIAR Centers’ intellectual property rights policies for improved germplasm and biotechnological products. The text will be circulated to all Center Directors for final approval at ICW-95. Drafts of a “Materials Transfer Agreement” and a “Germplasm Acquisition Agreement’’ have been drawn up and reviewed by the centers and FAO. There is much debate over a number of issues, including: (1) the appropriate degree of detail, specificity and comprehensiveness; (2) the treatment of issues relating to benefits and derivatives; and (3) whether there should be one agreement to cover all germplasm and situations, or if different types of agreement are needed. It was agreed that action is needed urgently in order to be able to effectively implement the agreements signed with FAO. It might be appropriate for FA0 to negotiate an umbrella agreement with countries, under which the CGIAR might have more specific agreements for germplasm distribution. The following was agreed: IPGRI will explore with FA0 the possibility of FA0 negotiating a general umbrella agreement with countries IPGRI will revise the draft agreements in light of the discussions and circulate new versions within a week or so to all centers with a request for a quick response In revising the agreements, IPGRI will take into account the concerns expressed by the Center Directors. It will aim to be simple and meet only the requirements of the

(Ip

Horton\cdcminUune 26, I995

8

0

agreements signed with FAO. AS such, the agreements should not address, except in preambles as appropriate, issues such as sharing of benefits and derivatives. Such concerns would be covered in hture agreements - which would not be applied retroactively All responses on the agreements from Centers should be approved by the DG (SO as to be consistent with the consensus of this meeting)

9.c. Joint CDCflAC Committee on Plant Genetic Resources The committee hasn’t met in Nairobi. Arising from the recommendations of the CGIAR GR Policy Committee, IPGRI, subject to funding availability, plans to contract a paper and organize an inter-center workshop on ethical issues related to PGR, such as genetic manipulation, sharing of benefits and relations with communities in possession of these resources. The Center Directors endorsed this approach and requested IPGRI to proceed on their behalf. 9.d Sustainability and the Environment Sub-Committee

0

A sub-committee report was read, which dealt with the following topics:
0 0 0 0

Responses to CGIAR Task Forces TAC Stripe Study on NRM Follow up on Stein Bie Report, “CGIAR Response to Agenda 21” Soils issues

The Sub-committee generally endorsed the report of the Task Force on Sustainable Agriculture. However, the conclusions and recommendations are rather theoretical, and firmer recommendations would be beneficial, particularly on how impact can be made on poverty alleviation. The Sub-committee questioned the report’s statement that the food situation for the next ten years is under control. It was felt that no additional CGIAR institutions were needed to tackle strategic research on soils and integrated pest management. The Sub-committee appreciated the Task Force Report on Ecoregional Approaches. However, the paper is vague in many respects. For example, it does not give a clear picture of how much has already been achieved in this area. Nor does it differentiate between mechanisms for ecoregional initiatives and capacity-building activities. The draft TAC Stripe Study report on NRM was considered useful, but too “up-stream,” in its emphasis on advanced, developed-country institutions. Many comments have been received from centers on the SWNM. A meeting will be convened during the MTM to finalize a response to TAC. The Phosphorus Initiative has aroused much interest, and has been expanded in scope. 9.e. FAOLURC Task Force The Chair has not yet been able to visit FAO.

e

Item 10. PARC
A brief, verbal progress report mentioned several activities carried out since ICW-95, including: a PA campaign in Germany, initiation of the preparation of a series of videos, establishment of the Impact Assessment Task Force, and PA activities for the Lucerne meeting.

Horton\cdcminUune 26,1995

9

It was noted that PARC is working closely with the PAA, which is considered to be very effective. Fourteen of the 16 Centers have honored their agreements to provide funds for PARC. Additionally, Swiss Development Cooperation has provided $30,000. Expenses are within budget. PARC's main constraint is implementation capacity. The PARC Chair has met with the CG Chair two times to explore the possibility of establishing a special unit in the World Bank for PA, but this will not be possible. The CGIAR Chair has indicated that the CGIAR Secretariat might be able to support PARC's work, but nothing has been firmed up on this. The Crawford Fund @. Tribe) has requested $100,00O/year to work on CGIAR PA. Based on the past success of the Fund in raising funds for the CGIAR, it was agreed, in principle, to provide this support. P. Pinstrup-Andersen was requested to ask D. Tribe for a budget for the requested amount. On receipt of an acceptable budget, CDC could provide support for a two-year period. a contribution as confidential. PARC will present a proposal for distribution of costs among centers for the costs of PA activities, at the next CDC meeting. The German PA campaign was outlined. A survey has been conducted, indicating that the CGIAR was virtually unknown and when known, frequently thought to be under the control of multinationals, testing chemicals, bioengineering plants, patenting germplasm and with little relation to problems of small farmers or the poor. NGO's have a strong influence on public opinion. Germany was selected as a test case for PA. A firm was contracted, and a budget of $50,000 was provided. The PA strategy developed includes: seminars, press briefings, magazine articles on international agricultural research by German scientists, and translation of materials into German. PA materials in German will also be useful in Austria and Switzerland. The effort will be evaluated upon completion. The issue of PA support to German-speaking national leaders through EPI was raised again. The video series on genetic resources by TVE is getting underway and a funding compaign will be undertaken. Center intent and participation in the project has been extensive and positive.

0

e

Item 11. NARS' role in the CGIAR
At the Lima TAC meeting in March, some NARS leaders from the LAC region emphasized their interest in issues of international competitiveness, rather than poverty alleviation. NARS leaders also expressed concern that the CGIAR was diversifying its contacts with NGO's, universities and other types of organizations. At that meeting, it was agreed that ISNAR would prepare and distribute a questionnaire to NARS leaders to obtain their views on the adequacy of information flows between NARS and the CGIAR. A summary report was distributed and discussed.

HortonkdcminUune 26, 1995

10

The diversity of countries and types of organizations in the region makes it difficult to regional agreements and consensus on issues. Nevertheless, it was generally felt that regional NARS fora were useful for getting a sense of NARS' priorities. Ideally, regional fora should include not only NARS leaders but policymakers, to ensure a broader representation and understanding of the region's requirements for public goods from the CGIAR. But for these fora to be truly effective, the priorities identified must then be reflected in CGIAR decision-making. This is not yet the case. Regional fora of the "traditional NARS" are less useful for CIFOR and ICLARM than for the other centers, because forestry and fisheries are seldom handled by these organizations, or even where they are, the NARS representative is seldom knowledgeable about research in these areas. In this sense, SPAAR and other regional bodies are limited. Concern was expressed over the burden of an increasing number of meetings that DGs were expected to attend.

Item 12. Locally recruited staff
A proposal by M. Williams, with some input from other DG's, was made to develop guidelines and strategies for employment and recognition of nationally recruited staff within the centers. The proposal and related issues of recognizing locally recruited staff were debated. The issues concerned both: (1) recognition of the contributions of local staff and (2) employment conditions. The consensus was that the issues raised were very important, but also extremely sensitive and prone to misinterpretation. Given the large variation in employment patterns and conventions in different countries, general guidelines are not likely to be useful. For these reasons, it was decided that the CDC would not pursue further analysis of this topic. It was agreed that Centers operating in the same countries should share information on local staff remuneration and service conditions, in order to benefit fiom the accumulated experience and move toward more uniform practices, where appropriate.

0

Item 13. Center-NGO Relations
ISNAR has surveyed CGIAR centers and tabulated summary information on the NGOs working with them. A draft report on the survey was distributed and discussed. The information was considered useful. However, some centers found it very difficult or impossible to fill out the survey form (e.g., criteria for including a NGO unclear and compilation of the information on NGO budgets and donors impossible). It was agreed that only NGO's with significant interactions with Centers' work programs (not only participating in meetings) be included. In future, the ISNAR survey should have clearer instructions and be less demanding. Information should be requested only on NGOs that are actively collaborating with the Centers. ISNAR agreed to distribute a new draft questionnaire for the NGO survey for comment by centers.

