Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Technical Advisory Committee and CGIAR Secretariat Report of the Mid-Term Review of the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management TAC SECRETARIAT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS This report comprises: (4 Extract from “Summary of Proceedingsand Decisions”, CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting 1995, Nairobi, Kenya, 22-26 May 1995 Letter from TAC Chairman and CGIAR Executive Secretary, transmitting the Report of the Mid-Term Review TAC Commentary on the ICLARM Mid-Term Review ICLARM’ s Responseto the Report of the Mid-Term Review Transmittal letter from Panel Chairman to TAC Chairman and CGIAR Executive Secretary Report of the Mid-Term Review of the International Center for Living Aquatic ResourcesManagement (ICLARM) (b) cc> (4 (6 ConsultativeGroup on International Agricultural Research Technical Advisory Committee and CGIAR Secretariat Report of the Mid-Term Review of the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) TAC SECRETARIAT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS October 1995 h@k4 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research - CGIAR From: The Secretariat July 1995 CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting May 22-26, 1995 Nairobi, Kenya ICLARM Mid-Term Review I/ ICLARM’ s first External Program and ManagementReview was conducted in early 1992, leading to ICLARM joining the CGIAR at MTM92. The 1992 Review Panel recommended, and TAC and the CGIAR agreed, that a Mid-Term Review be held to monitor the implementation of the Panel’ s numerous program and management recommendations, and more particularly the progress made in building the new programs, which were outlined in ICLARM’ s strategic plan, and in improving its organization and management. Within a year of its joining the CGIAR, ICLARM experienced an internal crisis that led to significant changes in its governance. The Mid-Term Review submitted to the Nairobi Mid-Term Meeting was carried out in January-February 1995 by a two person panel, chaired by Mr. E.T. York, Jr. and assistedby the two Secretariats. The Panel acknowledgesthe good progress made by ICLARM in implementing most of the recommendationsof the 1992 review, particularly in the areas of human resources management; an integrated system for project and program planning, monitoring; and review; financial management;the emphasison research in the Extract from “Summary of Proceedingsand Decisions - Report from the Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee II”, CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting 1995, Nairobi, Kenya. CGIAR Secretariat Tel: (I-202) 473-895 l 1 Mailing Address: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. l Office Location: 701 18th Street, N.W. l Fax: (l-202) 473-8110 l E-mall: CGIAR@cgnet.com or CGIAR@worldbank.org l Cable Address: INTBAFRAD iv statementsof the Center’ s goals and objectives; changesin its Inland 14quaticResource System, Coral Reef Systems, and Coastal ResourceSystemsPrograms; and, better formulated strategiesfor training and information. The main issues raised by the Panel are summarizedbelow: 0 ICLARM’ s science capacity: while there is a high level of scientific expertise among the current program directors, there is a need to strengthenfurther the scientific and managementcapacity below the director level to ensure a sustainablelong-term effort by the Center. ICLARM’ s research strategy: ICLARM’ s position in the CGIAR enables it to interface with, and contribute to, the CGIAR terrestrial science expertise. Therefore, ICLARM slhouldbroaden its participation in interCenter program activities from genetic resourcesto coastal resources, policy research on common property resources, and water management. ICLARM now has a range of possible strategic researchpartners in stronger NARS and in advancedscienceinstitutes more interested in applying their expertise in the South. ICLARM’ s legal status, and researchand headquartersfacilities: in considering the Egyptian offer of extensive facilities, which offer tremendousopportunities particularly for Ed situ conservation, ICLARM should give due considerationto the technical issuessurrounding the feasibility of the proposed sites for its research activities, against its strategic plan and the implications for its priorities. ICLARM should also continue to investigate the opportunities for a headquartersfacility and agreementin The Philippines. The CGIAR should give a higher priority to aquatic research, which contributes vitally to nutritious food production and food security in the developing world, and translate this into stronger and less restrictive financial support to ICLARM. 0 0 0 Ad hoc Evaluation Committee II discussed. several aspectsof the Panel’ s report as well as the status and prospects of the negotiations with the Government of Egypt regarding the acquisition of physical researchfacilities. The meeting commendedthe Panel chair for the excellence of the review report, and ICLARM’ s Board and managementfor the significant progress made since the 1992 review and the most recent review. The meeting endorsedthe recommendationsof the Panel, particularly those relating to: 0 the need to reach, soonest, a headquartersagreementwith the Government of The Philippines; pursuing vigorously the strengtheningof ICLAM’ s scientific organizational structure; managerial and 0 V 0 calling on the CGIAR (and other sources)to increaseits funding base and diversify the funding mode from project to program based, thus providing ICLARM with the necessaryflexibility in managing resources; and pursuing the enhancementof the scientific capacity of the Center. 0 W ith regard to the acquisition of physical research facilities in Egypt, the Committee saw it as a unique opportunity for a CGIAR Center to work closely, from the onset, with many NARS (in Africa and worldwide). It supported ICLARM’ s strategy and proposed plan of action, while emphasizingthe need for caution with regard to: 0 0 the impact of such expansionon ICLARM’ s strategic capacity; the financial implications of operating the facilities, which should be funded from non-competitive sourcesvis-&vis other CGIAR undertakings; and the program implications of moving in a sub-tropical ecoregion, which ought not divert ICLARM’ s efforts in the tropics. 0 The Committee recommendedthat the Group should endorse the recommendations of the M id-Term Review; and encourageICLARM to proceed cautiously, with due respect to the financial, organizational, and researchprogram considerationsin its proposed plan of action concerning the Egyptian facility. The Group concurred. CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Donald L. Winkelmann Chair 10 April 1995 Dear Mr. Serageldin, We are pleased to transmit to you the report of the Mid-Term Review of ICLARM which was conducted by a panel chaired by Professor E.T. York. The report was discussedby the Committee at TAC 66 which was held in Lima from 13-24 March 1995 in the presenceof the Board Chair and the Director General of the Centre. We are very pleased with the progress made by ICLARM since the 1992 External Programme and ManagementReview and the internal crisis of April 1993. The recommendationsof the 1992 Review have been largely implemented and the Centre merits the full support of the CGIAR. We are also pleasedabout the progress in the implementation of the Centre’ s researchprogramme. However, you will note in the attached TAC commentary that three aspectsof ICLARM’ s evolution continue to concern the Committee: its sciencecapacity; its financial base; and its legal status and lack of a headquarters’ agreement. Nevertheless, we believe that the Centre is well on the road to successand we agree with the Panel that ICLARM should be allocated the US$ 1 million fisheries reserve which the Committee had conditionally recommendedbased on a positive outcome of this Mid-Term Review. TAC concurs with the Lucerne Action Program and the recommendationmade by the Mid-Term Review panel that the CGIAR should give higher priority to research on aquatic resources. This question will be addressedmore fully at the Mid-Term Meeting in connection with the Group’ s discussionof the future CGIAR research agendaand resource needs for 1996. Mr. Ismail Serageldin CGIAR Chair World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA Mail address: 1058 Mansion Ridge Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501, USA Tel & Fax: (l-505) 820-7248 Vlll ... We recognize that the offer by the Government of Egypt to provide extensive fisheries research and residential facilities to ICLARM could open a new chapter in ICLARM’ s evolution. As’ noted in its commentary, TAC is expecting further information about ICLARM on the scientific, technical, and programmatic aspectsof this opportunity. The CGIAR Secretariat has been assistingICLARM’ s Board and managementto assess the administrative and financial aspectsof basing part of its operations,in Egypt. We look forward to a stimulating discussionof this report at the Mid-Term Meeting in Nairobi. Yours sincerely, Alexander von der Osten Executive Secretary, CGIAR Don Winkelmann TAC Chair TAC COMMENTARY ON THE MID-TERM REVIEW OF ICLARM TAC compliments Professor E.T. York and the team which conducted the Mid-Term External Review of ICLARM for a clear, frank, and perceptive assessment of the Centre’ s s recommendationsand offers the programme and management. TAC endorsesthe panel’ following commentary, which was prepared with contributions by the CGIAR Secretariat on the managementaspectsof ICLARM’ s work, to supplementthe panel’ s report. TAC is pleasedwith the progress ICLARM has made since the 1992 External Review and the internal crisis of April 1993. The Committee is convinced that ICLARM is well positioned to make a major contribution to CGIAR goals and priorities and that the Centre merits the full support of the CGIAR. The pains associatedW ith the Centre’ s transformation from a project-driven to a programme-basedorganization, as well as the turbulence arising from the 1993 internal strife, have been largely overcome and the Centre’ s research programme is being successfullyimplemented. The panel has based some of its conclusionson the outcome of InternallyCommissionedExternal Reviews (ICERs), which are a welcome developmentto supplement CGIAR external reviews. In this connection, TAC applaudsthe Board of ICLARM for its intention to commission ICERs of all ICLARM programmesevery four to five years in a staggeredfashion. TAC notes with pleasure the progress ICLARM has made in its Inland Aquatic Resource SystemsProgramme (IARSP). The quantitative genetic breeding programme has been very successfulin increasing growth rates of Tilapia up to 60%. Over the last two years ICLARM has integrated its former Coral Reef and Coastal ResourceSystems Programmes into a single programme and impressiveoutput has been achieved in the form of databasessuch as Fish-base, FiDAS and (be it in an initial phase yet) Reef base along side a number of valuable and well-received publications. Responseto the 1992 External Review ICLARM has largely implementedthe recommendationsof the 1992 External Programme and ManagementReview and TAC commendsthe Board and Managementof ICLARM for successfullysteering the Centre after the period of internal crisis in 1993. However, three aspectsof ICLARM’ s evolution continue to concern TAC: 0 ICLARM’ s Science Capacity. ICLARM is a small institute with a global mandate for research on aquatic resources. The Centre’ s in-house scientific capacity to carry out an interdisciplinary international researchprogramme is limited, especially at the middle level. TAC therefore urges ICLARM to enhanceits capacity and to ensure that it maintains and expandsstrategic allianceswith other research organizationsto enhanceits own research capacity. ICLARM’ s Financial Base. ICLARM’ s unrestricted core resourcesare the lowest in the CGIAR in absolute terms (US$ 2.7 million in 1993). TAC is concerned about this precarious financial situation as it provides the Centre with very little flexibility. TAC urges the CGIAR donor community to explore ways of ensuring a minimum critical unrestricted funding base, particularly for small centres. 0 X 0 Legal Status and Headquarters Agreement. ICLARM still does not have the legal standing in the Philippines befitting an inte:rnationalresearch organization. Although there is a formal agreementestablishing ICLARM as an international entity, despite the continuing efforts of ICLARM’ s Board and Management, the Centre has not yet been able to obtain a host country agreementproviding the requisite and customary immunities and privileges to this entity. Currently ICLARM operates as a non-profit corporation under Philippine law. This creates significant inefficiencies for the institution as an international research centre. TAC joins the panel in recommending that the Board continue to attend to this matter with utmost urgency. Offer of the Government of Egypt A major limitation to the effective implementation of ICLARM’ s research programme has been the Centre’ s lack of facilities. The offer of the Government of Egypt to provide extensive fisheries research and residential facilities could provide good opportunities, particularly in the areas of in-situ conservation, tra.ining and experimentation. TAC agrees with the Board of ICLARM that the Egyptian offer will need to be studied carefully by ICLARM with the support of a team of external experts from several perspectives. These should include: first, scientific and technical considerations such as the suitability of the facilities for carrying out scientific research vis-a-vis ICLARM’ s and the CGIAR strategies and priorities, and the representativeness of the site vis-a-vis ICLARM’ s total mandate area. Second, there are strategic institutional considerations which will need to be taken into account, such as ICLARM’ s need for a staging post for its African operations and the opportunity to transform ICLARM from an “office-based” to a “research station-based”operation in the immediate future. Third, ICLARM will need to take into account the long-term financial implications of basing a major part of its operations in Egypt, such as the recurrent cost of operating a sizeable research station and residential facilities. Given the potential implications for ICLARM and the CGIAR, TAC asks to be kept informed of ICLARM’ s progress in studying this matter. Conclusion TAC is pleased with ICLARM’ s progress in implementing an effective research programme and in improving its management. The Centre is now well on the road to success.TAC agrees with the panel that ICLARM should be allocated the US$ 1 million fisheries reserve which TAC had conditionally recommendedbased on a positive outcome of this Mid-Term Review. TAC concurs with the panel that the CGIAR should give higher priority to research on s activities and aquatic resources. This will require a gradual expansion of ICLARM’ resources. TAC will addressthis issue in its deliberations on resource allocation and the CGIAR’ s research agenda. Response of the ICLARM Board of Trustees to the Report of the Mid Term Review Panel 28 January - 4 February 1995 The ICLARM Board of Trustees wishes to thank Professor E. T. York and the members of the Mid Term Review Panel for the thorough and professionaljob they have done reviewing ICLARM’ s program and management.The Board also wishes to thank ICLARM staff for the efforts they put into preparation of papers for the Review Panel and in participating actively in the deliberations of the Panel. The Executive Committee of the Board met with the Panel on 4/5 February 1995 in Manila to receive the draft report of the Review, discuss its findings and to draft a Board response to the Review for presentationto the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the CGIAR at its 66th meeting in Lima, Peru in March 1995. The Board is pleased to note the overall positive outcome of the Review and the external assessment of the Center’ s progress in improving its scientific programs and management capabilities. The Board appreciatesthe recommendations and suggestionsof the Review and responds as follows: Recommendations 1. That the Director General give urgent attention to the issue of cashflow management. The Board is aware of the serious problems ICLARM faces in ensuring adequateoperating reserves when a majority of its incoming funds are not remitted in advance of their expenditure. The present time is particularly severe as ICLARM has several projects terminating but no large projects with up-front payments starting. In addition, some 1994 unrestricted core funds have not been received. An attempt to establish a modest reserve in 1994 was unsuccessfuldue to inflation, the strengtheningof the Philippine peso against other currencies, and variations in income and expenditure caused by uncertainties of donor contributions until part way through the year and overruns on some items. Short term and longer term actions are now being taken as instructed by the Board. The short term actions are: l l l l l budget a reserve of US$200k in 1995 budget an additional contingency fund of US$lOOk which may be released for specific purposes at the discretion of the Director General as the year progresses and if it is not required for budget adjustments for inflation, currency revaluation, etc. ManagementServicesDivision to institute much more rigorous reminder policies for donors who miss payment deadlines Director General to strictly monitor cash flow and emerging problems thereof with regular reports from the ManagementServices Division re-align the 1995 budget during the year if external factors make this necessary xii l l all program, project and unit managers to strictly manage all activities within approved budgets the proposed extra $1 million in ICLARM’ s 1995 budget should not be used to absorb budget overruns Longer term actions will include: l l l ICLARM to make every effort to secure better payment conditions in contracts with donors, including the maximum up-front payments and early payments of unrestricted core funds ICLARM continue to increase its operating capital by $600k over the next 3 years as instructed by the Board in 1994 (in order to bring working capital to a level of at least 45 days). Restructure operations to fit the given budget, noting that the CGIAR funding envelopes are not allowing any level of inflation, resulting in less actual funding each year 2. That the team participating in the next full-s’ cale external review investigate more fully progress in implementing and gaining acceptance of an orderly administrative system. The Board including the Director General is already strongly committed to continuing a schedule of major improvements in ICLARM’ s management system. It is aware that these improvements will only fully succeed if all rnanagers and staff ‘ sign-on’ . The Board recognizes the magnitude of the tasks ahead for ICLARM. In the transition from a relatively informal Center with several rather separate operations showing little coherence, a certain degree of staff resistance to change occurred. Progress is being made but the Board recognizes that more time and effort is required. The Board gives very high priority to ICLARM”s corporate systems development over the next several years as shown by the majority of items in the annual Board action plans. The Board has now requested the management of ICLARM to develop a detailed internal action schedule to assist the further implementation of its administrative system. The Board will oversee this development and looks forward to the next external review to judge implementation progress at that time. It will also continue monitoring progress itself through internally commissioned external reviews of key functions. 3. That, in considering the Egyptian facilities, due consideration be given not only to administrative, financial and logistical aspects but also to the technical issuessurrounding s research activities, against the framework the feasibility of the proposed sitesfor ICLARM’ of ICLARMs strategic plan and the implications for ICLARM’ s priorities. In further considering the proposal for use of the IEgyptianfacilities, the Board is determined to maintain its stand based on the principle that all operations and costs (initial and ongoing) must be additional to ICLARM’ s present operatio:ns.Detailed planning of the financial, legal and logistical aspects has commenced. While preserving the integrity and priorities identified in the present ICLARM Strategic Plan, the Board recognizes that the Medium Term Plau for 1994-1998 will need to be changed to x111 ... take advantage of the new opportunities. The Program Committee of the Board, in consultation with ICLARM staff and external experts will recommend appropriate changes to the Medium Term Plan to take advantageof the opportunities provided by the new facility especially in how they enable more comprehensiveresearch efforts in ICLARM’ s present priority in aquatic systems (coastal systems, coral reefs and inland ponds and rice floodwater). The Board, at its April meeting, will fully consider the impact of the new facility on ICLARM’ s strategy and program and report to TAC on its conclusions.. TAC’ s approval will then be sought for a-revised plan. 4. That ICLARM’ s Board and managementcontinue to investigate the opportunities for a headquarters site and capital facilities in the Philippines. The Board agreeswith this recommendationand is pursuing action through a working group of the Board set up at the November 1994 meeting. The group is due to make its initial report to the Board in April 1995. The Board believes that ICLARM must have an appropriate headquarterssite as soon as possible in parallel with and to give substanceto the expectedgranting of a Philippine headquartersagreement.Headquartersfacilities and a legal headquartersagreementare essentialto assurelong-term stability and the statusof ICLARM in the Philippines. 