HortonkdcminUune 26, 1995

11

It was noted that the CGIAR Chair intended to establish a NGO Committee, with two cochairs: one from a developed and one from a developing country.

Item 14. Meeting with the EU representative
There is a desire to harmonize agricultural research efforts of the EU in developing countries. In general, both bilateral and multilateral donors are moving to program funding, rather than funding of individual projects and institutions. The EU is creating a donor coordinating group for agricultural research, with a "restricted group" which includes: UK, France, Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands, Switzerland and the Commission. DG VIII is moving toward broad, coherent eco-regional or problem-oriented programs, which include not only strategic but applied research and development activities in several institutions -- all focused on the solution of a major problem or the development of a region. Werblow hopes that the regional priorities and programs will be identified by the end of 1996, that funding will be available by early 1997, and that the projects will have a 5-year duration. DG VIII, which deals with ACP countries, will hopefully have a fund of 12 billion ECU for five years. Werblow is organizing a programming exercise for agricultural research, that will involve regional organizations, in Afiica C O W , ASARECA and SACCAR. He looks to these organizations to prepare diagnoses and identify priority needs. But he recognizes their weaknesses, and looks to the CGIAR to assist them. r o m DG XI1 (science and technology) has a global mandate. Proposals must come f developing country institutions collaborating with European institutions.

e

Item 15. Lunch meeting with the TAC Chair
The main discussion points during the meeting included: issues of definition, matrix management, transparency, classification of activities, the "agreed-on agenda," the planning process. D. Winkelmann noted that the mandate of the CGIAR remained focused on poverty alleviation and sustainability, and that pressing concerns for efficiency and cost-saving had led to an emphasis on the "production of public goods." TAC presently has five broad topics on its priorities agenda: Assessing probabilities of success and alternative sources of supply Poverty Natural resources Advanced institutions NARS The TAC Secretariat has prepared a paper on matrix management, that was circulated to all DG's. TAC will allocate "new" funds for initiatives but not for programs, the funds for which will compete with all other center core activities. Funds for new initiatives are essentially for coordination costs.

.

Horton\cdcminUune 26, 1995

12

Concerns for efficiency are leading to increased interest in collaboration of various sorts and outsourcing. A-key criterion for reclassifying an activity into the "agreed agenda" is if it is an "international public good." In future, TOR for stripe studies will be developed with more active involvement of the centers concerned. In past, budget cuts or increases have been proportional; but in future this will not be the case. Hence the priorities are more important. In the priority-setting exercise, D Winkelmann's bias will be "as quantitative as possible." Center Directors .. emphasized the need to involve NARS in the priority-setting exercise. R. Havener noted that "One of the unique attributes of the CGIAR has been the lack of specificity. Everybody came to the table, put their money on the chips they wanted, and walked away happy." He warned that the more recent trends toward system-wide planning, priority setting and accountability may well come at the expense of broad donor support and managerial flexibility in the Centers. Directors should propose to D. Winkelmann suitable candidates for TAC (2 from Africa, 1 from LAC, one from WANA), and for the TAC Executive Secretary (from LDC). The preferred disciplinary mix of the four TAC members is two for livestock, one in economics and one in NRM.

e

Item 16. Meeting with the CGIAR Chair
The CDC met with Mr. Ismael Serageldin, Chair of the CGIAR, on Thursday, May 25. During the cordial and informal meeting, a wide range of topics was covered.
16.a. Center Directors ' Topics

0

At the beginning, Mr. Serageldin invited Center Directors to ask questions they had on their mind. In this part of the meeting, discussion focused on four topics. 0 Future funding scenario for the CGIAR, beyond the revitalization effort 0 Funding prospects for specific donors, and Center funding strategies 0 Program-Center matrix 0 Information requests, inter-center committees and task forces Future funding scenariofor the CGUR, beyond the revitalization effoort. Mr. Serageldin characterized the present scenario as ''atidal wave against the entire development effort," which was extremely painful for everyone engaged in development activities. He feels this will be a short-run phenomenon, which will be surpassed within two or three years. His argument is that the reaction against overseas development assistance (ODA) has been so rapid and extreme that the counter-reaction will also be quick. Mr. Serageldin believes that, with appropriate, vigorous action as a group, the CGIAR will be able to protect its funding during this difficult period. He noted that the mood in the Heads of Delegation dinner was open, candid and positive. This is a sign that donors have bought into the CGIAR's agenda. He feels that the proposed budgets for 1996 and 1997 are feasible, and that by 1998 the situation will be more positive. The

HortonkdcminUune 26, 1995

13

i

overall conclusion is that, with appropriate effort, we should not expect either significant funding increases or cuts. Funding prospects for specific donors, and Centerfunding strategies. The only two donors who are now increasing their total ODA flows are Japan and Denmark. But they do not want to be counted on to fill funding gaps left by other donors' cuts. Funding cuts for the CGIAR are expected in Canada and the UK; marginal cuts are expected in the US. Increases are expected in Japan, Denmark, The Netherlands, and perhaps Spain. Japan, the USA and the EU are seen as crucial donors which merit special CDC attention .. (for example, meetings with the CDC at ICW).

Mr. Serageldin is especially interested in tapping non-traditional donors, including developing countries, in order to diversify the funding base and reduce instability.
A number of specific funding issues and strategies were discussed, including: the GEF, the potential role of endowments, private-sector funds, use of the CGIAR's extensive contacts and ex-DGs for fund raising, the World Bank contribution, UNDP, and regional funding sources like the Asian Development Bank and the OPEC Fund. It is difficult for the GEF to justify funding research, since its mandate is to cover incremental costs, where there are significant global benefits. Mr. Serageldin does not believe that endowment funds can play a major role in CGIAR funding, because of the difficulty of pulling together a significant amount of resources (e.g., US $4 billion). A special account is being set up to receive f h d s from private sources and deliver them to the Finance Committee. Mr. Serageldin does not believe that the "old boys network" will be very effective in future fund raising, and that new networks and contacts must be built. His initial feeling is that the new World Bank President will be positive to the CGIAR, and he is hopeful that World Bank funding can be maintained. UNDP is extremely vulnerable, and should not be counted on for fhding. Regional funding sources do not seen to be very promising. Mr. Serageldin is not optimistic about the Inter-American Development Bank's (BID'S)current effort to establish a research fund in Latin America. He feels that the amount being sought ( U S $100 million) is too small. He fears BID is using this as an "exit strategy" from funding agricultural research in the region. The Asian Development Bank has been reticent to fund the CGIAR (reasons unclear). To obtain OPEC funding, it would be necessary to visit all the countries, and this would be an excessively time-consuming process. Program-Center matrk On matrix funding and management issues, donors should not be discouraged from funding center-specific activities; but should be encouraged to fund

a

Horton\cdcminUune 26,1995

14

c

priority activities in the Agreed Agenda. Centers should be proactive in obtaining h d s for priorities agreed on by the group, rather than for complementary activities. Information requests, inter-center committees and taskforces. The demands on key Center staff members for inter-center committees and to satis@ information requests are rising. Mr. Serageldin noted that these demands were essential to ensure a successful revitalization effort, and that they should decline after 1996. Additional topics. Two additional topics were discussed briefly: the proposed NGO and Private Sector Committee, and Directors' concerns with TAC. Mr. Serageldin requested that Center Directors propose names of broad-based, articulate individuals who could serve on the new committee. He expressed the view that the current problems of TAC were transitional and should not be a major source of concern.