5. That the Director General give urgent attention to the further strengthening of scientific and managementcapacity within ICLARMprograms to ensurea sustainable long term efsort by the Center. In this recommendation, the Board sees a concern by the Panel for the lack of middle to senior ranking scientists and administrators with managementskills adequatefor the longer term future of the Center’ s work program. The Board recognizes the urgency of strengthening ICLARM’ s human resource capital, especially that of those who are or may eventually be the Center’ s leaders. Short and unstable funds have exacerbatedthe present situation. If the extra $lmillion is obtained, the Board intends that these funds be primarily used to strengthen scientific and management capacity in ICLARM. The Board has previously identified priority uses of the funds and will revisit these in the light of the Report of the present Review. To strengthen scientific capability, a senior social scientist and a geneticist will be recruited. The Board also recognizesthe need for greater strength in the finance and human resourcemanagementareas and these needs should be met from existing resources. Management capabilities will be given high priority in recruiting all new middle and senior scientific and administrative staff. In line with clear Center priorities, existing staff will be developed and trained further in management, including research management so as to strengthen ICLARM’ s overall managementcapacity. The Board intends to strengthen its own capacity in the finance, administration and human resource managementareas. Elsewhere in the report (pp l&17), the Board notes the statementsmade by the MTR Panel concerning the departure of senior staff and concerning the three program directors. xiv The Board would like to record that all senior s’ taff probably referred to by the Panel have gone on to take up senior prestigious positions in. other organizations. The Board recognizes that whereas staff turnover is healthy for any organization, including ICLARM, the departed and departing staff represent a potential loss of important expertise and, to overcome this, ICLARM has made and is making special efforts to keep and establish ongoing professional linkages with each of them. With regard to the three program directors, the Board notes the MTR Panel’ s assessments based on their impressions gained during the review visit. The Board wishes to record its recognition of the strong contributions and accomplishmentsof the three directors. The Board also recognizes the difficulty of building a cohlesivetop management team at the best of times. This task is exacerbatedwhen an organizat.ionis not only recovering from a past crisis but also is in the process of making large and rapid changes such as the Board and DG are at present. The Board will continue to encourage collaboration among its top management team so that full advantage can be taken of the Center’ s future opportunities. 6. That ICLARM should make every possible attempt to turn the challenge of increased competition for funds from capable NARS and the more internationally assertive Advanced Scientific Institutes info opportunities for positive strategic alliances. The Board agrees with this recommendation. It has fostered a noticeable change in attitudes among ICLARM staff, including a shift from client/stakeholder type relationships and terminology to partnership arrangements where complementarity of skills and interests is the key. In the last year, ICLARM has pursued a systematicprocess of formalizing relationships with national partners through memoranda of understanding, formalization of collaborative research networks (e.g., INGA), and moving away from an ad hoc approach with some key partners. The appointment of an international relations officer is also considered essential to providing more capacity for following up on links with regional and national agencies and undertaking even more systematic consultation and collaboration with NARS. The Board plans that ICLARM will undertake more formal and specific NARS consultations in 1995 to jointly specify priorities for collaborative researc.h. Due to its unique position, ICLARM has been the target of many approaches from ASIs for collaborative efforts. So far, the Center has not done a scan of its strategic needs for AS1 links but the Board will encourage this step. 7. That ICLARM be allocated the additional US$I million which TAC conditionally recommended based on the outcome of the Mid-Term Review. The Board notes and appreciates this recommendation made to TAC and the CGIAR. The Board reiterates its stand that these funds are essential for the assurance of a stronger program within the approved Medium Term F’ rogram of ICLARM and would not be available to help establish and operate the Egyptian facilities if these are taken over by ICLARM. xv 8. That consideration of the issue of inadequate resources be given high priority by TAC and the development assistance community. The Board appreciates this recommendation and stands ready to assist the TAC in any way possible in its re-examination of priorities for living aquatic resource research in the CGIAR system. Suggestions Section 2.2.1 Review of the Coastal and Coral Reef Resource SystemsProgram (CCRRSP) P4 Overall, the reviews stressed the need for much more in-depth economic analysis, which in the case of new aquaculture speciesshould be integrated in the research procedures at an early stage. the need for an improvement in the research management system of the program was also stressed, particularly with respect to impact assessment. The Panel supports these views. The Board notes that the panel endorsed the CCRRSP review’ s call for more in-depth socioeconomic analysis, especially integrated into early stage developments for new aquaculture species, and for more attention to research impact assessments. The Board agrees with these important needs and has set a high priority on hiring a senior social scientist with new funds. ICLARM, at the Board’ s instigation, is developing plans for undertaking impact assessments on several key research case studies over the next two years. In the meantime, a preliminary assessment of impacts was given to the Review Panel and is reproduced in Annex A-6 of this report. Section 2.2.2 Review of the Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT) The Panel considers that this is important research, which could contribute extensively to increased fish production and improvement in the livelihood of poor people. The cooperation with NARS as well as the technical support for INGA was well acknowledged by the reviewers, and the Panel agrees with that as well as the statement that additional manpower for strategic research is needed. The Board agrees with the importance of the GIFT-type research and has given high priority to the hiring of a geneticist with any new funds. INGA is also given high priority by the Board but despite the outstanding early success of the Network and strong efforts by ICLARM, donor support has not yet been won to continue this activity on a stable basis. ICLARM is continuing to explore possible funding options. xvi Section 2.2.3 Review of the Inland Aquatic Resource SystemsProgram (IARSP) The Panel shares the concerns of ICLARM’ s Management regarding the validity of some of the claims of the review team, which conducted their work in a highly charged atmosphere. It endorses the actions taken by Management in response to this review and considers that the program is now balanced, credible and very promising. The inadequacy of social science input because of lack of funding remains, however, and issue requiring careful attention. At its November 1994 meeting, the Board endorsed management’ s responseto the Integrated Resource Management Thrust and agrees with -theReview Panel that this work is well on track and looking very promising. The Board agrees with the need for more social science input. Section 2.2.4 Review of the Information Divisio,q P6 The Panel would encourage ICLARM to consider carefully the review’ s findings with respect to the need for the development of a strategy for the Division. Since the review of the Information Division was only conducted in December 1994, management and the Board have not yet had a chance to consider the review report. The April meeting of the Board will consider the report. Section 3.3 1992 Recommendation 3- Adopt an integrated systemfor project and program planning, monitoring and review across all programs P9 The Panel supports all these measuresinitiated by the Center and urges an evaluation annually of their success,with particular emphasison their benefits to staff in outreach posts. ICLARM presently is establishing a comprehe.nsivesystem for planning, management , monitoring and impact assessmentof its work program. The Board intends to evaluate the full ICLARM system in about one year’ s time. The Board evaluation will pay particular attention to ho,w the system works for outreach posts, recognizing the importance of full integration of ICLARM’ s headquarters and outreach work. The Board will then continue to monitor the situation. xvii Section 3.10 1992 Recommendation10 - Spell out its strategies and plans in the information area clearly, and not expand its stafSingand expenditures in this area before completing such an effort. P I3 The Panel notes that the internally commissioned external review of ICLARM Information Program (sic) was completed shortly before this review took place. That review recommended that the program develop a vision and strategy as to ICLARM s future in this area.. . The Panel supports such a recommendation, The Board notes the Panel’ s support for developing a vision and strategy for the information area and reiterates that it has yet to consider the report of the Information Division review (see response to Section 2.2.4 above). Section 6.8 Partners P 24 The Panel encourages ICLARA to proceed with participation in inter-center program activities of broader System importance, such as the system-wide program on coastal resources, on policy research with respect to common propeq resources and on water management. While the Panel recognizes that, due to limitation in staff resources, progress in developing proposals to this effect may be slow, it hopes that with expanding resources ICLARM will be able to give increasing attention to these other important areas of work. The s active participation in the system-wide Panel is pleased to note, therefore, ICLARiVi’ program on genetic resources. The Board notes and agrees with the Panel’ s encouragement to ICLARM to participate in relevant CGIAR system-wide initiatives. ICLARM plans to take the lead in developing an initiative on coastal resources during 1995. ICLARM reaffirms its commitment to the CGIAR system and hopes to both benefit from its participation in the system and contribute its special skills and knowledge to several programs in the CGIAR research agenda. Section 6.7 Track Record and Past History P 23 The Board appreciates the views of the Panel on the concept of renaming and visibly renewing ICLARM’ s image and modus operandi. It has yet to consider the options but intends to do so. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences University of Florida Gainsville, Florida 32611 U.S.A. 6 February 1995 Dr. Donald L. Winkelmann Chair Technical Advisory CommitteeCGIAR FAO Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, Italy Mr. Alexander von der Osten Executive Secretary CGIAR World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. Dear Don and Alexander: I am pleased to submit to you the report of the Panel conducting the Mid-Term Review of ICLARM. The primary purpose of this review was to assess ICLARM’ s progress in responding to the recommendations of the 1992 External Program and Management Review, in implementing an effective researchprogram and in improving its governance and management. The Panel also carefully considered the developments at ICLARM since the management crisis of 1993 that led to the resignation of both the Center’ s Director General and Board Chair. The Panel’ s findings with regards to its Terms of Reference are quite positive. For example: l ICLARM has moved effectively to implement virtually all of the 1992 EPMR Panel’ s recommendation, The notable exception is the failure to finalize the Headquarters Agreement in the Philippines--for reasons beyond the control of the Center. The Panel concludes that, under the leadership of Dr. Meryl Williams, an able, dynamic and effective new Director General, and with the sound and experienced guidance of a new Chair, Dr. John Dillon, significant progress is being made in implementing an effective research program and in improving the Center’ s Although there are remaining vestiges of the internal governance and management. strife in 1993, we feel that these circumstances do not provide a significant continuing deterrent to ICLARM ‘ s future progress and effectiveness. 0 xx Although most of the report is positive, the Panel identified a few areasof concern. For example, 0 A range of perceived problems was identified by Board, Management and staff, relating to administrative policies, regulations and procedures. These issues are being discussedwith the Director General and Board Chair. The Panel concludes, however, that many of these concerns are being effectively addressedby actions already initiated and led by the Director General, with the oversight of the Board. The Panel’ s overriding concern relates .to its strong perception that ICLARM is significantly underfunded, both in terms of unrestricted core and total resources. As the only Center in the CGIAR System having responsibility for living aquatic resources, and considering the importance of such systems in providing nutritious food and food security to people of the developing world, the Panel concludes that TAC and the development assistancecommunity need to give much higher priority to meeting the financial needsof ICLARM. Moreover, the Panel hopes that this can be done without penalizing the other Centers in the System which undoubtedly have resource needs as well. With more adequatefunding, the Panel concludes that the future of ICLARM can, indeed, be very bright. l The Panel has consideredthe Egyptian offer in some detail and would be willing to share with you its thinking on the matter. The tentative nature of the situation is such that we did not say more about it in our report. However, the Panel suggeststhat ICLARM would need to undertake an analysis as to what specific technical operation would be best suited to a research facility in a non-tropical environment. In addition, TAC would need to consider carefully the issuesinvolved within the context of CGIAR priorities and strategies as well as some possible modification in ICLARM’ s strategic plan. Finally, I would like to thank the members of the team for their contributions. They are a capable, knowledgable and experiencedgroup with whom I greatly enjoyed working and who made this review a very pleasant and rewarding experience. Kind regards. Yours sincerely, E.T. York ‘ J Chair ICLARM Mid-Term Review SDR/TAC:IAR/95/2 CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND CGIAR SECRETARIAT REPORT OF THE MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR LIVING AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ICLARM) Review Panel: Dr. E.T. York (Chair) Dr. Hans Ackefors Ms. Joan Joshi (Consultant) Dr. Guido Gryseels (TAC Secretariat) TAC SECRETARIAT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS February 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AND LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS ICLARM ORGANIZATIONAL CHART CHAPTER 1: EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ICLARM CHAPTER 2: INTERNALLY-MANAGED EXTERNAL PROGRAM AND MANAGEMENT REVIEWS SINCE THE 1992 EPMR 2.1 2.2 Nature of Such Reviews Results of Program Reviews 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.3 Review of Review of Review of Review of the Coastal and Coral Reef ResourceSystemsProgram the Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapia the Inland Aquatic ResourceSystemsProgram the Information Division xxv xxv111 ... 1 3 3 3 Results of Internal ManagementReviews 6 7 7 7 8 8 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 12 CHAPTER 3: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 1992 EPMR AND RESPONSE THERETO 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 Recommendation1 Recommendation2 Recommendation3 Recommendation4 Recommendation5 Recommendation6 Recommendation7 Recommendation8 Recommendation9 Recommendation10 Recommendation11 Recommendation12 CHAPTER 4: MATTERS RELATING TO PROGRAM AND MANAGEMENT NOT ADDRESSED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 1992 EPMR 13 4.1 4.2 4.3 Governance Leadership 1993 “Crisis in ICLARM” 13 14 14 16 CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH AND HEADQUARTERS FACILITIES xxiv CHAPTER 6: ICLARM’ S CAPACITY TO DE:LIVER AN EFFECTI:VE RESEARCH 16 PROGRAM 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Mandate and Research System Membership/Governance Human Resources ResourceEase 6.4.1 Budget Structure 6.4.2 Budge Size 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 Infrastructure Management Policies and Systems Track Record and Past History Partners Conclusions/Recommendations 17 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 22 22 CHAPTER 7: THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE AVAILABLE SCALE OF RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT THE A.GREED CORE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ANNEXES A-l A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 Panel Composition ICLARM Responseto the 1992 EPMR R.ecommendations Director General letter to Chair of the CGIAR dated 2 December 1994 Overview of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture Situation Brown, Lester R. : Nature’ s Limit (Chapt’ er1) from the State oj’ the World 1995, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C. ICLARM Contribution and Impact of ResearchPrograms Relevant Figures 23 25 A-7.1 Changesin Productivity of Chickens, Dajiry Cows, Swine, Norwegian Salmon and Tropical Finfish from 1940 to the late 1980’ s A-7.2 Indices of Export Prices for Fish, Beef, Pork and Chicken from 1975 to 1993 A-7.3 Global Marine and Aquaculture Yield from 1950 to 1993. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Panel took a forward looking approach, and our overall messageis a positive one. ICLARM has gone a long way in implementing almost all of the external review recommendations. The only recommendation where little progress appears to have been made, for reasons beyond ICLARM’ s control, is in the finalization of the Headquarters Agreement with the Philippine Government. We are confident that ICLARM has a bright future. The Center has a dynamic new Director General, Dr. Meryl W illiams, who inspires confidence and brings strong scientific as well as managementleadership. Thanks to its current Chair, Dr. John Dillon, who is an experienced “old hand” of the CGIAR, the Board of Trustees has been turned into an effective force in providing policy guidance and oversight to Management. ICLARM has capable and hard working staff who are very dedicated to the Center’ s mission. Progress remains to be made. Dr. W illiams took office only ten months ago, and more time is needed for several reforms, which she and the Board have initiated, to take effect. Further changes are required, particularly the strengthening of ICLARM’ s administration and financial management. The Panel believes that ICLARM has the basic capacity to implement an effective researchprogram and has made good progress in carrying out its 1994-1998 Medium-Term Plan. The Center is constrained by a lack of capital facilities and infrastructure and a lack of funds, particularly of unrestricted core resources. In this respect, we would encourage the Management and Board of ICLARM to proceed in considering the offer of the Egyptian Government for the use of existing research facilities under the conditions the Board has outlined, recognizing that the financial implications for ICLARM’ s budget would be substantial. At the same time, the Panel has encouragedICLARM to proceed in negotiations with the Philippine Government regarding a headquarterssite and agreement. During the course of its review, the Panel was made aware of severalconcerns about administrative policies, regulations and procedures. Examples include allegations of deficiencies in the management of cash flow, perceived inequities on personnel and compensationmatters, lack of due processprocedures,delays in financial reporting and the appropriateness of some decisions such as writing ICLARM’ s own computer programs rather than seeking off-the-shelf software. These perceptions require attention from Managementwhether or not they are valid, but the Panel feels compelled to note here two factors that lead it to withhold judgement: 1) the residue of the 1993 crisis which caused a split between Program Directors and the Director of Management Services, and 2) the fact that the latter has had to introduce systemsand proceduresinto a culture that has valued independenceand freedom from what some see as bureaucratic intrusions into their research work. There is a perception by the Panel that the three Program Directors are not yet fully committed to being an integral part of a cohesive managementteam, dedicated to assisting xxvi the Director General in her efforts to lead the Center to new levels of effectiveness and achievements. If a smoothly functioning, mutually-supportive management team can develop, the Director General’ s task will be mad.eeasier and much more pleasant, and the Center’ s accomplishments will be greater. The Panel concludes, however, that although there are remaining vestiges of the 1992-1993 internal strife, especially among the Program Directors, attitudes and conditions among most of the staff are steadily improving. The Panel further concludes that, with the excellent leadership of the Director General and Board Chair, ICLARM is poised to move significantly forward. In view of the progress achieved by ICLARM and the positive developments in pursuing effective governance and management,the Panel strongly recommends that TAC release the reserve fund of US$l million to ICL,ARM, starting with its 1995 budget. The Panel has no hesitation in stating that the resources will be used effectively and that ICLARM’ s potential for impact is substantial. The Management and staff of ICLARM merit full support in this critical period. The Panel is confident that they have put ICLARM on a solid track leading to success. The Panel is also grateful to them for the positive attitude in which this review could be conducte’ d,for the arrangementsmade and for the excellent documentation that was provided. The Panel also concludes that even witlh the extra US$l million proposed to be added to the Center budget, the level of overall resources, and especially of unrestricted core, will still be very inadequate. This is especially true, given the fact that ICLARM is the only Center in the CGIAR System with responsibility for research on living aquatic resources,which contribute so vitally to food prsoduction/security in the developing world. Following is a list of Panel recommendations: l that the Director General give urgent attention to the issue of cash flow management. (3.4) that the Director General investigate the validity of concerns expressed about ICLARM’ s managementservices and.take appropriate action, and that the team participating in the next full-scale external review investigate more fully progress in implementing and gaining acceptanceof an orderly administrative system. (3.4) that, in considering the Egyptian facilities, due consideration be given not only to administrative, financial and 1ogist:icalaspectsbut also to the technical issues surrounding the feasibility of the proposed sites for ICLARM’ s research activities, against the framework of ICLARM’ s strategic plan and the implications for ICLARM ‘ s priorities. (5 .) that ICLARM’ s Board and Managementcontinue to investigate the opportunities for a headquarterssite and capital fa’ cilities in the Philippines. (5.) l l l xxvii l that the Director General give urgent attention to the further strengthening of scientific and management capacity within ICLARM programs to ensure a sustainable long term effort by the Center. (6.3) that ICLARh4 should make every possible attempt to turn the challenge of competition for declining overall funds from capable NARS and the more internationally assertive advanced science institutes into opportunities for positive strategic alliances. (6.8) That ICLARM be allocated the additional US$l million which TAC conditionally recommended based on the outcome of the Mid-Term Review. (6.9) that consideration of the issue of inadequateresourcesbe given high priority by TAC and the development assistancecommunity. (7.0) l l l I [Cl-ARM Organizational Chart M.J.WILLIAMS Ditectot General : R.PULLIN Oifector IARSP i J. MACLEAN Direclot INFORMATION DIVISION 8. RODAIGUEZ. JR. Director MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIVISION ASSESShlENT OF RESOURCES AND MANAGEhlENT OFRESOURCE j-----j D. PAULY Principal Science Advisei Bioeconomicsl Valuations/ c .___ C__IL.“^ tiO”3, OFLII”II9 Ai D.SESHU (Temporary) Coordinator INGA and DEGITA ~ ’ II t-l V.CHRISTENSEN Senior Scienlisl Fishery Arsers~nenl ECOPATH II MSVPA I G. SILVESTRE Research Scienlirl Coaslal Area Projecls Senior Sclenlisl I Research Scienlisl Global DataBase: OIC. Projecl Director “,.., Research Scienlisl Global Dalabase: Research Scienlist nesearch Scienlisl SIERRA LEONE Note: This chart shows only directors and scientisls reporting to directors. January 1995 I 1.0 Evolution and Development of ICLARM The International Center for Living Aquatic ResourcesManagement (ICLARM) is an international research center establishedin 1974 through the support of the Rockefeller Foundation. In 1992, it joined the CGIAR after preparing a strategic plan and being subjectedto an External Program and ManagementReview (EPMR) commissionedby TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat. This review found ICLARM to be a dynamic organization with dedicated staff and a fine record of achievementbut with the need to fill gaps in governance and managementand to improve institutional effectiveness. The Center was also faced with the need to transform itself from a somewhatfragmented, project-driven organization to one that was integrated and client-oriented and capable of taking an holistic view. The Rockefeller Foundation had been the dominant source of unrestricted core funds since ICLARM’ s inception but terminated this support in 1984, plunging ICLARM into a deep financial crisis and forcing it to secure alternative sources of funding, particularly restricted grants for special projects. This imposed a major threat to program continuity, the tendency toward donor-driven program priorities and the compartmentalization of research. With the developmentof a strategic plan and a 19941998 medium-term plan, this situation has improved, but there is still a long way to go. More than 60% of ICLARM’ s funding is restricted; except for one other Center, this is the highest share among CGIAR institutions. Moreover, ICLARM’ s level of unrestricted core funding is the smallest of any Center in the CGIAR. The 1992 EPMR made a number of recommendationson how to improve ICLARM’ s managementand governance,help the Center develop institutional cohesion and improve the quality of its researchprograms. The review also recommendedthat a Mid-Term Review of ICLARM be held in 1995, three years after the first review, to monitor the implementation of its recommendationsand to assessthe capacity of ICLARM to implement an effective researchprogram and to improve its program and management. ICLARM entered the CGIAR subsequent to the 1992 Mid-Term Meeting of the CGIAR and began to develop a Medium-Term Plan (MTP) on the basis of an indicative core envelope of US$4.8 million, This was the figure assignedby TAC and endorsedby the Group in its Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies.ICLARM’ s basic proposal presented at TAC 60 in March 1993 called for total core resourcesof US$ 10.7 million excluding the capital cost of new facilities and infrastructure, or at a level of 224 % of the tentative envelope that had been assigned.TAC consideredthis proposal too ambitious, both becauseit involved a too rapid rate of growth and in view of the fact that the major challenge facing ICLARM during the medium-term plan period would be to transform itself from a project to a program-driven organization with institutional cohesion. It asked ICLARM to develop a revised proposal in time for TAC 61 in June 1993 when TAC would be making final recommendationsto the Group on resource allocation in the CGIAR for the period 1994-1998. In early 1993, ICLARM experienceda major crisis when several of its program leaders expresseda lack of confidence in its senior management.This resulted in a tumultuous Board of Trustees meeting leading to the resignation of both its Director General and Board Chair. An interim Board Chair was appointed, and the Chair of the Panel that had conducted the EPMR, Dr. Larry Stifel, was asked to serve as the Director 2 General for an interim period beginning July 1, 1993 until a new Director General could be appointed. At TAC 61 in June 1993, TAC consideredICLARM’ s revised MTP proposal (at the level of the tentative envelope) and expresse:d concern about the institutional health and the quality of governanceand managementof ICLARM. It recommendedthat ICLARM be assignedcore resourcesof US$4.Elmillion (in 1992 dollars, i.e., at the level of the originally indicative envelope). Should the Center show improvement in its institutional health, and under the condition that the 1995 Mid-Term Review of ICLARM provided convincing evidence that its researchprograms could be implemented effectively, the decision was made to add an adlditional$500,000 to the envelope during 1996, with a further tranche of $500,000 during 1997. At the special TAC meeting in August 1994, TAC respondedpositively to a request from ICLARM that both tranches be aggregatedto a total of US$l million and made available to ICLARM as from 1995, still under the condition of a positive outcome of the 1995 Mid-Term Review. During the period of the interim Director General, Dr. Larry Stifel initiated a process of reform and commissioneda number of internally-commissionedexternal reviews of ICLARM’ s programs and of its managementservices. The CGIAR Secretariat also organized a training workshop to help improve the performance of the Board, and a new Board Chair, Dr. John Dillon, who had extensive experiencein CGIAR Board matters was appointed. On April 4, 1994, Dr. Meryl Williams took office as Director General and continued the process of reform, introduced new systemsto improve managementand finalized the series of internal reviews. At the same time, the Board of Trustees, under the new leadership, was re-invigorated, and a range of measureswas taken to make ICLARM’ s governancemore effective. Gradually, the confidence of the development assistancecommunity and TAC is being restored. In September 1994, the Chair of the Mid-Term Review and members of the Panel were appointed by the TAC Chair and the Executive Secretary of the CGIAR. The Panel Chair attended the meeting of ICLARM’ s Board of Trustees from 14-19 November 1994, and the full Panel visited ICLARM from 28 January to 5 February 1995. The Panel met collectively and individually with the Director General and Program Directors and conducted interviews with a large number of both internationally and nationally recruited staff. All staff who expressedthe desire to meet with the Panel were invited to do so. Telephone interviews were conducted with outposted staff. The Panel also met with representativesof Philippine national researchand developmentagenciesand ICLARM’ s external auditors. The Panel finalized its report after discussionwith the Chair and members of the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees. A list of Panel members and a resume of their biodata are presentedin Annex A-l. The following sections present the report of the Panel. 3 2.0 Internallv-Commissioned External Program and Management Reviews since the 1992 EPMR Since ICLARM’ s admission to the CGIAR in 1992, and in preparation for this Mid-Term Review, the Center commissioneda number of external reviews. All areas of ICLARM’ s work have now been subject to such reviews at least once, and all but the review of the Information Division and the secondGIFT review have been considered by the Board of Trustees. The reviews covered: l l l l l Management Services Division Coastal and Coral Reef ResourceSystemsProgram Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapia Project Integrated ResourceManagementThrust Information Division 1992 and 1994 1994 1993 and 1994 1993 1994 2.1 Nature of Such Reviews To date, the reviews have proceededin the following manner: An external panel (or individual) was selectedby the Director General and the Board Chair and provided with terms of reference prepared by the Director General and approved by the Board; Panel members met at ICLARM with individual staff and staff groups as appropriate; Members presentedtheir summary observationsand recommendationsto Management for discussionprior to departure; A final report was subsequentlysubmitted to both the Director General and the Board Chair; The Director General and staff prepared a formal responseto the report for presentationto the Board. Both the Board and Managementhave found these reviews useful in identifying issuesthat need attention and in emphasizinginstitutional transparencyand accountability as desirable organizational values. They have also served to improve internal. communication and a keener awarenessof managementresponsibilities. The Board is considering a schedulewhereby each program or division will be reviewed every other year. The Panel is entirely supportive of this notion in view of the evident value of the studies to date as indicated below. 2.2 Results of Program Reviews 2.2.1 Review of the Coastal and Coral Reef ResourceSystemsProgram (CCRRSP) Reviews of CCRRSP were conducted in 1994 by Jeffrey J. Polovina, National Marine Fisheries Service, Hawaii, U.S.A., and A. J. Pitcher, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. An internal review of this program was also made by the Program Committee of the Board during the same year. 4 Drs. Polovina and Pitcher were asked to provide general comments on the focus, scope and quality of the work carried out under the three CCRRSP thrusts, based on interviews conducted with staff members, perusal of project documentationand attendance at a formal presentationto the Program Committee. They covered the efforts of ICLARM related to modelling of natural fish resources, in.cludingcoral reef fisheries. There was general support for the various models, although a question was raised about the applicability of the Multispecies Virtual Population Analysis (MSVPA) as a tool. Appreciation for the SocioeconomicAnal.ysisfor Coastal and Coral Reef Comanagementproject was expressed,although these appearedto be little integration in the work of the program. Progress in the Bioeconomic Modelling and Valuation of Coastal and Coral Reef Resourcesproject was questionedbecauseof the linear programming research approach, and the need for a senior economist was stressed.The Comparative Analysis of Coastal Cross Sectionsproject was appraisedpositively, although the feasibility of the time schedulewas questioned. The Aquaculture and ResourceEnhancementproject in Coral Reef Ecosystems was appraisedpositively in terms of the enhance:ment of depleted speciesin the wild. The Panel notes that the pertinent point from the Program Committee report with respect to aquaculture and resource enhancementwas “that new aquaculturespeciessuch as sea cucumbers should incorporate economic analysis:as early as possible and that there should be evaluations of the impacts of introducing new speciesinto the ecosystemin terms of both productivity and biodiversity . ” Overall, the reviews stressedthe need fo.r much more in-depth economic analysis, which in the case of new aquaculturespeciesshould be integrated in the research procedures at an early stage. The need for an improvement in the research management system of the program was also stressed,particularly with respect to impact assessment. The Panel supports these views. 2.2.2 Review of the Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapia (GIFT) Two reviews of the GIFT project were undertaken, one in 1993 (PhaseI) and one in 1994 (PhaseII). PhaseI of the review was conductedby a team of four people: Graham A.E. Gall (University of California, Da.vis, U.S.A.), Vo Tong Xuan (Cantho University, Hangiang, Vietnam), Ziad Shehadeh(SIFR c/o IDRC, Ottawa, Canada) and Bernard Chevassus(INRA, Paris, France). The review covered such subjects as strategic research activities, new traits, the collection of new germplasm, training and the International Network for Genetics in Aquaculture (INGA). A detailed assessment of the project was carried out. The reviewers praised the progress achieved, the technical quality of the research, the high skill level of the staff and the high level of cooperation among the agenciesinvolved. The Panel considers that this is important research, which (couldcontribute extensively to increased fish production and improvement in the livelihood of poor people. The cooperation with NARS as well as the technical support for INGA was well acknowledgedby the reviewers, and the Panel agreeswith that as wel.1as with the statementthat additional manpower for strategic research is needed. 5 The GIFT project (PhaseII) was assessed by an expert UNDP advisory team (Graham Gall, Vo Tong Xuan and Brian Davy) in 1994. The Board and Management have not yet had an opportunity to respond to the resulting report. The team assessed all the important issuesmentioned above and also commentedon scientific publications resulting from the project. A significant backlog of scientific publications was found, and it was recommendedthat this situation be remedied as rapidly as possible. It was also found that, although the project had made significant progress during 1994, the operation of the project and the technical quality of the researchhad not been as high as in previous years, in particular cooperation with the Norwegian research agency. ICLARM and the Norwegian agency took action on this matter in November 1994 and January 1995 and are now satisfied past issueshave been laid to rest. However, the reviewers again stressed the value of this project in demonstratinghow NARS can be true partners and found this project to be an excellent model of cooperation among national and international organizations. The skill and dedication of the staff involved were also emphasized. 2.2.3 Review of the Inland Aquatic ResourceSystemsProgram (IARSPZ The review of IARSP was conducted in 1993 by J. Brian Hardaker (University of New England, Australia), Harvey Demaine (AIT, Bangkok, Thailand) and Agnes C. Rola (University of the Philippines and IRRI, Los Baiios, Laguna, Philippines). The team delivered a critical report, questioning the objectives and the approach of the program and recommending a change in research strategy, although the quality of research performed was acknowledgedthrough its publication record. The Panel sharesthe concerns of ICLARM’ s Managementregarding the validity of some of the claims of the review team, which conductedtheir work in a highly charged atmosphere. It endorsesthe actions taken by Managementin responseto this review and considers that the program is now balanced, credible and very promising. The inadequacy of social science input becauseof the lack of funding remains, however, an issue requiring careful attention, 2.2.4 Review of the Information Division A review of the Information Division was carried out by two consultants, Robert Huggan of IRRI and Brian Lee of ACIAR in 1994. Again, this review was quite recent, and the Board and Managementhave not yet had sufficient time to respond. They evaluated the activity of the Division in relation to its prime objectives. There was general support for the way in which work is carried out, although several interesting observations were made about the Division’ s limited vision. Viewing the Division as an essentially reactive type of service unit, the team recommendedthat information activities be elevated to the level of a Program, that a strategy be developed and that the Division be pro-active rather than continue to serve in a service capacity, Concerns were expressed about the dual role the Director of the Division had to play both as technical editor and Division Manager. The Panel agreesto the many positive statementsmade about the potential importance of this Division, the quality of the publications and the effective services offered by the library. The Panel would encourageICLARM to consider carefully the 6 review’ s findings with respect to the need for the development of a strategy for the Division. 2.3 Results of Management Reviews Reviews of the entire assignedresponsibilities of the ManagementServices Division were conducted in both 1992 and 1994 by Wilfred0 A. Reyes:.Regional Controller, IDRC, Singapore. In his first visit, Mr. Reyes met with staff and considered policies and procedures with respect to planning, program administration, financial management,human resourcesmanagement,administrative services, systems administration and internal audit. His report listed problem areas he had identified and included numerous, very detailed suggestionsfor improvement. His suggestionswere acceptedby Management and incorporated into the 1993 and 1994 workplans of the Division. Mr. Reyes was invited to return to ICLARM in June 1994 to review the progress made in implementing his initial recommendations.In this secondreview, Mr. Reyes interviewed both program and administrative staff. Again, he consideredthe entire assignmentof the ManagementServices Division and indicated in his report that staff had either implemented or were ready to implement most of the suggestionsin his earlier report. While specifying additional steps neededto improve the services of individual units, Mr. Reyes noted particular improvement in internal communication that had been identified as an inhibiting factor to full cooperation during his first visit. His executive summary pointed to the weekly program meetings initiated by the Director General, improved interaction between staff of the programs and the Projects Administration Unit, the new Project Planning and ManagementManual and the assignmentof a Program Assistant in headquartersas a focal point for communication with outreach staff as important contributions in this respect. On the otlher hand, he identified the need for briefing sessionsto bring program staff up to spe:ed in their understandingof financial reports and referred to the perception on the part of internationally recruited staff that their conditions of employment had not received sufficient attention. Subsequentaction by Management and the Board have made at least a start in dealing with this latter point. Management’ s responseto the Reyes report noted agreementwith his general conclusion that “internal communication continues to be the critical factor that cuts across all functional areas covered” and indicated pleasure at his identification of efforts to establish and institutionalize formal communication channels. Again, Management acceptedthe specific suggestionsin the report, several of which were addressedin late 1994, with others incorporated into 1995 workplans . The Panel found Mr. Reyes’detailed suggestionsto Managementin both reviews extremely valuable, but Members sensethat he may have been overly sanguinein his secondreport in suggestingthat there had been considerableprogress in implementing changes s 7 3.0 Recommendations of the 1992 EPMR and ResponseThereto The Review Panel’ s Terms of Referencecalled for a monitoring of ICLARM’ s progress in implementing the program and managementrecommendationsmade in the 1992 EPMR. The report of that review included 12 primary recommendationsagainst which progress has been monitored by the Board at every meeting since. Management’ s responsesto the recommendationsat the time of this review are summarized in Annex A2, while the Panel’ s evaluation of the actions taken in responseto these recommendations is summarized as follows: 3.1 Recommendation I - Initiate early action to change its legal status to that of an international organization with privileges and immunities similar to that of other CGIAR Centers. The Panel is impressedwith the effort made by the Center to respond to this recommendation. ICLARM has proceededwith a recognition that the change in legal status to that of an international organization and the availment of privileges and immunities in the Philippines is a two-stage process. The first stage of this process was completed with the signing of an international agreementestablishingICLARM as an international organization in April 1993. The second stage, however, remains to be accomplished. The Center lost some momentum in its efforts to conclude a host-country or HeadquartersAgreement largely becauseof the 1993 “crisis. ” It neverthelessresumed the effort upon assumption to office of Dr. Larry Stifel and then of Dr. Meryl Williams as the new Director General. However, final action of the Philippine Government is still pending. Some additional high-level contacts and meetings are being contemplatedto resolve outstanding issues and finally forge the Agreement. The Panel fully recognizesthe urgency of getting the Agreement negotiated and signed. The Agreement will provide the long-term security and stability ICLARM needs as it seeks support for headquartersfacilities and increasedbudgetary support to enable it to pursue its goals more effectively. The need for some resolution is especially apparent given the status of current negotiations for a site in Egypt (see Section 5 following). 3.2 Recommendation 2 - Formulate and approve a comprehensive set of human resource management policies and create a personnel office to assist in their implementation. Despite serious internal problems in 1993 that delayed responseto this recommendation, Managementhas since drafted and securedBoard approval of personnel policy manuals for both internationally recruited staff and nationally recruited staff in the Philippines. Both manuals, however, tend to record policies in broad terms and require considerableaugmentationin order to stipulate the proceduresthat will apply. A Human ResourcesManager joined the staff in September1993 but resigned in October 1994. As an interim measure, personnel administration was added to the assignmentof the Unit Head of Administrative Services, and no decision has yet been made as to a final resolution of this issue, a particularly significant one in the Panel’ s view. Salary 8 administration practices have been reviewed and restructured, but more work remains to be done in this regard, including the installation of an appropriate position classification system. (A new classification system has, in fact, already been submitted to the Board for review and approval.) A number of steps have a.lsobeen taken to encourage an improvement in internal communication. Perhaps most importantly in the Panel’ s view, the Center has adopted an impressive performance managementsystem, entailing the formulation of a performance agreement for each staff member at the beginning of the year, an interim review and a final review at the end of the year, with provision for salary increments based on performance ratings. The Panel applaudsthis development, not only becauseit ensures more equitable treatment of staff but becauseit promotes integration of the individual’ s contribution with the overall objectives of the Center and its annual plan of work. A local consulting company has been engagedto conduct center-wide training in the system’ s implementation and to build understandingand support, since initial reactions on the part of staff are mixed. It is likely, however, that one or two annual cycles must be experiencedbefore there will be full appreciation of the role it can pla:y in enhancing Center efficiency and effectiveness. 3.3 Recommendation 3 - Adopt an integrated system for proiect and program planning, monitoring and review across all programs. The Center has respondedto this recommendationby several decisions taken in 1994 which will be implemented in 1995. This includes the aforementioneddevelopment of performance agreementsfor individual staff and a training program in project planning and design, both actions meant to increase staff managementabilities. It also includes preparation with full consultation of a detailed o:perationalplan for 1995. A first draft of a Project Planning and ManagementManual will be completed in April 1995. This is primarily a guide for Project Leaders and Program.Directors, designedto identify the critical stagesof the prqject life cycle. Administrative support to project teams hLas been enhancedby assigning Project Assistantsto be incorporated into project teams ‘ to assist Project Leaders in their administrative responsibilities. The Assistantsalso serve as a liaison officers with responsibilities for various kinds of services. In addition, ICLAFW Managementintenldsto respond to the request from the Board to formulate recommendationsfor proceduresto assess project impacts. The Panel supports all of these measuresinitiated by the Center and urges an evaluation annually of their success,with particular emphasison their benefits to staff in outreach posts. 3.4 Recommendation 4 - Strengthen its financial management and improve its internal reserves (fund balances) and exDenditure controls. The Center has identified a number of significant steps taken in regard to financial managementper se, although it has also listed a considerablenumber of issuesthat still need attention. The greater involvement of Project Leaders and Unit Heads in the 1995 9 budget process is a positive changebut does not go far enough in the Panel’ s view, since they are not yet asked to take full responsibility for budgeting, or for cost control, of all aspectsof projects/units for which they are operationally responsible. It is clear that some of the staff in question will need to upgrade their skills in this regard. The ICLARM Board has recognized the tenuous position of the Center with respect to internal reserves and its wide deviation from CGIAR operating fund guidelines. In 1994, the Board authorized the budgeting of a three-year annual surplus of US$200, 000. While several exigencieseliminated the surplus in 1994, the 1995 budget proposes to deposit US$400,000 in reserves. At present, ICLARM holds an operating fund balance of close to zero, while the capital fund will register only approximately US$500,000 (roughly one month of operating costs) at the close of 1994, less than half in liquid form. The lack of a reasonableoperating fund is exacerbatedby the fact that the costs of many of the Center’ s restricted and complementarycore activities are only reimbursed after, and occasionally well after, completion. The Panel is concerned about the limitations in cash flow managementat ICLARM, resulting in sometimeslong delays in the payment of bills and increasingly tense relations with several suppliers. The Panel recommends that the Director General give urgent attention to the issue of cash flow management.See Annex A-3 which describesthe background of this issue and the current situation that in early January 1995 necessitateda second emergency loan through the CGIAR Secretariat. With respect to this EPMR recommendationas well as recommendation2 (human resourcesmanagement) discussedabove, the Panel regrets that it can only raise questions and not fully evaluate ICLARM’ s managementservices in the brief time available to it. In fact, however, a number of issueshave been brought to the Panel’ s attention by program staff that suggestthe need for prompt Managementattention. Examples include allegations of deficiencies in the managementof cash flow, perceived inequities on personnel and compensationmatters, lack of due process of procedures, delays in financial reporting and the appropriateness of some decisions, such as writing ICLARM’ s own computer programs rather than seeking off-the-shelf software. These perceptions require attention from Managementwhether or not they are valid, but the Panel feels compelled to note here two factors that lead it to withhold judgement: 1) the residue of the 1993 crisis which causeda split between Program Directors and the Director of ManagementServices, and 2) the fact that the latter has had to introduce systems and procedures into a culture that has valued independenceand freedom from what some see as bureaucratic intrusions into their research work. Without making a judgement, therefore, the Panel recommends that the Director General investigate the validity of the concerns expressedabout ICLARM’ s management services and take appropriate action, and that the team participating in the next full-scale external review investigate more fully progress in implementing and gaining acceptanceof an orderly administrative system 10 3.5 Recommendation 5 - Reassessits stated goals and obiectives to give more emphasis to research and to make them more consistent with those of CGIAR. The Center’ s goals and objectives are now formulated in relation to the priorities and strategies of the CGIAR, following completion of the process of strategic planning in May 1992. In ICLARM’ s Medium-Term Plan 199498 (From Strategy to Action, February 1993) the three most critical resource systems- coastal, coral reef and inland - are identified, and the priorities in program developmentare laid down. Geographical areas in priority order are indicated, and the five guiding principles for researchpriority setting are outlined: sustainability, equity, gender, user participation and a systemsapproach. The principles for maximizing research efficiency are discussedin relation to projects. ICLARM’ s priorities on natural resourcesmanagementare also in compliance with CGIAR priority areas identified, as is the ecoregional approach to research, particularly in the inland program. The Panel we:lcomesthe actions taken by ICLARM to comply with the priorities and strategiesof the CGIAR. 3.6 Recommendation 6 - Place greater emphasis in the short-run on improvement in breeding and husbandrv practice than genetic manipulation in its proposed Inland Aquatic Resource Svstems Program. ICLARM has not yet been involved with genetic manipulation, although the scientists within NARS have been attracted by such methods, including DNA technologies leading to transgenic fish. ICLARM is at present following the development of such technologiesand may consider experimenting with them in the period of the next Medium-Term Plan. The Panel applaudsthe progress ICLARM has made with the selective breeding approach. The quantitative genetic program has been extremely successfulin increasing the growth rate of Tilapia by 60% since 1991. The program will now be extended to such other speciesas the Chinese and Indian carp as well as the common carp. The Panel welcomes the ambition of the :scientists to include a qualitative genetic approach in their breeding program in the future. Questionsabout diseaseand parasite resistanceare also of importance as are evolutionary principles for domestication. 3.7-S Recommendation 7 - Develop a revised research plan for its proposed Coral Reef Svstems clearly iustifving any large expansion, taking advantage of opportunities for collaboration with advanced scientific insititutions, and present it to TAC for approval either alsa part of ICLARM’ s presentation of its Medium-Term Plan, or if ICLARM requires more time, on the occasion of the interim external review. 11 Recommendation 8 - Revise the strategy for its proposed Coastal Resource Svstems Program to reflect the nature of the problems faced in the coastal zone and present it to TAC as part of the Center’ s response to this review. Those two recommendationsare closely linked and are for this reason commented on jointly. Since the recommendationswere made, ICLARM’ s Medium-Term Plan has been presented and endorsedby TAC (1993). The coastal transectsproject has integrated the coastal fisheries managementproject and research on the dynamics of multispecies resources. The coastal fisheries project has a socioeconomicdimension to study the integration of people, environment and the utilization of resourcesand the impact of the project on higher sustainedcatchesand/or improved incomes for people. The Panel applaud the new activities developedin this area, including the impressive development of such databases as Fishbase, FiDAS and the good start of Reefbase.The computerized systemswill also be indispensabletools for environmental protection in a wider perspective. The near-shoreareas (shelf-areas)produce 90% of marine harvest on a global basis. The impact of pollution must therefore be carefully monitored in terms of biodiversity, changesin speciescomposition and primary production. Some people have asked whether the design of such software as Fishbaseand Reefbaserepresentsresearch. The Panel considers such software to be valuable tools to be used by other scientist in their researchprograms The plan to build a data base for coral reef systemsappear extremely important, both with respect to fish production and to the global environment. The Panel is favorably impressed with the number of valuable publications produced, including manuscripts by ICLARM scientists elucidating the coral reef as an important source of food for millions of poor people as well for the fish market. At present 6-10% of the marine harvest originates from coral reef areas. From a global perspective, the coral reef areas are important with respect to the global circulation of carbon. The reefs function as a valuable CO, sink, possibly influencing the climate through global warming. The Panel raised questionsabout the priority ICLARM currently assignsto efforts in studying the giant clam, the sea cucumber and the pearl oyster in coral reef areas. The Panel did not have time to analyze the issue in depth but was concerned as to the potential of these speciesin contributing to overall food security on a global basis, although recognizing its potential to food security in local coastal villages. 3.9 Recommendation 9 - Recruit a training specialist and with her/his guidance carry out an assessmentof having needs in client developing countries in order to formulate strategies and plans on training. The Center has respondedto this recommendationby developing a new training policy which will be presentedto the Board at its April 1995 meeting. A strategic planning exercise with respect to training will be carried out in 1995. Center Management also hopes to employ a training specialist if the addtional US$l million is provided ICLARM following this Mid-Term Review. 12 3.10 Recommendation 10 - Spell out its strategies and plans in the information area clearly, and not expand its staffing and expenditures in this area before completing such an effort. In its responseto this recommendation,the Center referred to the CGIAR systemwide strategy for information which has recently been approved (1994). This will also influence ICLARM’ s future information work: networked information systemsand databases,information partnerships, common standardsfor products and joint acquisitions and production. The issue of the quality of ICLARM’ s publications and the review system are dealt with in the responseto the 1992 EPMR as is its continuing involvement with the Asian Fisheries Society journal. The Panel notes that the internally commissionedexternal review of ICLARM Information Program was completed shortly before this review took place. That review recommendedthat the program develop a vision and strategy as to ICLARM’ s future in this area (see also section 2.2). The Panel supports such a recommendation. 3.11 Recommendation 11 - Ensure that its capital reouirements, including permanent headquarters facilities in terms of offices and laboratories, are the critical minimum needed to carry out its programs. The Panel entirely concurs with Management’ sview that ICLARM’ s capital requirements have never been satisfied. This applies both to minor capital needs such as computers as well as to office and laboratory facilities. The headquartersin midtown Manila is insufficient and inappropriate for a sig,nificantinternational center, especially in terms of experimental facilities. The contrast with other CGIAR center facilities striking. The offer of facilities in Egypt as well as the prospects for a headquarterssite and infrastructure in the Philippines are discussedin section 5. In addition, however, the Panel hopes that some budgetary flexibility in thie future will make it possible to acquire and/or upgrade badly neededcapital equipment. 3.12 Recommendation 12 - Clarify the rationale for and the role of the proposed Deputv Director General. The Director General has determined, wisely in the Panel’ s view, to defer indefinitely the position of Deputy Director General in favor of several other positions that have the potential for greater significance in the Center’ s growth and development. The Panel sharesher judgement that ICLARM is currently too small t’ o warrant an extra level of top management. 13 4.0 4.1 Matters Relating to Program and Management Not Addressed in the Recommendations of the 1992 EPMR Governance The Chairman of the Review Panel attendedthe Sixth Meeting of the ICLARM Board of Trustees 14-19 November 1994. With one exception, the entire Board attended and actively participated in the meeting. While the Secretary of the Philippine Department of Agriculture could not attend, he was ably representedby his Undersecretary who has been actively involved with the work of the Center for some time and who, in fact, serves on the Board’ s Executive Committee. The meetings of the Board were well organized and reflected some excellent preparatory efforts by the Chair and the Director General and her staff. The Chair ran the meetings efficiently, beginning and ending them on time, while encouraging full participation by members in the discussionof issues. Apparently there were some significant problems related to the functioning of the Board during the internal strife which came to a head in early 1993. In recognition of these difficulties, Prof. Dillon, who assumedthe Chair a few months later, initiated a number of actions to better define the mission of the Board and to improve its effectiveness. Such actions include the developmentand approval of the following: l l l l l l l l l Revised ICLARM Constitution Board of Trustees Mission Statement Board of Trustees Rules of Procedure including new committee structure and terms of reference Reduction in Board size from 16 to 12 and initiation of efforts to increase the number of CGIAR nomineesfrom one to three Board of Trustees Code of Conduct Criteria for the Annual Evaluation of the Director General. (These criteria were applied in evaluating the DG in November 1994.) Annually updated Board Action Plan Form for annual-evaluationof Board Chair performance by Board Form for annual self-evaluation of Board members The Panel commendsthe Chair and the Board for these innovative and progressive actions, which should contribute significantly to future Board effectiveness. During its meetings the Board thoroughly discusseda number of recommendations of Management - as well as other issuesof importance to the Center. It should also be noted that the Board invited two nomineesto attend the meeting as observers, so that they might be further evaluated as possible members. Overall, the Panel Chair was very impressedwith the content and conduct of the sessions.He reported to the Panel that it was one of the better IARC board meetings he had attended_ 14 4.2 Leadership A new Director General, Dr. Meryl Williams, assumedduties at ICLARM in April 1994. Her appointment was strongly welcomed by the staff in view of her scientific qualifications and her significant managementexperience. Dr. Williams moved quickly to meet the considerablechallengesfacing her. In an effort to strengthenICLARM’ s credibility, she visited a number of NARS officials and donors and made a notable - and very well received - presentationto the October TAC meeting on “Transition in the Contribution of Living Aquatic Resourcesto SustainableFood Security.” She also took part in two CGIAR meetings and travelled to Egypt to investigate the offer of facilities by that Government. In addition to these far-reaching external responsibilities, Dr. Williams has had to move to establish internal cohesion in a Center that, for a variety of historical reasons, has lacked such cohesion and one in which senior staff have kept the institution financially afloat and produced important scientific results through their independentand relatively undirected efforts. Further, she assumedresponsibility for an institution with only embryonic managementsystemsand has haIdto establish and occasionally design systems and procedures to the end that ICLARM will be served well as it grows and begins to reach its potential. Among them is the Performance Management System which is an important step in the closer involvement of staff in operational planning, a system to record and monitor donor relationships and a series of mechanismsto ensure information to and consultation with staff at all levels. The Panel is assuredthat Dr. Williams is the right person for ICLARM at this juncture. Although she cannot be expectedto overcome past difficulties immediately, and although there is still work to be done to put the house fully in order, the Panel is confident that, given sufficient time and some relaxation in the stringency of resources available to the Center, Dr. Williams will lead ICLARM to justify the judgement of CGIAR members in admitting the Center to the System. 