0

14.6. CGUR Chair's Topics Mr. Serageldin introduced five additional topics for discussion. External Program and Management Reviews. There is concern for the variability of the reviews and the reports. Mr. Serageldin asked Center Directors to propose means of improving the review process and making it more systematic. Expanding technical collaboration with Japan. Japan is the CGIAR's largest donor, but Centers have very little collaboration with Japanese institutions. Center Directors were encouraged to seek means of expanding activities with Japanese institutions. Report by the World Bank's Internal Audit Repori. The report has several recommendations which require Center action. Since the report has only recently been sent to the Centers, the DGs were requested to study it after ICW. It was agreed to put this topic on the agenda for the CDC's next meeting.

a

Expanding CGIAR membership. Center Directors were encouraged to interact with leaders of potential new members, and to keep in touch with the CGIAR Secretariat, both to leam of previous contacts and to keep the Secretariat informed of discussions. Diversity magazine. This magazine's future is threatened by the USAID funding cuts. Mr. Serageldin suggested that Centers obtain a number of subscriptions and give them to NARS. Issues of the magazine's costs, overheads and long-term viability were discussed, and no decision was reached on Center support. Mr. Serageldin will look into the matter further.

Item 17. Meeting with USAID representatives
Rob Bertram and Dana Dalrymple came to the meeting to discuss a new USAID proposal to make funds available for collaborative projects involving CG Centers and US universities.

Horton\cdcminUune 26, 1995

15

The current USAID strategy is to link domestic and foreign programs. The CGIAR is seen by many in the US as having an "entitlement" and US universities are not getting their fair share. The CRSPS have considerable political influence. ("Congressmen may learn more about international agricultural research through the CRSPS than in any other way.") A new "Research Constraints Project" has a $500,000 budget (on top of the $28.1 M) which will go to IARCs to work with US universities. This is 1995 money, but will be implemented in 1996. A center wishing to apply, should identify a constraint and prepare one proposal in collaboration with a US university, for around $100,000. About four proposals might be funded. The 1995 contribution to the CGIAR core budget will be $28.1 million ($100,000 more than last year). The Afiica Bureau will contribute $4M to core (up fiom $lM last year). This is very positive, but Africa money will in future be under much pressure.

Item 18. Other business
1 8 . a Evaluation of DGs and BOT
CIFOR has collected forms that various Center boards use to evaluate themselves. A form has been developed for staff evaluation of the CIFOR board. It has been used once, and is expected to be used in future. CIFOR will make these forms available to the other Centers. IPGRI has established a procedure for staff to evaluate the DG.. At CIAT, the board has a self-evaluation procedure that is managed by the chair of the nominating committee. Also at CIAT, the DG now presents a program of work to the board each year and reports on progress the next year.
18.6. Gender issues in U R C s
A donor meeting on gender issues is planned for the MTM, and a seminar will be held

0

before ICW-95.
18.c. Russia

The DGs expressed concern over the costs of participating in World Bank missions to Russia. No decisions were made, but all centers participating in any WE3 missions to Eastern Europe should keep each other informed..
18.d Future of the land

Copies of the book can be obtained through ISNAR. 18.e. F A 0 Under this item, Directors discussed the principle of individual Center Directors representing the group at important events. IPGRI represented the Centers in the 13th session of the Committee on Agriculture in Rome in March. Similarly, IFPRI participated in the World Summit for Social Development in Denmark in March. While the summit was not successful in influencing decision making, when

HottonkdcminUune 26, 1995

16

briefed on the system's mandate and activities, many NGO's were supportive of the CGIAR. It was noted that CGIAR centers can negotiate different "status" in international meeting including those of: 3ntergovernmental organization," "NGO" or "international organization." The status selected can influence access to different groups.

I8.J Small countries
C. Bonte-Friedheim noted that many small-country leaders feel the CGIAR are not doing enough for them, and proposed that centers meet with a group of small-country representatives in the Caribbean. Funding could probably be obtained (from CTA). The proposed workshop was not approved. The group's consensus seemed to be that centers should not actively seek to expand their work with small countries, but assist them to gain access to the public goods generated by the CGIAR.
18.g. AL4RC

e

It was agreed that AIARC and the Benefits Committee should be on the main agenda for the next CDC meeting, not in other business. The law suit continues between IIE and AIARC. Roger Smith has been retained by AIARC to handle this. As a result of the law suit, IIE has retained personnel files of CGIAR staff. For this reason, AIARC recently asked some employees to fill out new beneficiary forms. The legal status of the Generale retirement funds w a s discussed. AIARC will undertake a legal study for establishment of a trust to ensure the protection of individual retirement accounts. The CGIAR-wide benefits study will be updated. (The last one was three years ago.) The directors requested that when the survey is carried out, it provide internationally comparable information on the cost to the centers of providing local benefits (like provision of cars or housing) as far as possible.

e

The next draft AIARC annual report will be distributed to center directors before the October CDC meeting, to give them more time for analysis, prior to decisions and approval during the meeting. There is some ambiguity over the legal status of AIARC and the liability of Centers and individual employees. Two issues are being explored: Could individual centers be held liable for damages caused by AIARC staff! Could liabilities of AIARC affect the security of individual retirement accounts? AIARC will study opportunities for the provision of purchasing for the centers. However, since the issue of AIARC's not-for-profit status is still open With the IRS, the Association will be cautious on taking new initiatives. UNDP has a central purchasing unit in Copenhagen, which centers can use. C. BonteFriedheim can provide the address to anyone who wants it. Centers can now request that AIARC make inter-center transfers of funds in amounts up to us$lo,ooo.

Horton\cdcminUune 26,1995

17

18.h. Preparations for ICW-95 P. Pinstrup-Andersen will arrange for a sit-down brunch for the traditional Sunday Brunch on Sunday October 29, probably in a hotel (since last year’s venue is already booked). For the benefit of new attendees, dress standards will be included in the invitation. Center Directors should send proposed topics for the DDGs’ meeting at ICW to C. BonteFriedheim by July 15, so he can communicate these to the Chair of the DDGC (H. Elliott). It was agreed that Wednesday morning was the best time for “USAID Day,” and a good topic might be collaboration between CGIAR Centers and US universities and the CRSPS. One-hour meetings with Japan’s representative (notify well in advance) and Mr. Werblow (EU) will be included in the CDC agenda.

This year, the CDC Chair will arrange the schedule and venues of all sub-committees, and communicate these to the DGs.
Tentative program:
0 0 0 0

0

Wednesday (Oct 25) AM - USAID Wednesday PM individual center - donor meetings Thursday AM - sub-committee meetings Thursday PM - CDC meeting Friday ALL - CDC Saturday AM (12:OO m a . ) CDC Friday (Nov. 3) 30 mins after ICW ends - Wrap-up session

-

0

0

I8.i Other The CDC Executive Committee will meet during the MTM to discuss the assignment of new members to the CDC sub-committees. PARC will review a proposal for centers to include the CGIAR logo on their publications. J. Ryan informed the CDC that ICRISAT had been invited by the W M O to nominate representatives for membership of two Working Groups of the Committee on Agricultural Meteorology (CAgM). ICRISAT has done so and is willing to represent the IARC’s in this forum if agreeable to the CDC. The CDC agreed.

e

Horton\cdcminUune 26,1995

18

?

3. Agenda for CDCMeeting, MTMMay 1995, Nairobi
Welcome by DG of ICRAF Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Chairman's Opening Remarks Adoption of the Agenda Approval of the Minutes of the Last Meeting (ICW, 1994) Matters Arising fiom the Minutes Preparation for Different Meetings during MTM a) Meeting with TAC Chair b) Meeting with CGIAR Chair c) Meeting with Dr. Werblow of EU d) Impact Workshop Report of the Lucerne Meeting (Sanchez) Systemwide Initiatives and Eco-Regional Programs (Hawtin, Fitzhugh) a) IPM(Brader) b) SWN Management (Havener) c) CDC Reaction to CG Task Forces i. Eco-Regional Approaches (Bonte-Friedheim) ii. Sustainable Agriculture (Sanchez) d) Others (NRM, Grains, Roots & Tubers, Policies) The Matrix System and Core Funding (Ryan) Reports fiom the CDC Sub-Committees a) Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-committee (Terry) b) Int. Property Rights Sub-committee (Brader) c) Joint CDC/TAC Committee on P&R (Hawtin) d) Sustainability and the Environment (Siinchez) e) FAO/IARC Task Force (Fitzhugh) PARC (Pinstrup-Anderson) NARS role in the CGIAR (Bonte-Friedheim) Locally Recruited Staff (Williams) Center NGOs' Relations (Bonte-Friedheim) Meeting with Dr. Werblow of EU (Friday, May 19th, 1995) Lunch Meeting with the Chairman of TAC (Saturday, May 2Oth, 1995) Meeting with Chairperson I. Serageldin (1530 Thursday, May 25th, 1995) Meeting with USAID representatives
~

Item 6 Item 7

Item 8 Item 9

Item 10 Item 11 Item 12 Item 13 Item 14 Item 15 Item 16 Item 17

Horton\cdcminUune 26, I995

19

b
"

.

Item 18

Other Business a) Evaluation of DGs, Evaluation of Boards (Sayer) b) Gender Issues in IARCs (Bonte-Friedheim) c) Russia (Bonte-Friedheim) d) Future of the Land (Bonte-Friedheh) e) FA0 (Bonte-Friedheim) f ) Small countries (Bonte-Friedheim) g) AIARC (Brader) h) Preparation for ICW-95 (Bonte-Friedheim) i) Other

4. Participants List, CDC Meeting, MTM May 1995, Nairobi
Randy Barker Christian Bonte-Friedheim Douglas Horton (CDC Secretary) IIMI ISNAR IITA ICARDA ILRI CIAT IPGRI IFPRI CIMMYT
~ ~~

Lukas Brader
Adel El-Beltagy Hank Fitzhugh Robert Havener Grant Scobie (DG designate) Geoffiey Hawtin Per Pinstrup-Andersen Roger Rowe
I I

I

George Rothschild James Ryan Pedro Sanchez Jeffrey Sayer Eugene Terry Meryl Williams Hubert Zandstra

IRRI
ICRISAT ICRAF CIFOR WARDA ICLARM CIP

e

Horton\cdcminUune 26,1995

20

.,

CDC Meeting, Nairobi, May 18-20, 1995
Agenda Item 17a

Performance Appraisal of Boards of Trustees
In March I conducted an E-mail poll of all centres to find out how the performance of their Boards was assessed. Nine centres responded. The results were as follows: 0 Four centres already have self-appraisal mechanisms. 0 CIFOR and CIP have a one page questionnaire which is identical and based on one developed at ISNAR. Apparently ISNAR no longer uses it. IRRI have an 11 page appraisal form. WARDA has a form but we have not received a copy. CIAT and IIAT informed us that they are developing self-appraisal questionnaires. ICRAF, ICRISAT, CIMMYT, and ISNAR said that they do not have a system. 0 No centres have any system for centre management to appraise Board performance. At the suggestion of the Board, CIFOR instituted such a system this year. A CIFOR staff member reported back to the Board in closed session on management's evaluation of Board performance. This was generally felt by both management and the Board to be a useful exercise and we intend to retain it in the future. 0 No centres reported having systems for staff appraisal of the D.G. (We heard a rumour that IPGRI has such a system but they did not reply to our questionnaire). CIFOR therefore did not choose to develop such a system. Copies of the following forms are available upon request from CIFOR: 0 IRRI's Board evaluation forms. 0 CIAT's draft Board evaluation forms. 0 CIFOWCIP Board evaluation forms. 0 CIFOR's form for staff appraisal of Board. CIFOR management feel that the Board self-appraisal form used by ourselves and CIP (and apparently based on an ISNAR model), is not optimal. It is very inward looking and it is possible for the Board to give itself top marks on everything and still fail to fulfil important Board functions. As a trial we asked CIFOR scientists to rate our Board using the Board's own self-appraisal form. The scientists rated the Board consistently lower than the Board rated itself. CIFOR intends to amend this Board self-appraisal form to reflect our view that the Board should be appraised according to its contribution to the institution rather than on the basis of its own internal functioning and comfort level.

e

J .A.SAYER

botappr .doc

,

,

Agenda Item Information Sheet

CDC Meeting, Nairobi, May I8-20, I995

Agenda Item:
AGENDA 13
:

CENTER

-

NGO RELATIONS

Supporting documents:
SURVEY OF IARCs
&

THEIR COLLABORATION WITH NGOs

Background information :
At the Washington meeting of last October, the CDC decided to document the collaboration between the Centers and Nongovernmental Organizations (NGO). To that end ISNAR was requested to set up a database on that collaboration. This preliminary report summarizes part of the information derived from the questionnaire sent to all the Centers and returned to ISNAR. One IARC provided full information, twelve provided partial information, three centers have not replied.

Type of decisions the CDC needs to make:
1) How to use the information.
2 ) Whether to collect more information on a permanent basis.

3 ) Whether to inform the CGIAR about our collaboration.

Recommended Actions:

R

L

L

G

M

CENTRE DIRECTORS COMMITTEE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF BOARDS OF TRUSTEES
In March I conducted an E-mail poll of all centres to find out how the performance of their Boards was assessed. Nine centres responded. The results were as follows: Four centres already have self-appraisal mechanisms.
0

CIFOR and CIP have a one page questionnaire which is identical and based on one developed at ISNAR. Apparently ISNAR no longer uses it. IRRI have an 11 page appraisal form. WARDA has a form but we have not received a copy. CIAT and IIAT informed us that they are developing self-appraisal questionnaires. ICRAF, ICRISAT, CIMMYT, and ISNAR said that they do not have a system.

a

0

No centres have any system for centre management to appraise Board performance. At the suggestion of the Board, CIFOR instituted such a system this year. A CIFOR staff member reported back to the Board in closed session on management’s evaluation of Board performance. This was generally felt by both management and the Board to be a useful exercise and we intend to retain it in the future.
No centres reported having systems for staff appraisal of the D.G. (We heard a rumour that IPGRI has such a system but they did not reply to our questionnaire). CIFOR therefore did not choose to develop such a system.

0

Copies of the following forms are available upon request from CIFOR: IRRI’s Board evaluation forms.
0

CIAT’s draft Board evaluation forms. CIFORKIP Board evaluation forms. CIFOR’s form for staff appraisal of Board.

0

0

CIFOR management feel that the Board self-appraisal form used by ourselves and CIP (and apparently based on an ISNAR model), is not optimal. It is very inward looking and it is possible for the Board to give itself top marks on everything and still fail to fulfil important Board functions. As a trial we asked CIFOR scientists to rate our Board using the Board’s own self-appraisal form. The scientists rated the Board consistently lower than the Board rated itself. CIFOR intends to amend this Board self-appraisal form to reflect our view that the Board should be appraised according to its contribution to the institution rather than on the basis of its own internal functioning and comfort level.

.

J . A.SAYER

i

Sheet1

ICentre

ICIFOR
WARDA

I Staffappraisal of BOT \yes - 1 page check-sheet ]yes - 1 page questionnaire
I BOT self-appraisal
[yes, not seen no no no 'no no no I no

1

I

ClAT 'under development IlTA under development ICRAF no ICRISAT no CIMMYT no [Bonte-Friedheim I no

I

.

Page 1

.%

CWrlPFOINIIPfLlrION*L POPESrP,CIYAKW

CIFOR

office address: Jalan Gunung BatU 5 , Bogor 16001, Indonesia mailing address: P.O. BOX 6596 JKPWB, Jakarta 10065, Indonesia tel: +62 (251) 34-3652, fax: +62 (251) 32-6433. e-mail: cifor@cgnet.com

Questionnaire: Staff evaluation of Board of Trustees (BOT)performance
1 . Did you meet all the BOT members who attended the meeting? yeslno1don't.know 2. Did you have appropriate opportunities to interact w i t h BOT members during the meeting? yeslnoldon't .know
..