4.3 1993 “Crisis in ICLARM” Significant internal strife in ICLARM resulted in early 1993 in the resignation of the Director General and Board Chair, the dismissal of a senior staff member and his subsequentlegal action and court-directed reinstatementwithall this contributing to significant dissention and animosity within the Center. An external consultant, commissionedby the Director General and Board Chair during this period, referred to the “crisis in ICLARM” and described the Center as a “sick institution”. Others have used the term, “civil war” to characterizethe situation. The consultant noted that there was very little structure in the managementof ICLARM. Program Directors appearedto bypass the former Director General without his knowledge, e.g., expressing lack of confidence in him to his Board Members without his knowledge. The consultant referred to the need for: . 0 0 Ensuring leadership and repairing of internal damage Dismantling feudalism and dysfunctionalism Ensuring accountability for - and :repairing of - external damage, and 15 0 Changing the Board’ s role and relationshipswith the Director General, other managersand staff. The Review Panel is not directly interested in or concernedabout these past events - except as they may affect the future effectivenessof the Center. With regard to these events, however, Panel members conclude that responsibility or blame can be shared by all parties involved - by the Board, the Director General at the time and the senior staff. An important issue before the Panel was the extent to which the Center had overcome the crisis and effectively moved forward. There have been a number of significant and encouragingdevelopmentswhich should bode well for the future: 0 l 0 Within three or four months after the April 1993 “eruption,” a new Board Chair, Prof. Dillon, was appointed. As discussedin section 4.1, Prof. Dillon has initiated a number of significant efforts which are contributing significantly to the more effective and efficient operation of the Board. These, along with his knowledge of the CGIAR system and his effective leadership skills, are giving greater stability and direction to the Board and the Center. The new Director General, Dr. Meryl Williams, is giving stable and effective leadership to the Center. She has made no attempt to ascribe blame for the past difficulties but has totally focused on the future. She appearsto be very open-minded, fair and objective in dealing with staff. She is also initiating a number of managementimprovements, discussed elsewhere in this report. The Panel is impressedwith both her technical competenceand her skills as an effective leader/administrator. Some of the principal senior staff members involved in the 1993 “crisis” have left or are leaving the Center. Without any inference with regard to their culpability in the earlier disputes, their decision to move on to a different environment is perhaps good for their own futures as well as that of the Center. There is a perception by the Panel that the three Program Directors are not yet fully committed to being an integral part of a cohesivemanagementteam, dedicated to assisting the Director General in her efforts to lead the Center to new levels of effectiveness and achievement. If a smoothly functioning, mutually-supportive managementteam can develop, the Director General’ s task will be made easier and much more pleasant, and the Center’ s accomplishmentswill be greater. The Panel concludes, however, that although there are remaining vestiges of the 1992-1993 internal strife, especially among the Program Directors, attitudes and conditions among most of the staff are steadily improving. The Panel further concludes that, with the excellent leadership of the Director General and Board Chair, ICLARM is poised to move significantly forward. 16 5.0 Research and Headquarters Facilities As noted earlier in this report, ICLARM has been constrainedto date by a lack of infrastructure and of research facilities. In a recent development, the Government of Egypt, through the Chair of the CGIAR, offered. ICLARM extensive facilities that include the use of the Central Laboratory for Aquaculture Researchat Abbassa (including administrative and research facilities and residential housing) and accessto the Maryut Marine Fish Hatchery, Lakes Manzella and Bardawil and marine ecological preserves at the Red Sea. ICLARM has respondedpositively to the offer of negotiations on the use of these facilities but is proceeding cautiously, setti:nga number of conditions that must be met during these negotiations. The Panel concludesthat the Board and Management of ICLARM have proceededcorrectly in considering this offer. The Panel sharesthe excitement of some at ICLARM that the Egyptian offer provides tremendousopportunities, particularly for ex-situ conservation, as well as laboratory and outdoor facilities. The Panel agrees, however, that negotiations should proceed with caution, under the terms and conditions laid out by the Board of Trustees. The Panel recommends that, in considering the Egyptian facilities, due consideration must be given not only to administrative, financial and logistical aspectsbut also to the technical issues surrounding the feasibility of these proposed sites for ICLARM’ s research activities, against the framework of ICLARM’ s strategic plan and the implications for ICLARM’ s priorities. The Panel is also concernedabout the implications of the use of these facilities for ICLARM’ s budget and notes that additional resources will be required by the Center to service and ma.nage them adequately. The Panel also brings to the attention of TAC the possible implications of a major involvement by ICLARM in Egypt for CGIAR priorities and strategies. At the same time, the Panel is concernedabout the lack of progress in the negotiation of a HeadquartersAgreement with thle Government of the Philippines and the selection of a headquarterssite. The Panel recommends that ICLARM’ s Board and managementcontinue to investigate the opportunities for a headquarterssite and capital facilities in the Philippines. 6.0 ICLARWS Capacitv to Deliver an Effective Research Program ICLARM’ s capacity to deliver an effective researchprogram derives from its mandate and reach, its governanceand position iin the CGIAR, its establishedtrack record and certain strengths of human resources. Constraints to delivery arise chiefly from the structure and amount of its resources, administraltive shortcomings and history. On balance, ICLARM’ s present and immediate future capacity is sound, though limited. ICLARh4 enjoys several important strengths and enters a time of large potential opportunity. ICLARM’ s internal weaknesses seem within its control to overcome, given the present will to do so. Some of its problems can even be turned into positive opportunities through ICLARM’ s own efforts to influence outcomes, especially in relationships with others and contributions to the: CGIAR change agenda. 17 6.1 Mandate and Reach ICLARM has a unique global mandatein the CGIAR system for research on living aquatic resourcesmanagement.It is non-governmentaland professionally independent.It undertakes work ahead of the capacity of national research agenciesor beyond their national mandates. The 1992 EPMR report noted that ICLARM’ s detailed research work at the local level and across localities and countries (particularly in resource assessment and coastal area management)was complementaryto that of regional fisheries commissions and international bodies such as FAO. Many opportunities are presentedto ICLARM by the global attention to living aquatic resource managementissues; to emphasison the environment and natural resource management,including biodiversity; and to the connectionswith food security in developing countries - along with the attendantknowledge needs of these domains. (See Annex A-4 and A-5) The mandate permits work across all relevant researchdisciplines, and this is reflected in the work program, which has an inter-sectoral perspective and takes a multidisciplinary approach. Headquartersand field site locations in various countries of the developing world ensure close contacts with the issuesfacing target beneficiaries and to research sites and national system partners. ICLARM has a large number of fruitful and relevant linkages with government organizations, non-governmentalorganizations, universities in the developing and developed world and other partner organizations. The broad and special mandateof ICLARM, however, does present some difficulties. Many have questionedthe breadth of ICLARM’ s mandate given its small amount of resourceswith which to deliver. ICLARM’ s Managementargues that a more narrow mandate would start to reduce some of its special comparative advantagefrom its core competencies.In terms of program, these advantageswere identified as: l l a l whole system and multidisciplinary research approaches international approaches research across the spectrum from conservation to natural resource managementand sustainableproduction systems expertise in all the major aquatic resource systems exploited by small scale operators. In the Panel’ s view, retraction of any of the present scope of effort would begin to reduce considerably the effectiveness of ICLARM. The most common options posed, however, are to retract to either capture fisheries or to aquacultureresearch. Neither option is attractive because these sectors are not mutually exclusive (e.g., stock enhancement, biodiversity concerns). Capture fisheries still provide the greater proportion of production and support the greater number of small scale fishers, but aquaculture shows the greater potential for improving food production, albeit with much greater research inputs required. 18 6.2 Svstem Membership/Governance ICLARM’ s entry into the CGIAR has given it access to the status, governance expertise, accountability strengths and scientific expertise of this large and well organized System, albeit at a time when the System is undergoing considerablechange and faces many challenges. The Panel is pleased about the rapid integration of ICLARM in the CGIAR family. The Director General and Chair of the Board of ICLARM, as well as some ICLARM staff play prominent roles in several inter-center communities. ICLARM’ s endowmentstrengthsbegin with a revisedConstitution totally emphasizing research and its new revitalized and committed Board of Trustees, guided by a mission statement, code of conduct, self-evaluation process and annual work plan to improve the oversight of the Center. 6.3 Human Resources When facing often extreme adversity over the years, ICLARM staff have shown themselvesto be resourceful and tenacious survivors. Staff appear committed to ICLARM and its mission. The Center has a cadre of highly skilled internationally and nationally recruited staff. Efforts are proceeding to improve the performance and managementof people in ICLARM. For example, the Center recognisesthat it needsto pay greater attention to staff performance management, reinforcing desirable behaviours and achievements with an appropriate reward structure and continually increasing efficiency and effectiveness. ICLARM’ s new individual PerformanceManagementSystemshould be usedto the maximum advantageas it links individual activities to Center plans, clarifies standardsand expectations, rewards good performance and helps staff design personal development strategies. These efforts are particularly important since, with the exception of the new Director General, senior managementin ICLARM has not changed in many years, and senior staff are not always supportive of new managementinitiatives nor prone to contribute to formulating better ways of operating. The Panel recognizes the high level of scientific experience of the current Program Directors but notes that there is a need to further strengthen both the scientific and managementcapacity below this level. The Panelrecommends that the Director General give urgent attention to the further strengthening of scientific and managementcapacity within ICLARM programs to ensure a sustainablelong-term effort by the Center. In this context the Panel stressesthe need for social science issuesto be integrated more comprehensively in the researchprograms. 6.4 Resource Base Both the structure and size of ICLARR/I’ s financial resource base constrains its capacity to deliver an effective work program (see Annex A-3). One major consequenceof ICLARM’ s small budget is that it lacks adequate physical research and headquarters facilities. 19 6.4.1 Budget Structure The majority of ICLARM’ s work program is carried out under project-specific monies of fixed duration. In 1994, the resource base comprised approximately 40% unrestricted core, 30% restricted core and 30% complementaryfunding. Table 6.1 reflects 1993 CGIAR funding levels by Center. These data show that ICLARM had 40 % in unrestricted core, while the average for all centers was 62 % . Only IIMI had a slightly lower percentagein unrestricted core - while ILCA had 85%, ILRAD 81% and CIFOR 100% of its budget in unrestricted core funding. The Inland Aquatic ResourceSystem of ICLARM had 17% in unrestricted core and the Coastal and Coral Reef Program 31.6 % - both extremely low. Major core projects on restricted grants include: a l l 0 l 0 a FishBase (concludesSeptember1995) Reefbase(concludesSeptember1996) GIFT (concludes early 1997) IRM Malawi component (concludedOctober 1994; funds may be available in 1996; 1995 funds being urgently sought) IRM Bangladeshcomponent(concludesJune 1995; funds for a new phasenow being sought and currently appearpromising) Fisheries co-management project (concludes 1998) Coastal transects (first phase concludesSeptember1995) Restricted core and complementary funds lead to a high degree of specificity and inflexibility of funding, funding instability such as ICLARM is now experiencing, subsidization of some project overheadsfrom the unrestricted core, many staff on short term contracts and attendant wavering staff morale and donor-driven projects. Many restricted core projects come from the bilateral influence of donors and may not necessarily be part of the CGIAR core research agenda. There are large overheadsin raising project funds and these cannot be recouped from the projects but rather have to come out of the unrestricted core component, further limiting the use of these funds for research and NARS strengtheningactivities. 6.4.2 Budget Size The inadequatesize of resourcescontinues to inhibit ICLARM’ s abilities, performance and public profile. Many existing program thrusts are thinly supported in ICLARM, limiting progress in critical areas, e.g., the Malawi aquacultureproject. ICLARM now has the additional overhead associatedwith membership in the CGIAR System. Table 6.1 indicates that ICLARM had the lowest amount of unrestricted core funding of any Center in 1993 - 83% of that for IIMI, 53 % of that for CIFOR and less that 50% of that for ICRAF, the fellow junior members in the CGIAR. ICLARM’ s unrestricted core funds were approximately 11% to 13% of the level for the four largest centers. ICLAW’ s total funding level is the secondlowest in the System. Only CIFOR 20 is lower; however, CIFOR’ s funding is all in unrestricted core compared with ICLARM’ s 40 % . A concerted effort is required to stabilize the existing base and canvas new donor options. Fortunately, the developmentassistance community is ever more sensitive to many of the issues on which ICLARM works, and ICLARM has an opportunity to diversify donor sources since its mandate and work cover the range in a way unique to living aquatic resource centers and to CGIAR centers. On the other hand, overseas development assistanceis declining in many advancedcountry budgets and living aquatic resources are declining in relative importance in the GDP of many countries. A new round of strategic planning, the potential of new facilities in Egypt (yet to be funded) and attention to the broader CGIAR and developmentassistancecommunity agendaoffer some hope. The 1992 Strategic Plan was drawn up with different assumptionsthan is the present case. A new round of planning would start from different premises regarding the availability of infrastructure, CGIAR priorities and strategiesand living aquatic resource issues. Funding this agendais still a problem. Tlhe ICLARM Board of Trustees has made it clear that any new Egypt-basedactivities must be funded on top of the present budget (US$4.8 - plus the possibility of an additional US$l million) and not at the expenseof the present high priority program. Currency fluctuations, especially those of the Philippine peso, make budget outcomes difficult to predict and manage. In 1994, for example, the Center experienced an inflation rate of 8 % as well as a 13.5 % appreciation in the value of the peso, impacting approximately 30% of its budget expendedin the Philippines. 6.5 Infrastructure Due to its small overall budget, ICLARhJ lacks dedicatedfacilities except those of the small Coastal Aquaculture Center of the Solomon Islands and generally has few field sites and projects to enable much applied research. The offer of the Egypt facility presents many exciting opportunities, although research facilities, especially ponds and aquaria as well as standard laboratories and offices, are expensiveto maintain and operate. Lack of appropriate headquartersfacilities sometimesgains ICLARM sympathy, but it does not engender respect or help staff morale. In addition, the Center does not have an .adequate and current Headquarters Agreement to enable it to operate as a full CGIAR center with requisite immunities and privileges to meet its needs in the Philippines. 6.6 Management Policies and Svstems The overall small size of ICLARM affords a degree of flexibility in procedures and directions not enjoyed by much larger centers. However, due to ICLARM’ s rocky path of past development, the Center still has some way to go in developing the full range of internal systems and managementskills required for top class performance and to ensure a successfulfuture growth path. There is still much to be done although new systems, policies and guidelines completed or nearly completed are: 21 0 0 l l l l IRS and NRS personnel policies Accounting policies Administrative Services Guidelines Project Planning and Management Performance ManagementSystem Publications Manual A 1995 Annual Operational Plan was made available for the Panel to review. Project costing and charging policies are being revised and strongly implemented. Better project managementsystemsare being instituted. ICLARM recognisesthat planning and priority setting are dynamic and ongoing processes,where a balance must be struck between adherenceto longer term and larger goals and flexibility and responsiveness to new opportunities, imperatives and course corrections. ICLARM is in the process of improving its planning and priority setting processesmaking them more transparentboth internally and externally and linking them to superordinateand subordinategoals and practices in the CGIAR and other related systems (e. g . , NARS , the developmentassistance community). The way forward has been laid out in ICLARM’ s outlook paper for the Mid-Term Review. 6.7 Track Record and Past History In these rapidly changing times, past achievementsand a good track record (see Annex A-6) are still worth having, but any organization which rests on past achievements and events will miss future opportunities or fail to keep pace with the rate of change required to succeed. ICLARM’ s research and related experienceand track record are widely recognized, often out of proportion to its small size. This is a credit to the Center. This record has been achieved by innovation and foresight in research topics and by a commitment to rigorous quality in scienceand other outputs. ICLARM is more accustomedthan most centers to working on tight budgets with strong accountability, two features which will be even more important in the future of all research agencies. Internal damage from the past ICLARM crisis has yet to be fully repaired. Some staff remain too committed to past achievementsand events to enable the Center to move forward as confidently as it might to new achievements.The attitudes displayed constrain the pace of change needed. In discussionswith the Director General, the question was raised as to whether ICLARM should in fact be recreated as a visibly new organization, complete with a new name, structure and mode of operating. The time of entry of ICLARM to the CGIAR would have been the most appropriate time for this, but is it yet too late? The nature and benefits of such change might be: l choice of a more appropriate name, incorporating the word research (e.g., International Living Aquatic ResourceResearchInstitute - ILARRI) 22 a l l new image and identity, signifying, a break from the past chance to revise more fundamentally the modus operandi of ICLARM and align it to future needs chance to signal that this is no lon,gerjust a “center” but a full institute. This would be especially appropriate if the Egyptian facility is incorporated The Panel considers that such change could offer significant advantagesand should be considered seriously. 6.8 Partners ICLARM now has a greater range of possible strategic researchpartners than ever, thanks to the progress of science, including the strengtheningof NARS partners’ capacities and the greater interest of advancedscienceinstitutes (ASIs) in applying their skills in developing countries. The world interest and ICLARM’ s mandate and knowledge base provide opportunities for authoritative overviews and opinions on global aquatic resource issues. ICLARM’ s position in the CGIAR now enablesit to interface directly with and contribute to the large body of CGIAR terrestrial scienceexpertise vital to understanding and suggestingsolutions to the critical issueslinking terrestrial and aquatic systems, e.g., coastal area management,water use, managementof commons, scientific approachesto genetic improvement and the conservation and use of biodiversity and biological resources. The Panel encouragesICLARM to proceed with participation in inter-center program activities of broader System importance, such as a system-wideprogram on coastal resources, on policy research with respect to common property resources and on water management.While the Panel recognizesthat, due to limitation in staff resources, progress in developing proposals to this effect may be slow, it hopes that with expanding resourcesICLARM will be able to give increasing attention to these other important areas of work. The Panel is pleasedto note, therefore, ICLAM’ s active participation in the system-wide program on genetic resources. ICLARM has some concern about increas:ingcompetition for declining overall funds from capable NARS and the more internationally assertiveASIs. The Panel recommends that ICLARM should make every possible attempt to turn this challenge into opportunities for positive strategic alliances. 6.9 Conclusions/Recommendations The Panel concludesthat ICLARM is still constrained in its capacity to deliver neededresearch programs by two factors: 0 0 the overall level of resourceswhich greatly limits ICLARM’ s ability to carry out its mission, and the relatively small portion of its total budget in unrestricted core funding. Until these two constraints are adequatelyaddressed,ICLARM will continue to experience considerabledifficulty in addressingthe critical needs for research in living aquatic resources. 23 The Panel recommends that ICLARM be allocated the additional US$l million which TAC conditionally recommendedbased on the outcome of the Mid-Term Review. The Panel emphasizes,however, that while these extra resourceswill be helpful, they will by no means provide the resourcesneededfor ICLARM to perform its function adequatelyas the only Center in the CGIAR System concernedwith living aquatic resources. 7.0 The Appropriateness of the Available Scale of Resources to Implement the Agreed Core Research Program The agreed research program is outlined in the modified Medium-Term Plan within the TAC’ s US$4.8 million funding envelope. Despite successin receiving several restricted core and complementary grants, bringing the overall 1994 budget to approximately US$6.7 million, ICLARM still is not able to implement fully the agreed program. In particular, it has not been possible to staff a training unit and other NARS strengtheningactivities, and several parts of approved thrusts are facing imminent or present funding shortfalls as restricted core funds terminate and are not easily replaced (e.g., Fishbase, IRM in Malawi). Even a restructuring of the existing funds would make a considerabledifference in ICLARM’ s capacity to implement the agreed core researchprogram. This restructuring would move some funds from the short-term and project-basedrestricted core to unrestricted core, thus providing greater stability of funding for key elements of the approved program. ICLARM requires greater research infrastructure to operate effectively. It needs more appropriate office space and more research facilities. It is time ICLARM’ s scientists were better able to “get their hands wet” with pond, field and laboratory research studies to complement many of the desk-type activities which have been the mainstay of the past. The CAC and the GIFT project and the Malawi and Bangladeshwork show the real benefits of field research. The additional US$l million tentatively committed by TAC pending the outcome of the Mid-Term Review, according to ICLARM in its 1995 Program and Budget proposal, would be assignedas follows: 0 l 0 l 0 0 an international relations officer to strengthenpartnership opportunities to the benefit of partners and ICLARM; a training officer to provide the seed for specific grants for training courses; a senior social scientist to value-add considerably to the myriad of multidisciplinary research activities now underway but not substantively pulled together and built on in ICLARM; a geneticist to add depth to the GIFT project, INGA and related work which is showing so much promise for sustainablyimproving fish productivity; extra investmentsin ICLARM staff training and information technology to considerably strengthenits capacity to deliver an effective work program; impact assessments of ICLARM’ s work. 24 Perhaps a more relevant issue posed in the above 7.0 heading would be “the appropriatenessof the available scale of resourcesto implement the needed ICLARM research program. ” Given the magnitude of researchproblems and needs facing ICLARM as the only IARC concernedwith aquatic resources, the Panel considers the level of available resources to be woefullv inadeauate for ICLARM to carry out its important mission appropriately. At the Delhi Mid-Term meeting of the CGIAR in May 1994, Chairman Serageldin stated that research on living aquatic resourceswas currently far less than required. The Panel fully agrees with this assessment. The Panel recommends that consideratio:n of the issue of inadequateresources be given high priority by TAC and the developmentassistance community. The Panel fully understandsthe past reluctance to invest significant additional funds in ICLARM, given all its past difficulties. Although some residue of these difficulties is still evident, the Panel believes that under the able leadership of the new Director General and the policy directions of the current Board, ICLARM can have an unusually bright and productive future - if more adequateresourcesare made available. 25 Acknowledgements The Panel wants to express its gratitude to the Managementand staff of ICLARM for the positive spirit in which this review could be conductedand for the excellent arrangementsmade. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Meryl Williams, Director General, for her very open and constructive attitude to the review, her hospitality and her support to the Panel throughout the process. To Dr. John Dillon and the members of the Executive Committee, the Panel is grateful for frank and positive interactions and discussions.The Director General and the Program Directors of ICLARM, Mr. Basilio Rodriguez, Jr., Dr. Roger Pullin, Dr. John Mum-o and Mr. Jay Maclean were responsible for preparing excellent advancedocumentation; they met all of the Panel’ s requests for more information. The Panel members are also grateful to the people who came to ICLARM to meet with them. Mr. Rodriguez, Jo Hernandez, Danny Mendiola, Adielle Teodoro, Ellen Dagmil, Remy Ugalde and Ben Bayron meticulously took care of our logistical requirements. Finally, special thanks are due to Ms. Rocky Josue for providing excellent secretarial assistanceand for her ability to work long hours under pressure with great good humor. The Panel also wishes to express sincere appreciation to Ms. Jane Garrioch of the TAC Secretariat in Rome for the logistical support provided during the course of the review. ANNEX A-I PANEL COMPOSITION Prof E.T. York (Chair) Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences University of Florida Bldg. 106, Mowry Road Gainsville, Florida 32611 U.S.A. Prof. Hans Ackefors (Panel Member) Department of Zoology University of Stockholm S-106 91 Stockholm Sweden Ms. Joan Joshi (Consultant, Management) Management Consultant 874 East Pleasant Street Amherst, MA 0 1002 U.S.A. Tel: Fax: (l-904) 392-6545 (I-904) 392-3161 Tel: Fax: (46-8) 16 20 00 (46-S) 16 77 15 Tel/Fax: (l-413) 549-l 135 Dr. Guido Gryseels (Resource Person and Panel Secretary) Officer-in-Charge, TAC Secretariat FAO, Via delle Terme di Caracalla Tel: (39-6) 522-55442 00 100 Rome Fax: (39-6) 522-53295 Italy Annex A-I Page 2. BIODATA OF PANEL ,MEIMBERS Dr. E.T. York Dr. E.T. York (U.S.A.) is Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Florida and Chancellor Emeritus of the State University System of Florida. His fields of specialization are soil science, research management and sustainability issues in agricultural development. Dr. York has long experience in international development. He was a member of the Technical Advisory Committee of the CGIAR from 1983-1989, led several Presidential missions on agricultural development and chaired the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD). Dr. York also has considerable experience in conducting external reviews of international and research programs. Dr. Hans Ackefors Dr. Hans Ackefors (Sweden) has been Professor of Ecological Zoology at the University of Stockholm since 1976, after having served as Director of Research of the Fishery Board of Sweden, He has a Ph.D in ecological zoology from the University of Stockholm and has served on several committees of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). He was Chairman of ICES’ Mariculture Committee from 1989 to 1992. Prof. Ackefors has undertaken several consultancies for FAO and has also worked for the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as a resident consultant to a major fisheries and aquaculture research program in Malaysia. ANNEX A-2 RESPONSE TO THE 1992 EPMR RECOMMENDATIONS PART I. DETAILED RESPONSES TO THE 12 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EPMR Full responses are given to each of the 12 recommendations of the EPMR of 1992. In addition, some comments are offered on other aspects of the assessments in certain sections. Recommendation 1. initiate early action to change its legal status to that of an international organization with privileges and immunities similar to that of other CGlAR Centers. Status In April 1993, an international agreement re-establishing ICLARM as an international organization was signed by four countries: Philippines, Vietnam, Denmark and Malawi. One or two more countries may sign the agreement in 1995. With the signing of this international agreement in 1993, ICLARM became an international organization-legally and formally. However, the establishment to determine organizations granting of privileges and immunities does not automatically follow the legal of an international organization. Each state claims to have the prerogative the nature and extent of privileges and immunities granted to international operating within its borders. Even before it legally became an international organization, ICLARM was enjoying privileges and immunities normally granted international organizations in some of its host countries. These countries included the Solomon Islands, Bangladesh and Malawi. The only country with which ICI-ARM has been experiencing some problems concerning privileges and immunities is the Philippines. The fact that ICLARM is headquartered in the Philippines has made the absence of such privileges and immunities awkward for ICLARM to explain. The solution which the Center has been pursuing since 1993 is to negotiate with the Philippine government for a host country or headquarters agreement in which such privileges and immunities are granted the Center. In early 1994, the Philippine government, via its Department of Foreign Affairs, conducted, at ICLARM’ s request, a series of meetings attended by representatives of different government agencies. As a result of these meetings, a draft agreement between the Philippine government and ICLARM was prepared. This draft, spelling out the privileges and immunities required by ICLARM to operate as an international organization in the Philippines, was agreed to and supported by a number of Philippine government agencies. ANNEX Page 2 Unfortunately, further progress in the finalization of the draft Headquarters Agreement has not been made. The draft continues to sit in the Legal Affairs 0,ffice of the Department of Foreign Affairs. For several month now, none of the government agencies we have spoken to, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, have been able to provide ICLARM with clear directions on the follow-up steps required to conclude the agreement. Other CGIAR Centers have had similar frustrating experiences in the Philippines. IRRI, although already enjoying privileges and immunities granted by earlier laws, has not been able to finalize its own international agreement. The signing ceremony scheduled last September 1994 has been postponed indefinitely. IIMI and CIFOR have tried to negotiate host country agreements for Philippine-based projects but have also. not been successful. Furthermore, ICLARM continues to receive conflicting advice on further steps needed to have the agreement finalized. Some government agencies believe that such an agreement is within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of government. Others have expressed the opinion that the Agreement will require legislature or senate ratification. A-2 Recommendation 2. Formulate and approve a cornprehensive set of human resource management policies and create a personnel office to assist in their implementation. Status Human resources management has received significant attention by ICLARM management since the last external review. Unfortunately. the internal problems experienced by the Center in 1993 derailed some of these efforts. Nevertheless, quick and decisive action by the Director General and the ICLARM Board in late 1993 and throughout 1994 have put the Center back on track as far as human resources management is concerned. In 1992, the major concerns which management needed to address were: establishing comprehensive and clear personnel policies, communicating these policies to staff and the manner in which they were to be implemented, and maintaining clear channels of communication between staff and management. In mid-l 993, ICLARM management reviewed existing personnel policies and brought in a consultant to assist senior management in drafting a policy manual and in obtaining staff A draft IRS Policy Manual was prepared views on a number of personnel issues. following the general format in use by other CGIAR Centers. Recognizing that some personnel issues could not be immediately resolved but that a policy manual was critically important, ICLARM management presented and received Board approval for an IRS Policy Manual in late 1993. Using the IRS Policy Manual as a model, a draft poJicy manual for Philippine NRS was prepared in early 1994 and was subsequently approved .by the ICLARM Board. ANNEX Page 3 A-2 The key elements of these Board-approved policy manuals are: requiring an annual performance establishing formalizing an internal grievance evaluation for all ICLARM staff, and appeals procedure, and selection of new staff, and review and improvement of ICLARM policies on the recruitment establishing a mechanism personnel policies. for the continuing All ICLARM IRS and Philippine NRS were subsequently provided with personal copies of these policy manuals and have been encouraged to seek clarification on specific policy provisions when necessary. Recognizing management a. that these policy manuals were too general on several issues to address and staff concerns, the Director General has taken the following initiatives: Development of implementing guidelines for specific issues which required more detailed processes and explanations. Thus far, two such guidelines have been developed-one addressing performance management and another addressing staff loans. The development of guidelines for other important issues such as recruitment and promotions has also been given high priority. Establishment of an NRS Advisory Committee to advise the DG on matters directly affecting or of concern to ICLARM NRS. This Committee, chaired by the DG and composed of staff from various programs and divisions, has been instrumental in identifying provisions in the NRS Policy Manual which would benefit from the development of more detailed implementing guidelines. The Committee has also been successful in identifying gaps or necessary amendments/improvements to the Policy Manual. Formulation of recommendations to the ICLARM Board for required amendments or additions to the existing Policy Manuals. b. C. In late 1993, ICLARM also hired its first Human Resources Manager who has set up a modest office to assist ICLARM Management in the implementation of Board-approved policies and in the development of implementing guidelines for these policies. A large portion of the work of the Human Resources Unit has also been focused on upgrading the quality of personnel services provided to ICLARM staff. ICLARM Management has also been successful in reviewing and restructuring its salary administration practices. Such restructuring was required to streamline salary administration procedures, be more responsive to market trends and to more adequately support the newly formulated performance management systems, New salary scales for both IRS and NRS will be implemented effective January 1995. ANNEX Page 4 ICLARM Management recognizes the critical role played by performance management in unifying the center and in effectively communicatirkg roles, performance and behavior expected of staff by the Center. The system adopted by the Center contains the following elements: the formulation of a performance agreement for each staff member at the beginning of the year, an interim review, a fina. review at the end of the year and provisions for salary increments based on performance ratings. Given the importance of performance management to the Center, the DG has commissioned The Wyatt Company to conduct center-wide performance management training. This is the first training program in ICLARM’ s history which all ICI-ARM staff have been obliged to attend. A-2 Recommendation 3. Adopt an integrated system for project and program planning, monitoring and review across all programs. Status ICLARM Management continues its efforts to integrate project and program planning, monitoring and review. It believes that such an effort will be successful only if supported firmly by four legs -- 1) staff development programs aimed at strengthening the management abilities of program and project leaders, 2) a carefully designed projectbased management system suitable to the culture of the organization, 3) adequate administrative staff and systems support and 4) impact assessment. Staff Manaqement Abilities ICLARM Management recognizes that staff development will be successful only if integrated with the Center-wide performance planning and management process. The performance management system which ICLARM will be training staff for and implementing in 1995 includes the development of performance agreements for individual staff. It is ICLARM management’ s expectation that research staff, in formulating their performance agreements, will clearly be able to identify their management responsibilities for programs and projects. This recognition of management roles and responsibilities should allow program and project leaders to appreciate the value of staff development efforts that ICLARM hopes to begin undertaking in this area in 1995. Among the programs currently being reviewed by management are the logical framework (logframe) approach to project planning and design as well as courses in project management. ICLARM is currently negotiating with Team Technologies, Inc. for a training program in project planning and design for one or two ICLARM project teams. This training activity is expected to be undertaken in early 1995. If this trial run is successful, and is perceived as valuable, ICLARM will proceed with having all its professional staff undergo the training course. ANNEX Page 5 A-2 Proiect-Based Manaaement Svtems In late 1994, the Projects Support Group of ICLARM began to draft a Project Planning and Management Manual. The