3. H o w much do you think the BOT knows about your major activities and responsibilities? nothingllittlelenoughllots 4. Should they know more? lesslOK/moreldon't .know 5. Do you think they understand the aims and objectives of your major projects? yeslnolmaybeldont'.know 6. If. there is insufficient understanding, w h y ? lack of timelcontact/sk/lls/~xplanation/other(explain)
7. Has the board offered helpful insights, criticism or comments of your work? H o w ? contactslPR/sciencelfunding/no.help/unhelpful(explain) 8. How could they be more helpful? (give a suggestion:)

9. Did the BOT draw an appropriate line between BOT and management responsi,bilities? yeslnoldon't. know .. 10. A t BOT and committee meetings, did Trustees focus on appropriate issues? yeslnoldon't.know 1 1. Do you think that BOT meetings are effective? nolpoorl0KIgoodldon't.know 12. H o w could they be made more effective and efficient? (suggestion:) 13. Should BOT meetings be held more frequently (bear in mind costs and other commitments)? moreisamellessldon't. know
14. Are BOT members active in support of CIFOR's mission -encouraging donor support? -providing intellectual input into strategic issues? -CG system support?

(ie in addition t o the regular meetings); ( yeslnoldon't. kno w ) (yes/no/don't.know) (yeslnoldon't. know)

15. Are BOT members sufficiently aware of the issues facing CIFOR staff and their families living and working in Bogor? yeslnoldon't.know 16. Are BOT members sufficiently aware of the difficulties associated w i t h CIFOR's field research (e.g. remote locations, many partners, logistics, etc). yeslnoldon't.know 17. Does the BOT encompass the skills and contacts needed by CIFOR? yeslnoldon't .kno w 18. Suggest any deficiencies and any skillslqualifications that the BOT should look for in selecting n e w members? (suggestion) 19. How effective was this BOT meeting compared with your previous experience or expectation? morelsamellessldon't .know Now, please make it easy for me Lo collate these, by giving some data about yourself: Have you attended a previous BOT meeting? H o w long have you been at CIFOR (months)? Are you Directorate, Science or Support staff? Your name (optional)? Thanks - Jerry

-

ClFORIEtASB

.
1 2 3 4 5

Characteristics
1

The Board functioned in a way that individuals supplemented one another’s talents effectively. The Board functioned well as a deliberative body (here evaluate the quantity and quality of members listening to each other, building on each other’s ideas and the Chairman’s ability to encourage creative conflicts of ideas). The division of labour and responsibility among the Board and Board officials was clear. The Board represented or brought out effectively all the interests that needed to be consulted. The members of the Board had a clear understanding of CIFOR’s mission, future strategy, objectives. direction and research activities and ensured they were consistent with its charter. The members of the Board were able to reach consensus on any important issue
%5Gr\JOC)

2

3

4

5

6
7

% ’2’

I

I

‘MJQ,.

I h membeuof ~ the Board, €e& involved and interested in the deliberations regarding CIFOR and its establishment.
The Board ensured that effective relationships with donors, the host country, and the CGIAR system were developed.
: A -

8 9
10

3 0x!d-

.&.+

I, as eBclitrd=member, had a sense of progress and accomplishment at the conclusion of the meeting. The Chairman’s leadership style was appropriate with sufficient consultation and control to ensure maximum effectiveness and efficiency. There was effectiveness in follow-up and implementation of decisions made during meetings. Board meetings were conducted efficiently in terms of clear assignments of responsibilities, procedures and time management.

11

12

Ratinm
1

.

2 3
4 5

always often occasionally
seldom

never
,

c:\mp\board\boardsumm\april95\agend37a.doc

A RATING SCALE FOR THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE CW BOARD OF TRUSTEES*

HOW THE BOARD RATES
Characteristics

- 1995
Exec 1.
Good 2
Aver.
3

Fair 1

Poor 5

Mein

Range

1 The Board funcuoned in a way that every member pmcipated in ~scussions

2 The Board funchoned well as a deliberahve body
4

3 The &vision of labor and responsibility among Board C o m n e e s , Execut~ve was clear

4 The Board represented or brought out effectively all the interests that needed to be consulted

5 There was evldence of an effectwe worhng relatlonshpbetween the Board and Director

General and &mor Management
6 The members of the Board demonstrated understandmg of the mssion of CIP and how that mssion is achieved by the program

7 I, as a member of the Board, felt involved and interested in the deliberauons regardmg CIP

8 I, as a Board member, have a sense of accomplishment at the conclusion of h s meehng

Adapted fTom ISNAR format.

I

.

'.

.

1. - .-..-- .. a

Fax: 080-95

Fa: 62-25 1-32-6433
TO:
FROM: DATE:
SUBJECT:

Dr. Jeff Sayer, Director General CIFOR

R.
19 April 1995
Criteria used in Evaluating DGs and Board Performance

REF:

Your Email dated 17 April 1995 on this subject

Jeff, CL4T does not have in place exactIy the type of evaluation system envisioned in your enquiry. It has no system of formal staff evaluation of the DG nor i s one currently proposed. Board evaluation is performed by the Board itself incIudhg the DG acting as a board member but it is not evaluated by "Center

Management" per se.
Attached for your information is a recent Memorandum from our Board Chairman Dr, Vaccaro to hoard members outlining the review process and conveying an evaluation questionnaire, At the most recent CIAT Board meeting, the following Minute notes of recent discussions on this subject: "It w a s agreed that these activities should be better systematized. The Director General should be requested by the Chairman of the Board to draw up a work plan each year, which would serve as a basis for his annual evaluation, The Chairman of the Nominating Committee would propose a series of criteria against which the Board Chairman would in future be evaluated"

Sorry OUI yulicieb ut!IIOL ~ p ~ 18l your d ~ Reed but it rn8y in any case be helpful to your efforts. We wouId be interested in a summary of your findings.

Enclosures

Centro lnternacional de Agricultuta Tropical

CPAl

TO:
FROM

Members of the Board of Trustees

Lucia de Vaccm, Chai
6 May 1994

DATE:

SUBJECT: Board Evaluation

a

At the Board of Trustees meeting No. 35 it was agreed that we shouId itiitiate a regular, structured exercise of evaluation of our own activities. As a h t step, D r .Vyas and I have designed a short questionnaire for your consideration.

In order to get the process under way, would you be kind enough to fill it in and bring
it with you i n July, together w i t h suggestions you may have of how future versions could be improved,

Please do not sign your questionnaire uniess you wish to.

Enclomre

Mailing address. A W . a&eo 67 13. CALI. COLOMBIA. Telex 057.69 ClAT CO.

Oialcom IO 57:CG1301

FA)( 57.23447243. Tel. 57.23.67506

-

1 .

ACCOUNTABILITY

* Do you consider that the BOT perfoms its work as though suitably accountable to:
Yes

No
..*

Fair
**. *.*

cIAT Management
CIAT S t a f f

...
m..

The CGIAR Regional NARS

*.*

...

... .*. ...
. e *

...

2.

POLICY SETTING

I consider the BOT carries out its policy s e t t i n g role w i t h a high degree of competence. ,,.Yes No Fair

*

...

...

3.

OVERSIGHT ROLE

I consider the BOT fulfill6 its oversight role competently with regard t o :
Yes
No
. . I

*

Fair

Financial resources Human resources Physical resources
Cali-based activities
.Outpost/Experiment station activities

**.

*..

.., ... ...
*.*

...

.**

...

b b .

*..

..*

4.

INTER-INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS

rc

I consider that CIAT 'xuaintains suitable relations with:
Yes

No
# m a
* a .

Fair

The CGIAR Other IARCB our h o s t countries:

Coiombfa Others

Regional institutions

*.. ... ... ..*
***
0 . .

---

. a .

.*. ***

*.*

...

*
r

I consider the following aspects of Board business are
Yes

appropriately managed:
c
r

,

No

Fair

-'S e l e c t i o n of new members
OT

I

Evaluation of Director General Evaluation of Chairman - Evaluation oil BOT itself
=

B Staff relations Information from Management to BOT Preparation by Chairman BOT meetings Chairing of meetings - conduct of Cornittee meetings (NC, PC, RMC, ExCom, please indicate which ones) Interface between - BOT-COmmittees interface
of

Briefing of new members - BOT-Management relations
BOT
A&ORC,

Codttees

0

6.

BOARD COMPOSITION

* Xn your opinion is the present composition of the Board appropriate from the point of view of:
Yes No

Fair

scientific leadership (b) management competence (c) link with CC system (d) link w i t h major donors (e) link with t h e countries which are important from the point o f view of
the CIAT's mandate alr+-{yitiss

(a)

0

* I consider the following to be t h e weakest aspects performance a t this time and suggest the appropriate improvements :

of

the BOT'S

.
(WpDOCS\BOT\QUESTNR.~)

( 1 5 April 1994)

~ O N A L R I C E k S E A R C H ~

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

b

F

m

:

62(251) 326433
DRTEFFREYSAYER
DR GEORGE ROTHSCHILD
20 April 1995

TOTAL PAGES: 11

A"TI0N:

FROM:

- DATE :

I
!

'

..
:

SURVEY OF IRRl BOARD MEMBERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
...
.

Quest ions SECTION 1. TllE BOARD'S ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1

Page
1 - 6

-

43

A.
8 . C.

D. E.
. c.

Role of the Board Board Accountability Planning and Assessment The Board's 'Role in Policy-Haking and Oversight . Board-Wanagement Relationships

1
1
2

19 37

- 36 - 43
80

:
3 6 5
'

S E C T I W 11. CONDUCT.OF THE BOARD'S BUSINESS

F.
C.

How the Board is Guided and

H.
I. J, K. L.

Structured Board and Committee Meetings Board Hernber Conduct Member Selection and Development' Resources Available to the Board Assessment of Board Performance Optional. Item

44 - 52 53 - 63 64 - 66 67 - 74
44
75

. 7-10 .
7
..

8 9
9 10

*

- 77 78 - 79

10
10

80

.

I

SECTION

I. TIlE DOARD'S ROLE h t l D RESPONSIDXLITIES

. .'Don't .

A.

Role of t b Board

..

. -l l n O W
,
.I

-

1.

T h l s Board makes p o l i c y , which t h e Dlcecror G e n e r a l implements.
0 '

. . .'

1

.2

. .3
3
5
6

2.

W e p r o v l d e r e g u l a r o v e r s i g h t ( t h a t l a , w t c h f h and

r e s p o n s l b l z c a r e ) o f a l l a s p e c t s of t h e : e n t e r ' s
. .

work.

1

'

2

7 .'

..
1
1 2
2

3.

W e s e r v e as a group of a d v l s o r s t o t h e , a r e c t o r G e n e r a l . As t r u a t e e s , w e a r e a b l e t o m a i n t a l n our independence from. management.

.3
3

5
5

6
6

7
7

.4.

5.

The Doard is w e l l i n f o m e d a b o u t t h e c e r t e r ' s i n t e r n a l o p e r a t l o n s ( p e o p l e , programs, o r g a n i z e t b n , b u d g e t ) , so ma J o r * s J r p r l s e s a r e unlikely..
Board Accaurtabllitz we
s:t a8

3.

2

3

5

'6

'

7

8.

A s 8 Board,

A€

we are

a c c o u n t e b l e ta
2 2

6. 7.

o u r cll,enta i n d e v e l o p l n g c o u n t r i e s . i n d l v l d u a l donors who fund us. t h e CCIAR [as n group of .donors)'. the steEf >f t h e center. Although the Doard is autonomoue ( n o t i t c o u n t a b l e fo'rmally t o anyone) i t s a u t h o r i t y l e effectivelycounter-balanced w i t h t h e i n f o r m 1 a c c o u n t a b f l i t y rneclianlsms t h a t p r e s e n t l y e x i e t .

3
3

5

6

.7

5
1

6 6 '
6
6

. 7

8.
9. 10.

2 1 -' ?2
1
* 2

3
3
I

5
5 .
9

7
7 7

I

3'

I

5

e

.

.
SECT

H I.
'

TllE D-ARD'S

. . ROLI AND RESPONSID'ILITIES

.

.. . . . .. .

h)

0

.

\

. - .
"Don't

0 4
( D

'strongly

Stronftly.
'

. Diss~tee
A.

Agree,

Role of t h e Board

.

.

m o w .-

-.
..

en -.
I I -

..
0

h)

.I.

This Board makes p o l i c y , which t h e D l r e c t o r General
implements.
0 '

....
I

* ' ,

1

.2

.3

4

5

6. .

7

,.
1 ' 2
3 4

Q
0

2.

W e p r o v i d e r e g u l a r o v e r s i g h t ( t h a t i s , w a t c h f u l and r e s p o n s l b l e c a r e ) of a l l a s p e c t s of t h e c e n t e r ' s work.

5

6

7 '

3.

W e s e r v e a s a group of a d v i s o r s t o t h e , D i r e c t o r General.
A s t r u s t e e s , w e a r e a b l e t o m a i n t a i n o u r . i n d e p e n d e n c e fro-

1 1

2

.3
3

4

5 5

6
6

7

4.

2

4

7

management.
5.

The Board 1 8 w e l l informed a b o u t t h e ' c e n t e r ' s l n t a r n a l o p e r a t i o n s ( p e o p l e , programs, o r g a n i z a t i o n , b u d g e t ) , so major e u r p r i e e s a r e unlikely.. Board A c c o u n t a b l l i t r Board, we a c t a s if we a r e a c c o u n t a b l e t o t

1

2

3

4

5

'6 .

7

U

8.
As

m 6.

z
v,

our c l i e n t s in d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s .
i n d i v i d u a l donore who fund us. t h e CCIAR ( a s n group of.donors)'. the s t a f f of the center. Although t h e Board is autonomous ( n o t a c c o u n t a b l e fo'rmall) t o a n y o n e ) , i t a a u t h o r i t y is e f f e c t i v e l y c o u n t e r - b a l a n c e d i t h t h e i n f o g a l a c c o u n t a b l l i t y mechanlsme t h a t p r e s e n t l y e x i e .
3'

5

6

-7

7.

5

6

. 7

8.
9. 10.

5 4. 4
5 .
5

6'
6
6

7
7
7

6
0
0

N

..
- 2 . .

.
. I

..
S t ronRl1
,. '. '

Disagree

.

.
3

.

Strongly . ARree

Don' t
Know

C.

P l a n n i n a and Assessment

..

..
'1 . .
'

..
. 2
2

11.

The Board i b e f f e c t i v e in e s t a b l s h i n g r e e l i s t i c g o a l s . a n d p r i o r i t i e s f o r t h e 'cenbec.
The d e c l s i o n s oE t h i s Board a r e r l m a t l l y . o n s t r a t e g y and p o l i c y . m a t t e r s (and n o t on t a c t i c a l Concerns).

4'
4
4

5

6
, .

m.7.

12.

.1

3

"

5

'6

7
7

13.

The Board e n s u r e s t h a t t h e r e is 1 good f i t ' bettieen t h e c e n t e r a s s t r a t e g y and t h e medlumterm a n d ' e n n u a l o p e r a t i o n a l p l e n s and b u d g e t s . The Board e n s u r e s t h a t t h e c e n t e ' s accomplishments a r e documented and reviewed a n n u a l l y The Board o f t e n t a k e s a fltep bacl from c u r r e n t o p e r a t i o n a l concerns' t o a s a e s u t h e o v e r a l l prtformence of the c e n t e r a g a i n s t eetebliehed fiO818. The Boerd e n s u r e s t h a t t h e c e n t e r s impact is documented and r e v l e n e d a t l e a e t e v o r y few yearb The Doard is e f f e c t i v e i n revlewhg and a p p r o v i n e t h e scope and r e s u l t e of p e r i o d i c i n t e r n a l s u d i t s , The Board is e f f e c t l v e ' h s e l e c t n g e x t e r n a l a u d i t o r s and reviewlng t h e i r work.