Manual details the internal processes required for the planning, start up, implementation and evaluation of lCL4RM projects. The first draft of the manual has been completed with finalization scheduled for April 1995. The Manual has been written primarily as a guide for project and program leaders. It identifies the critical stages of the project lifecycle (starting with project conceptualization and ending with post-project evaluation) and the management actions required to each stage and throughout the project cycle. ICLARM management expects these procedures to be applied to all projects regardless of funding source. The standardization and institutionalization of these project processes are expected to result in increased transparency in project decision-making as well as greater accountability not only for the project team but for the institution as a whole. Administrative Svstems and Staff Support ICLARM management has taken several steps to improve the administrative support provided to project teams. The most visible support provided are the services delivered by the Project Support Unit of the Management Services Division. The Project Support Unit has assigned project assistants to projects and programs. These project assistants have been given the following responsibilities: a. b. to participate actively as a member of the project team; to assist the project leader in carrying out his or her administrative responsibilities (workplan and budget formulation, keeping track of and fulfilling project reporting requirements, etc.); to serve as liaison and service delivery points for other administrative units (e.g., purchasing, personnel services, accounting and finance and administrative services). C. Research staff noted an improvement in the services provided by the Project Support Unit when the project assistants were provided with offices adjacent to the projects and programs they were assigned to support. Project assistants have, over 1994, also been able to come to terms with their responsibilities and have displayed much enthusiasm over their jobs and the research activities of the Center. Another area that has received attention from management is project information systems. The preparation and timely submission of budget status reports to project and program leaders have been consistent since the second quarter of 1994. Project assistants have been helpful in interpreting the reports for project leaders and in assisting ICLARM the Accounting Unit develop more easily understood financial reports. Management now also receives monthly reports on the Center’ s compliance with donor reporting requirements. ANNEX Page 6 A-2 Project leaders are being made to understand that, although they are primarily responsible for the management of their projects, they can count on the support of the Project Support Unit. Impact Assessment The ICLARM Board has also requested Center management to review the issue of impact assessment and to formulate recommendations for ways in which the Center can assess the actual or potential impact of its work. IClLARM Management intends to have these in place within 1995. Recommendation 4. Strengthen its financial management and improve its internal reserves (fund balances) and expenditure controls. Status Since 1991, ICLARM has increased its annual budget by approximately 70%. Unfortunately, this annual budget continues to be dominated by restricted grant funding in spite of the fact that unrestricted grants to the Center have more than doubled since 1991. The fact that a large proportion of restricted grants to ICLARM continues to be paid in arrears has not helped improve the Center’ s cash flow situation. The Center suffers chronic cash flow difficulties which have affected its ability to settle its payables in a timely manner. The magnitude of these cash flow problems have also increased in relation to the size of the Center’ s annual budget. For 1994, the ICLARM Board agreed to budget a three-year annual surplus of US$ZOO,OOO as a step toward finding a longer-term solution to ICLARM’ s weak working capital position. Unfortunately, the strength of the Philippine Peso combined with inflation and a failure to obtain continuation of restricted grants for important activities wiped our the budgeted surplus in the first year it was to be implemented. Although a Controller was hired in 1993, she resigned after six months for a better paying job. The position, after being amended to “Finance and Accounting Manager”, has been actively recruited for but remained unfilled for over a year. ICLARM Management hopes to fill the position within the first quarter of 1995. The overhaul of the Center’ s Accounting systems slowed down the generation of financial reports in 1992 and early 1993. As syste!ms were put in place, however, the Accounting Unit was able to generate monthly financial statements more consistently. These statements were augmented by monthly budget status reports for project leaders and unit managers throughout most of 1994. The value and usefulness of these reports are expected to increase as the other components of project-based management systems are put in place by ICLARM Management. Beginning with the 1995 budget, project leaders and unit managers have been given a greater role in the development of their annual budgets. By having project leaders and unit managers more involved in budget preparation, the Center hopes to make them aware that they carry most of the budget management responsibility through most of the year. ANNEX Page 7 A-2 Although the Center has been relatively successful in integrating financial management and reporting activities for all headquarters-based projects and activities, the integration of field activities remain unfulfilled but very high on the priority list for 1995. Since 1992, the ICLARM Board has also played a more aggressive role in the oversight of the financial management function. Annual meetings between the Board and the External Auditors have been held. A result of these meetings is a heightened awareness among the Board members of the importance of both the external and internal audit functions. In 1994, the Board adopted a new policy on the appointment of external auditors and, in fact, searched for, evaluated and appointed a new external audit firm. The Board also authorized ICLARM Management to obtain outsourced internal auditors to assist management in improving internal controls. The Board has also recently taken active interest in financial issues such as indirect cost (overhead) recoveries, cash flow management and financial reporting. Recommendation 5. ICLARM reassess its stated goals and objectives to give more emphasis to research and make them more consistent with the CGIAR. Status The Center’ s goal and objectives are now: Goal: Improved production and management of living aquatic resources for sustainable benefits of present and future generations of low-income users in developing countries. Objectives: Through international national research institutions, to: 1. Improve the biological, mechanisms for sustainable Devise and improve sustainable yields. Strengthen resources. national research and related activities, and in partnership with institutional socioeconomic and use of aquatic resource systems. systems that will provide management 2. production increasing yet 3. programs to ensure sustainable development of aquatic ANNEX Page 8 A-2 Recommendation 6. Place greater emphasis in the short-run on improvement in breeding and husbandry practice than genetic manipulation in its proposed /n/and Aquatic Resource Systems Program. Status ICLARM agrees with Recommendation 6 of the EPMR and pursues its activities accordingly. ICLARM’ s approach to genetic improvement in tropical aquaculture has been focused, from mid-l 980’ s, on methods for the clocumentation and evaluation of fish genetic resources and for their sustainable utilization in breeding programs geared to low external input farming systems. This approach (Puilin 1988, 1991; Eknath et. al. 1993) has been implemented using mainly the Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) which is farmed in over 60 countries. No genetic manipulation is involved in any of ICLARM’ s current or near-term planned activities for either freshwater fish, like the tilapia, or the marine species that are under investigation at the Center’ s Coastal Aquaculture Center, Solomon Islands. Indeed, the External Advisory Panel of ICI-ARM’ s major genetic research project, the Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapias (GIFT) concurred in November 1994 with the views of the ICLARM project staff and collaborators (including the Norwegian group, AKVAFORSK, that has unrivalled experience in designing fish breeding programs) that the project’ s current focus on selective breeding for growth, survival and in future other commercial traits should continue and that any attempts to merge this with, as yet unproven, genetic manipulative techniques should be deferred. The rationale for this is that the responses to selection have not yet been sufficiently studied for tilapias and other tropical farmed fish. The EPMR’ s reference to “husbandry” has been understood by ICLARM to mean ‘ selective breeding and sustainable, low external input farming practices’ . ICLARM seeks to address this through interaction between the Fish Productivity (selective breeding and biodiversity research) and Integrated Resources Management Thrusts of its Inland Aquatic Resource Systems Program. However, this interaction has not yet developed to the extent proposed in ICLARM’ s Strategic and Medium-Term Plans (MTP), largely because the activities of the two Thrusts have lacked adequate core funds and have been almost entirely based on extension of projects with origins before the implementation of ICLARM’ s MTP and with narrower donor- and location-specific objectives. ICLARM recognizes that it is essential to achieve from now on the planned interaction between fish breeding and husbandry. ICLARM regards biodiversity and genetic resources (wild or captive-bred) as part of the sum total of the resources available to farmers: part of the ‘ R’ in IRM. Work at outreach sites in Bangladesh, the Philippines, the SADC subregion and Vietnam, will be designed following this approach. The question of how and when to embrace genetic manipulation as a tool for developingcountry fish breeding programs remains important for ICLARM and its collaborators and clients. The NARS, many of which have yet to document their aquatic biodiversity adequately and to have access to reliable protocols for screening candidate species for aquaculture, are faced with a bewildering variety of genetic manipulative possibilities emerging from the literature: polyploidy, gyno- and androgenesis, sex chromosome manipulation, and DNA technologies leading to transgenic fish. Some NARS scientists, ANNEX Page 9 A-2 after Ph.D. training in laboratories that specialize in one or a few approaches to genetic manipulation choose, upon their return to implement the same approaches without reviewing other possibilities, including simple selective breeding. ICLARM has no current comparative advantage to work in any of these areas, but is being and will increasingly be asked to advise and to work with NARS scientists that are interested in these techniques. This is already apparent from ICLARM’ s role as the member-coordinator of the International Network on Genetics in Aquaculture (INGA) (Seshu et al. 1994). ICLARM must therefore stay well informed on advances in genetic manipulation and will ultimately, probably during the next MTP period, have to become involved in marrying these increasingly powerful techniques with the selective breeding approach that it has championed so far. The need for ICLARM to be a future actor in genetic manipulation research should therefore be accommodated in the design of future ICLARM dedicated research facilities and in future research planning. References: Eknath, A.E., M.M. Tayamen, M.S. Palada-de Vera, J.C. Danting, R.A. Reyes, E.E. Dionisio, J.B. Capili, H.L. Bolivar, T.A. Abella, A.V. Circa, H.B. Bentsen, 8. Gjerde, T. Gjedrem and R.S.V. Pullin. 1993. Genetic improvement of farmed tilapias: the growth performance of eight strains of Oreochromis niloticus tested in different farm environments. Aquacuiture 111:171-188. Pullin, Pullin, R.S.V. R.S.V., Editor. 1988. Tiiapia genetic resources for aquacuiture. J.M. Macaranas ICLARM Conf. Proc. 16. 1991. 108 p. (French Edition available from 1989). A.E. Eknath, T. Gjedrem, M.M. Tayamen, and T.A. Abella. The genetic improvement of farmed tilapia (GIFT) project: the story so far. Naga, the ICLARM Quarterly 14(2):3-6. Seshu, D.V., A.E. Eknath and R.S.V. Pullin. 1994. International Network on Genetics in Aquaculture. ICLARM, Manila, Philippines. 22 p. Recommendations 7 and 8 Recommendation 7. Develop a revised research plan for its proposed Coral Reef Systems Program clearly justifying any large expansion, taking advantage of oppotiunities for collaboration with advanced scientific institutions, and present it to TAC for approval either as part of ICLARM’ s presentation of its Medium-Term Plan, or, if ICLARM requires more time, on the occasion of the interim external review. Recommendation 8. Revise the strategy for its proposed Coastal Resource Systems Program to reflect the nature of the problems faced, in the coastal zone and present it to TAC as part of the Center’ s response to this review. Status Based on ICLARM’ s draft Strategic Plan, the EPMR made two recommendations relating to the Coastal and Coral Reef Resource Systems Programs, which can best be dealt with jointly because the Programs were subsequently merged into a single Program. ANNEX /\ :’ Page II) In response to these recommendations ICLARM emphasized that coral reef research included a substantial component of social and economic research, including important research on community-based management plus work on coral reef ecology, fisheries enhancement and aquaculture. The important role of coral reefs in the nutrition of coastal communities was described in detail. Additionally, ICLARM submitted a revised research program on coastal resource systems which encompassed a wider range of issues, ranging from biology and modeling to social :science and policy research. The revised research programs were described in the Strategic Plan and the research themes were further elaborated in the February 1993 Medium-Term Plan in which the coastal research program focused on the dynamics of multispecies resources, on the socio-economic dimensions of coastal fisheries and on integrated coastal fisheries management. The coral reef research was to be more narrowly focused on improvement of management of coral reef resources and the development of aquaculture and fisheries enhancement systems in coral reef environments. However, at the funding envelope accorded to ICLARM in mid-1993, it became necessary to combine the two programs into a single unit, the Coastal and Coral Reef Resource Systems Program, comprised of three thrusts. The funding situation meant that only one additional SSY could be added to the Program and that the Program become, of necessity, highly focussed. The final array of projects covered fisheries resource and ecosystem assessment, database development (Reefbase, Fishbase and FiDAS), fisheries co-management, bioeconomic modeling and valuation of resources, the comparative analysis of coastal cross sections and the development of culture and resource enhancement systems for coral reef organi’ sms. The new Coastal and Coral Reef Resource Systems Program was reviewed in April 1994 (see documents on Internal Reviews). The resulting program addresses virtually all of the critical research issues relating to the sustainable utilization of coastal and coral reef reciource systems, albeit in a compact Nevertheless, it effectively draws on the fashion as dictated by funding constraints. talents of the highly skilled staff at ICLARM, a wide range of NAPS and ASI partners, on ICLARM’ s comparative advantages and covers the rnost critical research issues. ICLARM believes that significant new funds could be made available from a range of donors over the next 2-3 years and is starting to make plans to seek these funds. For example, ICLARM will be preparing a CGIAR inter-center initiative in coastal zone studies for presentation to TAC in 1995. Planning for research activities under the initiative should take a year or so because of the consultations required. Significant new funds could also be found for coral reef research, especially in the areas The USA: Japan and of marine protection, aquaculture and non-traditional uses. Australia have recently begun a global coral reef intiative. ICLARM’ s Reefbase and other research inputs are already being recognized. ANND(A Page 11 -2 Recommendation 9. Recruit a training specialist and with her/his guidance carry out an assessment of training needs in client developing countries in order to formulate strategies and plans on training. Status ICLARM has not recruited a training specialist nor carried out an assessment of training needs. The full Medium-Term Plan provided for the establishment of a National Research Support Program that was to be ICLARM’ s major vehicle for guiding NARSstrengthening activities. At the lower funding envelope approved by TAC, the NRSP was downgraded to a Training Unit but even this has not been operationalized because of lack of funding. As a consequence, NARS-strengthening activities are carried out within the two Research Programs, the Information Division and through the four ICLARM networks (NTAS, NTFS, AFSSRN and INGA). The activities, however, lack a substantial ICLARM policy on training and NRS strengthening. These circumstances make it particularly important for ICLARM to conceptualize and publicize how it works to strengthen NARS. ICLARM had undertaken a very extensive process of consultation with NARS and ASls during 1991-92 in the development of the Strategic Plan and the Medium-Term Plan. ICLARM’ s current and past accomplishments in NARS strengthening were reviewed and outlined for the 5th Meeting of the Board of Trustees in April 1994. Through its Program Committee, the Board agreed that the comparative advantage of ICLARM has been the flexibility to respond to course needs in its area of expertise, where and when the situation has demanded; to produce high quality output from its research that has become teaching and training material; and to provide an information source for NARS second to none. After discussions, the Board of Trustees agreed that NARS strengthening actions should be reported in the Annual Report and that ICLARM should open a debate with TAC on how to reclassify our NARS strengthening activities. It was recommended that a consultant should be hired to link with ISNAR to develop curricula for NARS courses which would use ICLARM’ s CD-ROM. Additionally, ICLARM should develop a short policy statement on NARS strengthening activity for approval at the next Board Meeting. The full (April 1994) Board agreed that ICLARM needed to formulate and communicate a policy statement on NARS strengthening. Several of the Trustees voiced their opinion that such a statement was very important in view of the decision made in 1993 to dissolve the National Research Support Program. They also suggested that less emphasis be placed on technical assistance to NARS and more on “partnership”. The Board requested the Director General to prepare a proposed policy on NARS strengthening to be reviewed by the Board at its next meeting. The November 1994 Board was informed that ICLARM had maintained high-level contact with NARS where possible, especially in the Philippines, and that the projects in Bangladesh, Malawi and Solomon Islands continued to have strong training components. In the Philippines and Bangladesh, NGOs as well as Gos were increasingly involved with ICLARM in technology transfer and capacity-building activities. For example, ICLARM has recently entered into a project with key government and nongovernment agencies in the Philippines to develop curricula and pilot courses in community-based coastal ANNEX A-2 Page 12 resource management. However, there has not been time for the new DG to formulate coherent policy on this issue. A draft policy with respect to training meeting. will be presented a to the Board at its April 1995 The matter of NARS strengthening was taken up by CGIAR Chairman lsmail Serageldin at the CGIAR mid-term meeting in New Delhi, May 1994. He saw future NARS collaboration as “real partnerships, through consortia or other means”, and that the CG system “should not take on the task of strengthening the NARS in some 100 developing countries. This should be handled by other resources,” which were elaborated by Mr. Serageldin. He defined “strengthening” as technical a:ssistance and capacity building. The executive summary of the 1992 EPMR included the following statements: Training is undertaken within programs to serve the needs of ICLARM’ s clients. - the!re is no coordinated (p. ii) strategy The National Research Support Program (NRSP): This program integrates ICLARM’ s information and training activities and proposes a thrust on strengthening (aquatic) NARS. The Strategic: Plan is not clear on goals and strategies in these areas, which gives ,the impression to the Panel that ICLARM’ s thinking on this has not progressed much beyond the need to integrate these three related activities. Nevertheless the Panel endorses a program integrating these three thrusts. ICLARM could usefully look to the CGIAR centers for strategies and modes of operation, particularly in