'

1

2

3

5

6

14.

1

2.

3

4
4

5

6

7

.

15.

1

2

3

5

' 6

. I

16.

1

2

3

4 4

' 5

.6

7

17.

1

2

3

*5

6

7

18.

1
.

...-

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

.I

,

a .
re
0

- 3 -

\ 0 P

c n
01

D.
1

The Boardt R o l e in Policy-HeklnR
I n t h e twopage t a b l e In each a s a listed1
0

and OveraIRht

c
I -

..

t)lBt

follows, p l e a s e mark yoir irnprcssions of t h e r e c o n t perEormencc -y the.Doard and t h o Cen e r

A

I n l e c o l h hcpded 'Policy Haking', i n G i a t e your lmprhasions of how well t h e Dmard a s a whole h a s provlded e u l s n c e t o management b y making (l,e., c e d e w i n g D I I ~ o p p r o v i n g ) broad c e n t c c poLcles i n each a r e a l i s t e d on . * . theIlef t .

$

0

I n -he column hended ' m O v e r a l g l i t m ,i n d i c a l e y o u r iniprossions of 1y.w w e l l thd Board monltore t h e c e n t e r ' s e f f c t l v e n e s s i n implementing e s t e b l i s l i e d mollcies end p r l o r i t i e s i n each Br@e L e t e d on t h e : l e f t . 'Inzhe column headed ' C e n t e r ' s O v e r a l l E f k c t l v e n c s s " , l n d i c a t e your i m p r e s s i o n acomplished i t s g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s I n actx n r e a Listed on the l e f t .
of how w e l l the c e n t e r h a s

0

P l e a s e fcus y o u r n t t e n t l o n , f i r s t , on a l l t h e ferns i n column 1' bafore moving t o t h e items in coluums 2 and 3 in sequence Hnrk your r e s p o n s e s i n term8 o f l e t h r grades you would assign to the Doe-$ (or t h e C e n t e r ) u s l n g Lhe followin scale t
A i Excellent D: Very good C I Good

X J
c (

m

D:

. FI
ISI

Palr Poor
DO~UI

n o t involvoci :

DKa Don't Know or Not Applicable
.-....
4.

I

B
0

- 4 -

.
Functions

- t e
0
\

e
(D

0

:€ f e c t i v e n t s s

1
.
. b

01

: e n t e r Suldince
19.

E s z a b l - s h l n g long- term goals a n l ' a n ' e f f e c t l v e c e a t e r s t r a t e g y f o r renchlng thim.
Esteblielrlng and r e i n f o r c l n g a c e n t e r philosophy ( o r guldlng v a l u e s ) conducive t, e f f e c t i v o and e f f l c k n t p e r f onnance
'

. .'* -

..

.

c

w

..
-

01

20.

cg

0

.

21.

H r l n t a l n l n g e f f e c t l v e l e a d e r s h b t h r o u g h o u t the ccntex.

Hanagenent of Program Tasks
22. nedlum.terrn and a n n u a l program I l a n n i n g and

budget -ng

.

23. no-rlto-lng and r e v i e w l n g prograr. performance.

24. The Ceiter'e o r g a n i z a t l o n s l 8 t r ~ c t u r eand i n t e r n a l c o o r d i n a t i o n and cornmudcation nechadsme.

25. Hetho&, systems and p r o c e s s e s for c a r r y l n g o u t ptogrm n c t i v i t l e e a t 1rondq.uertirs.
2 6 . H c t h o b , eysteme and proceaees :or c a r r y l n g o u t progrm a c t l v i t l e e a t f l e l d l o u t l o n e .

I
-v-

--6
0
0
( J

a
1 , 2

Policy Hoking By tho nonrd

O v e r s l g h t by t h e Doord

,.;..z1...,1
5:Efect lvene s s

N

0
- \

'0

sr

u l
c

W

tlanabement of Resou r c e 6
2 7 . lluman r e s o u r c e p l n n n i n i , management and c o n t r o : ( i n c l u d i n g p e r s o n n e l p t l i c i e s ana procedures)..
28. F l n t n c i a l p l a n n i n g , maragement and c o n t r o l .

c

'

..

c,
01

----

0
0

29. Physical r o e o u r c e planhing, management nnd control.
30. f n f > r m e t i o n re6ource planning, mena~ementand

control

.

Hanagement of E x t e r n a l R e l a t l o n s h i p e w i t h i
31. C l i e n t i n s t i t u t i o n 8 l r d e v e l o p l n g c o u n t r l e s .
e - c

32. Other C G I A R c e n t e r s .
33. Other c o l l a b o r n t l n g l ~ e t i t l i t l o n e111 c l u v a l o p l n

snd developed c o u n t r i b e .
3 4 , llort
35.

-0 3 :
U

r

U

country l n e t l t u t - a n a .

c--

I n d i v i d u a l donors and t h e CCIAR ( i n c l u d i n g i t 1 a d v i e o r y end s e r v l c e m i t s l i k e TAC and t h e GIAR S e r e t B r La t
: 1

5
c . l

-0 V

.

36. O v e r a l l Aesesementi P l e a s e i n d i c a t e on t h e r q h t your improseion of tIn o v e r e l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s > E t h e Donrd i n mnklng p l l c y (column 1) and i n p r o v i d i n g o v e r e i g h t (column 2 ) , and oE t h e c m t e r i n r e a c h i n g l t e o b j e c t i v e s (column 3 ) .

I

please une t h e a t t a c h o d c o m e n t s h e e t t o list y o u r s u g g a s t i o n s f o r lmprovlng t h e Doard'aperformenca In p o l i c y m a k l n g and o v e r s i g h t . P o c k p a r t i c u l a r l y On t h o C c n a i n which you lrrva a s s i g n a d low g r d e q t o the Board

-.

B
0 0
P

N 0 \ 0

- 6 -

5.
( 0 v(

c

...
E.
37.

Board-Management R e l a t i o n s h i p s The B3ard's r e l e t i b n 8 ; w i t h managemelt a r e based on openness, r e s p e s t f o r each o t h a r ' e r o l e s , a n d m u t u a l t r u s t . The b a r d d i s c u s s e s s e n s i t i v e and p 8 t e n t i a l G c o n t r o v e r s i a l t o p i = i n a d e q u a t e d e p t h , and c h a l b n g e s management when necessary. The b a r d Chair and t h e Director C m e r a l have a h e a l t h y and productive r e l a t i o n s h i p . The ranagement i s r e c e p t i v e t o p o l k y guidance from and o v e r t i g h t by t h e Board and i t s c o d t t e e s . The b i r e c t o r General does n o t haveundue i n f l u e n c e on t h i e Boarc. The ioard i e e E f e c t f v e i n regular11 a e s e s s i n a and p r o v i d i n g feedmack on t h e performance of t h e D i r e c t o r G e n e r e l on t h e l a s f ; of e x p l i c i t and o b j e c t i v e c r t e r i a .
'

Strongly Disaaree
1
2

StronRlz
ARree

Don't Know

1;
Y

0

4
4

5

6

7

38.

1

2

5

6

7

39.

1

2

4
4 4

5

6

7

40.

1

2

B

5

6

7

41.

1
1

i

9

5

6

7

-0 X

42.

A

3

4

5

. 6 ,

7

43.

Boer1 members m a i n t a i n a h c a l t h y d alogue w i t h t h e c e n t e r

staE ( 1 . e . . w i t h e e n a i t l v i t y towa-ds n o t undermining t h e
a u t b r i t y of management).

I .

-

3

4

5

6

7

...

I

65
cn
0 0

. .

a
l a
FJ 0

- 7 -

SECTI ON

XI. CONDUCT O F TIIE BOAILD'S BUSINESS
I C

..

......

StronRli Disagree

ARree

Don't Know

Ip

l -

F.
44.
45.
C'

llow t h e Board is Guided and S t r u c t u r e d
A s a Doard we have a c l e a r view of our r e s p o n s l b i l i t i c s and

a
0

.1

2

'

3

4
4

5

6

7

mission.
There is s t r o n g agreement among t h e members on how t h e Doerd s h o u l d conduct i t s b u s i n e s s . W e have a c l e a r sn'd s u f f i c i e n t l y comprehcnslvo t r u s t e e handbook, The Board p l a y s an e € f e c t i v e r o l e i n a d v o c a t i n g key v a l u e s f o r t h e c e n t e r ( s u c h a 8 e c c o u n t a b l l l t y f o r performance, I n t e r n a l e f f i c i e n c y , and c r e a t i n g an environment conducive t o c r e a t l v l t y and i n n o v a t i o n ) .
1
2

3

5

6

7

46.
47.

1 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

3

4

5

6

7
Y

40.
49.

We h a v e a good p l a n f o r Doard a c t l v i t i e s f a r t h e , n e x t 1-2 y e a r s .
The e t r u c t u r e and terms oE r e f e r e n c e of Doard committees a c e s u i t a b l e f o r c a r r y i n g o u t t h e Board's m i a s i o n and work p l a n . The Doerd C h a i r p r o v i d e s e f f e c t i v e l e a d e r s h l p t o t h e Doard.
'

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4
4

5
5

6
6

7 7

50.

1
1

2

3

5
5

6
6

7
.7

51.

The c h e i r e O E Doard c o m i t t e e a provide e f f e c t i v e l e a d e r s h i p t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e committees. The Board p l a n s f o r changes i n l e a d e r s h i p p o s i t i o n e (6uch a s noard and committee c h a i r a e s l g m e n t a ) e f f e c t l v e l y .

2

1
.

4
4

52.

1

2

3

5

6

7

6
0'

w

0

a
h3 0 \ 0

- 8 -

p.

S tronglx DisaKree

S trongll

Agree

C.

Board and Couunittee Neetinas
a r e approptlate.

F P

..
W

. .* ' .

53.

The f r e q u e n c y and d u r a t i o n o f Boerd and committee m e e t i n g s

.

,

1
'1

2

3

4
4

5

6

" 1

0
0

54.

The Board members have a d e q u a t e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n t r i b u t e i t e m s t o t h e agendn w e l l ahead o,"the m e e t i n g . The agendas i n c l u d e . t h e most h p x t n n t issues r e q u i r i n g Board a t t e n t i o n .
Agendas are

2

3

5

6

7

55.
56.

1

2
2

3 3

4
4 4

5 5

6

7
7

c l e a r l y w r i t t e n and a u m o r l z e the purpose of each item ( e g . i n f o r m a t i o n , discussion, d e c i s l o n ) .

1
1

6

SI.

The Board d i s c u e e e s e a c h agenda i t e m in d o p t h and asks s e a r c h i n g questions,

2

3

5

6

7
3

ii

The c h a i r s of t h e Doard and its c o m i t t e e s :
$

5
7 7

a

58.

a r e s k i l l f u l l n managing m e e t f n e s . s y n t h e e l z e i d e a s and f o c l l i t a t e t a s k a c c o m p l h h m e n t by a11 t h e membors ( r a t h e r t h a n doing i t a l l by h i m l h e r s e l f ) ;

1

2 2

3

4

5
5

6

59.

1
1

3

4
4

6

60.

ensure t h a t a l l members have an e q u a l o p p o r t u n l t y t o be hesrd on any issue.

2

3

5

6

7

The' members of t h e Doardl
61.
62.

I
1 1
2 2
2
0.'.

come t o m e e t i n g s w e l l p r e p a r e d ; openly voice t h e i r o p l n i o n s ;
a v o i d any tendency t o o v e r - p a r t i c i p e t e .

3

4
4

5 5
5

6

7 7
7

3
3

6
6

63.

1

4

.
*.

e
- 9 -

Stronglx D i 8 B R rea
11.

St tangly

ARree

Don' t
h o w

t u
0 \ 0 P
( D

Board Member Conduct

'

a l

64,
65.

Doard members work e f f e c t i v e l y a s a team.

.

*

1

2
'

3

4

5
5

6

7 7

I C

..
P u1

Except f o r t h o s e i n e x - o f f l c i o etatiis',' members a c t o n l y In t h e i s individual personal capacities, When c a r r y i n g o u t O t h c l r ' d u t i e s a s Doard rnmbcrfi, t h e members' primary l o y a l t y is t o t h e c e n t e r (and n o t t o a donor, c o u n t r y , region o r i n s t i t u t i o n ) . Member S e l e c t i o n end Devalopment
We have t h e r i g h t n i x OF n a t i o n a l i t i e s , e x p e r i e n c e , and e x p e r t i s e on our Board.

1

2

3

4
4

6

66.

1

2

3

5

6

7

c3
0

.

I.
67.

i
I

2

3
3 .

4
4

5

6

7
7
U

60.

Doard membare arc c l c a r ' a b o u t what i a e x p e c t e d of them ( t h e i r ' role; r e s p o n s i b l l i t l e s , t h e , e f f o r t , n a t u r e of contribution).
W e have an e € € a c t i v o s y s t e m of i d e n t i f y i n g good c a n d i d a t e s for Board memberehip.
We make a

2

5

6

a a

c (

69.

1
1

2

3

4

5

6

' 7

.rr m

70.

s p e c l a l efLort

bo

i d e n t i E y qualified women c a n d i d a t e s .

2

3

4

5

6

. .

7

3
r n

71.

W e have an e f f e c t i v e system o f s c r e e n h g and e v a l u a t i n g p o t e n t i a l members. .Doard members a r e compensated a d e q u a t e l y .
W e have an affective program for o r i e n t i n g and dcvoloplng new members a f t e r tlrcy have j o i n e d t h e Board.
The process f o r s e l e c t i n g CGIAR nominees, and t h e r o l e t h e y p l a y on the Donrd, are a p p r o p r i a t e . ( I f y o u Imve s u g g e s t i o n s f o r lmprovlng t h e CClAR nomfnatlori pcocesu, p l e a s e w r i t e them on t h e a t t a c h e d comment s h e e t ) .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

72.
73.

1
1

2 2

3 3

4
4
4

5 5

6
6

' 7

I
7

74.

1

2

3

5

6

' 7

I

IO

st ronR ly Dl. s a g r e e
Strongly
Agree'
_ I _

on' t

Know
t

C

J.
15.

Resources A v a i l a b l e t o the Board a c t i v i t i e s of. t h e Doard.

.
1
2

W e have a d e q u a t e E i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s t o c a r r y ouI t h e

3

4
4 '
4
'

5
i

6

7
7 7

76. 77

The Board's s e c r e t a r i a t needs a r e met e f f e c t i v e l : The i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d t o t h e Doard i s adequati i n c o n t e n t , d e t a i l , € o m and f r e q u e n c y . Assessment of Board Performance The Board is e f f e c t i v e i n p e r l o d i c a l l y a s s e s s i n g t s own performance (ngal.net e x p l l c l t g o a l s and c r i t e r i a : The Bonrd is e f f e c t l v e in asaesslng t h e performer e of each member ( a g a i n s t s p e c i f l e d r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s and responslbilitiee). O p t i o n a l Item

1 1

2
2

3 3

5 5

6

6

K.
78.

1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

79.

2

-

3

4

5

' 6

7

L.
80.

I h a v e served on t h e Doard f o r

------

yaars.

.7

Vcrrion 2 January 1 9 9 1 Derlgned by Selcuk O t g e d l z a n d , P a r e m j i t Sachdeva
I