training. Any strategy should recognize the collective responsibility of all programs to support training. (p. iv) Response: The strengths of the present modus operandi were pointed out in the Board document “NARS strengthening at ICLARM”. Nevertheless, a strategic planning exercise for training will be carried out in 1995. Both SIFR and the CGIAR are developing information strategies. The recent review of the Information Division also recommended the establishment of strategies in Information and Communication. Recommendation 10. Spell out its strategies and plans in the information area clearly, and not expand ifs sfaffing and expenditures in this area before completing such an effort. Status A survey of needs was not carried out by ICLARM because the Study (later Strategy) on International Fisheries Research Needs (SIFR) put Information as its first priority for follow-up action and in 1993 began a global survey of needs which is ongoing. ANNEX A-2 Page 13 A CGIAR system-wide strategy for Information has recently been approved (at Centers Week 1994) and the activities arising from this will also affect ICLARM’ s future Information work. The strategy requires networked information systems and databases; information partnerships: common standards for products; and joint acquisitions and production The Information Division was reviewed by two external consultants in December 1994. The reviewers found that the Division was basically a service unit and that it should set its own priorities in Information and Communication, including public awareness, in line with the institutional strategy of ICLARM. The review report included a number of very useful specific recommendations be acted upon by management. Some other statements in the EPMR are relevant to Information. below together with individual responses. which will These are reproduced ICLARM’ s primary publications are generally high quality and of relevance to clients and the scientific community. There is concern that some materials are published without formal review and may be uncritically applied by clients. The various bibliographies produced are considered of relatively low value unless they are annotated. (p. ii) Response: All significant documents are peer reviewed. We presume “formal review” thus means through publishing in a refereed journal. Efforts are being made to direct articles more towards primary literature. In fact, that was also a recommendation from the study of our bibliographic impact in 1990 (ICLARM Tech. Rep. 26). However, ICLARM cannot control uncritical application by clients. We stopped producing simple bibliographies. ICLARM may have a comparative journal to fill this gap. (p. 31) advantage for sponsoring a scientific Response: We gave this role to the Asian Fisheries Society and continue to support the journal and Society. Our role in the past at least, has been to catalyze sustainable activities. Recommendation 11. Ensure that capital requirements, including permanent headquarters facilities in terms of offices and laboratories, are the critical minimum needed to carry out its programs. Status even at critical minimum levels, have never been ICLARM’ s capital requirements, satisfied due to funding constraints. At present, Management would like to conclude a Headquarters Agreement with the Philippine government in order to start work on identifying a site for ICLARM’ s headquarters and fundraising for this purpose. A working group of the Board was set up for this purpose at the November 1994 Board meeting. ANNEX A-2 Page 14 The Center’ s present site in rented facilities in the rniddle of the Manila financial district has never been satisfactory and is now already insufficient to house U-ARM’ s staff and IClARM’ s outreach sites, especially the Coastal Aquaculture Center in the facilities. Solomon Islands, contain greater access to physical research facilities. In Munoz (Philippines), Bangladesh and Malawi, all research facilities are shared with NARS partners, ICLARM access being protected under various agreements. Recommendation 72. Clarify the rationale and the role of the proposed Deputy Director Genera/. Management has no immediate plans to recruit a DDG. Several other positions have been given much higher priority. These high-priority positions include a Senior Social Scientist, a Senior Scientist for International Liaison and an Aquatic Resource Geneticist. More importantly, however, the present DG wishes to clarify and strengthen the corporate management roles and responsibilities of the senior management staff. Adding an extra level to the hierarchy of a Center the size of ICLARM would therefore not be appropriate. PART II. RESPONSE TO SELECTED SECTIONS OF THE EPMR. 2.2.3 (pp 13-l 4). Aquaculture Program Assessment. Shortcomings in selection of farm pond sites in Malawi are noted. Work from 1992 onwards in Malawi concentrated on more typical, rainfed on-farm ponds. Several such studies are now in press or in the final stages of preparation. In addition, the planning of the successor to the Malawi work, a regional project on small scale integrated aquaculture/agriculture across the Southern Africa Development Community countries, looks carefully at the resource endowments of farrners in research planning. Greater emphasis is also placed on farmer participatory research methods. Due to lack of facilities, ICLARM has been unable to include studies on ‘ water quality We stress, in the IRM Thrust however, that the effects on aquaculture production. biophysical basis for small scale integrated aquaculture-agriculture is not well known, and there is still much technology development required. More resources and control of our own field facilities would address this issue. ICLARM now gives strong emphasis to environmental issues in aquaculture. In addition, we are taking a pro-active international role in biodiversity issues, including those associated with aquaculture. ICLARM’ s IRM Thrust is attempting to address the identified shortcomings in the verification of models in aquaculture. Modest complementary funds have been attracted to make a start here. ANNEX A-2 Page 15 2.3.3 (pp 17-18). Assessment of the Giant Clam Rearing Project. Much of the scientific stock identification work recommended by the panel has been carried out or is underway. The Coastal Aquaculture Center (CAC) in the Solomon Islands is now well, though modestly established and is broadening its range of work into research into clam products for different markets, research into b&he de mer and pearl oysters, and shortly, into marine protected areas and reef fish enhancement studies. This work is attracting donors as the potential benefits to the Pacific Islands and southeast Asian countries are recognized. Links with ASls and NARS are well established and more frequent contact between headquarters and the CAC is generating a greater integrity between projects carried out there and the main U-ARM program. 2.4.3 (pp 21-24). Assessment of the Capture Fisheries Program. This assessment praised the achievements of the work but warned of the care which is needed in disseminating software and stock assessment methodologies. The lack of emphasis on fishing data was also highlighted. ICLARM is attempting to address this latter point in a proposal for funding now before the Asian Development Bank. This will build on preliminary work by ICLARM in Sierra Leone (West Africa) over the last 2 years. ICLARM agrees that fisheries data collected by fleets is an important source of information. In addition, too little attention has been paid (by ICI-ARM and others) to the collection of reliable small scale fisheries data. This requires urgent attention as overall fish stocks decline and as competition between commercial and small-scale fishers intensifies. It would be given high priority in an expanded ICLARM program. Impact assessment work will be attempted in more detail in ICLARM in the future. We agree with the comments made on the lessons to be learned from San Miguel Bay and Lingayen Gulf work. ICLARM has several policy papers submitted and in press on the former and plan to publish overview material on the lessons. 2.5.3 (pp 29-30). Assessment of the Coastal Area Management Program. Continuing work by staff in the Coastal and Coral Reef Resource Systems Program (Coastal Transect Project and various Philippine-funded bays projects), and the Fisheries Co-Management Project, continue to work in collaboration with many NARS, GOs, NGOs and ASI, biophysical, socio-economic and policy research. However, as with several areas of ICLARM work, our resources are stretched too thin. Additional resources will be sought for this work in future, including through a CGIAR inter-center initiative. 2.7.4 (pp 39). Training and Networks Assessment. The AFSSRN’ s present coordinator has revitalized the network; gaining both strong member and donor support. A growing range of training and development activities are now channeled through the Network; the quality of some publications arising from Network members and their activities is world class; and plans are in train to gain further donor support to entend the network in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. ANNEX A-2 Page 16 3.1.2 (pp 42). Organizational Cultures. Much has been done in the last 18 months to establish the necessary internal policies and rules to formalize the ICLARM culture, while respectiing the needs for flexibility and a culture to foster creativity. Personnel policies, project management arrangements, the discipline of the annual CGIAR Programs and Budget process, and various other forms of structural guidance are contributing. 3.2 (pp 43-45). Governance. The new smaller ICLARM Board, with a defined mission statement, code of conduct, annual work plan and self-evaluation process is providing the level and quality of oversight required of a CGIAR Center. Board meetings are now held twice yearly. The Board is kept (routinely) informed of ICLARM activities via a fortnightly set of Board Notes. A program of Board member visits to outreach sites has been instigated. 3.4.4 (pp 50-51) Assessment of Strategic and Operational Planning. A better strategic and operational planning system is required in ICLARM, although there have been considerable improvements since .the 1992 EPMR. The following observations apply: planning will have to cope with the reality of resources to the extent that overall research directions must provide a framework for a work program which will be variously financed and cannot expect the intiernal contol and flexibility afforded by a large vote of unrestricted core funds. the Management Services Division has made strong moves towards servicing research programs but the situation bears further improvement on both administration and research sides, including greater resource management skills by senior research staff. the management committee of ICLARM (consisting of the DG, Directors of the 2 research programs and 2 divisions, fisheries co-management project leader and the section manager of the Projects Unii:) meets weekly as an information exchange and decision-making body. All new projects must be put through this committee from the pre-proposal phase. efforts have been made to improve two-way communication with all field stations, tthrough copies of Board Notes (fortnightly), notes from management committee The on-site management meetings, monthly staff Bulletin items, etc. responsibilities of officers-in-charge (OIC) have been clarified but further attention needs to be given to the reporting chains to head office directors. All OlCs have direct access to the DG. ICLARM finds it is moving in the right direction with respect to internally managed reviews, using external experts (see separate document). ANNEX A-2 Page 17 3.5.3 (pp 53-54). Personnel Policies and Procedures. Major steps have been taken in ail critical areas, including promulgation of Boardapproved personnel policy manuals, establishment of a personnel section, instigation of an ICLARM-designed staff performance appraisal and management system, improved information sharing and establishment of an effective and representative NRS Staff Advisory Committee, chaired by the DG. However, management and the Board acknowledge that these steps are just the start of processes to turn ICLARM into an outstandingly well managed research center. 3.6.3 (pp 57-58) Key issues (Budget). ICLARM has developed much improved management information systems since 1992. Budget planning is now more effective but most budgets are still running on project plans drawn up before proper costing and charging arrangements applied, leading to shortfalls in some projects. Information supplied to the Director General and senior staff is to be improved further in the light of budget stringencies, currency fluctuations (especially the rapid strengthening of the Philippine Peso), and increased devolution of responsibility for financial management. Delayed donor disbursement and negotiations over overhead rates continue to plague ICtARM’ s financial situation and its ability to manage its finances adequately. 4.7 (pp 97-102). Structural and Operational Concerns. ICLARM’ s present structure and organizational accountability chains need to be revisited. They result from some ad hoc decisions due to resource constraints, personality conflicts and history. Management intends to propose a new structure to the Board in April 1995. INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR LIVING AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MC P.O. BOX 2631, MAKATI, METRO MANILA 0718, PHILIPPINES ANNEX A-3 VIAFAX TO (l-202) 473-3112 USA 02 December 1994 Mr Ismail Serageldin Chair Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Dear Mr Serageldin: Re: ICLARM’ s budget At the 6th Meeting of the Board of Trustees in Manila from 14-18 November 1994, the Board decided that I should write to you to outline the present difficult situation facing ICLARM because of the level and structure of its budget. In so doing, the Board stresses that the transition now occurring in the global status of living aquatic resources presents the CGIAR with many challenges and opportunities in its research and NARS partnership agenda. Knowledge of aquatic systems and how people can manage living aquatic resources lags far behind that of equivalent terrestrial systems. A research investment now could do much to assist better management and sustainablefood security in the developing world. Under the CGIAR ‘ $270 million’ vector, ICLARhQ share is $4.8 million. Our total core is therefore the smallest of any center now operating in the System. In 1994, we estimate that our total budget will be $6.7 million, with $1.98 million (30%) being classified as complementary funds. As with all centers, ICLARM’ s core budget is split between unrestricted and restricted core components. In our case, the unrestricted core component, raised from 12 donors (see Annex 1) is $2.7 million (40% of total budget), the remainder being in restricted core (30% of total budget). We are experiencing two sets of problems. The first set arises from the present size of the budget and the second from the low proportion of total budget in unrestricted core funds. 2ND FLR., BLOOMINGDALE BLDG. 205 SALCEDO ST., LEGASPI ViLLAGE MAKATI, METRO MANILA 1200 PHILIPPINES CABLE: ICLARM MANILA TELEX: (ETPI) 64794 ICLARM PN, 4900010376 ICL UI (USA) FAX: (63-2) 816-3183 TEL.: 818-0466, 818-9283,817-5255, 817-5163 E-MAIL: (CGNET) ICLARM, (SCIENCENET) ICLARM.MANILA Annex A-3 Page Z...... The consequences of the small size of the core and overall budget are: Limited program ability: ICLARM has a limited ability to address its mission within the CGIAR. Limited infrastructure: At the present budget level, ICLARM cannot support research infrastructure comparable to other CGIAR (or NARS) centers. No gains from the present CGIAR funding drive: ICLARM is technically unable to win any of the matching World Bank funding attracted by the action to stabilize the CGIAR budget and fill t:he $270 million vector. This is because our $4.8 million of core funds is already over-subscribed. Disincentives to donors: Donors wishing to use their CGIAR funds to trigger the World Bank’ s matching 21 grants to the CGIAR are not attracted to ICLARM because the small ICLARM (core is oversubscribed. No doubt some have directed their attention to other larger centers with a core funding gap and therefore the ability to trigger the matching arrangements. World Bank penalty for oversubscription: Because ICLARM’ s low core level for 1994 was filled, the World Bank (‘ donor of last resort’ ) contribution dropped from $0.5 million in 1993 to $0.38 million in 1994. These funds were in unrestricted core. Therefore, ICLARM’ s own efforts to attract donors into unrestricted core (e.g., Japan) were partially offset by losses from the World Bank’ s contribution, leaving unrestricted core slightly lower than in 1993. With respect to the structure of the budget, ICLARM’ s unrestricted core budget represents only 40% of total budget for 1994. Such a level is low relative to that in most other CGIAR centers and is small in absolute terms since it is a low percentage of a small overall budget. There are several difficulties which arise from this balance, as fohows: . Program instability: Restricted core and complementary funds are of short term duration (from several months to 5 years at the maximum) and must be reapplied for or replaced to provide a. stable research program, even if they cover core research projects. Program instability is magnified when the overall budget is small and therefore one substantial grant can make a big difference to the balance of efforts. ICLARM is presently experiencing extreme difficulty in the continuity of nearly its whole African effort which IS centered in Malawi and for which the restricted core funds have now finished. New funds will not be available until 1996 from the most prospective donor yet I wish to keep the excellent team we have there together :for the exciting next phase of this work under a SADC approved project. Our Bangladesh site faces the same problem in six months time. Payments in arrears: Restricted and complementary funds are only paid after the monies are expended and ICLARM therefore carries major outlays before it can recover them. Certain donors are in the habit of very delayed payments (often more than 90 days after accounts are rendered), thus exacerbating the In addition, even unrestricted core funds arrive cash flow problems. throughout the year (the latest notification from a donor was received in August 1994, for the 1994 budget year), further exacerbating cash flow problems. . Annex A-3 Page 3...... Multilateral vs bilateral votes of donors: Restricted core and complementary funds often come from the bilateral votes of donor agencies, not the multilateral votes which fund the main CGIAR activities. The bilateral sections have no special commitment to the CGIAR, sometimes knowing little about it and its research and NARS strengthening agenda. These sections therefore carry no responsibility for the CGIAR core agenda and are not obliged to provide support to the CGIAR agenda from their votes. Donor driven projects: Projects funded by restricted core and complementary grants tend to be strongly driven by immediate donor needs for overseas development assistance. This is not a negative aspect in its own right but when these funds control a majority of the work agenda, a center’ s ability to maintain strategic research programs is weakened. The research agenda runs the risk of looking more like a collection of independent, applied research projects. Strong strategic planning and selectivity of projects can help ensure that donor needs and program needs coincide. The costs of raising funds: Compared to the unrestricted core funds, considerably more time must be spent by the center in generating and defending the restricted and complementary projects although no ‘ business development’ budget has been allocated for this. Impacts on flexibility: The restricted core and complementary funds are dedicated to the commitments made to donors and should CGIAR and Center priorities change they cannot be diverted. For example, ICLARM would like to redirect efforts at present into high level policy research into the current world fisheries situation but cannot because all available resources are allocated to specific commitments. Overheads not fully funded: Most restricted core or complementary donors do not pay the full costs of the research projects, All, therefore, are subsidized to a greater or lesser extent by the small amount of unrestricted core. Many donors, including those who provide no unrestricted core, state they want to ‘ see ICLARM’ s commitment’ to a project by a contribution from the unrestricted core. The subsidy of restricted and complementary projects from the small unrestricted core further inhibits the strategic research agenda. As a partial solution, ICLARM is taking strong action to better manage its cash flows and projects, and plan its research agenda in line with best practices from developed world research institutes and consultancy companies. These include program strategic planning, identifying the full costs of projects, negotiating the price of projects so that an appropriate overhead is established, tightly managing expenditures and generally trying to improve efficiency and cut costs. It will take some years, however, to build up sufficient cash reserves to overcome cash flow problems because reserves can only be taken from the unrestricted core part of the budget and this is under tremendous pressure from unavoidable fixed costs (participation in CGIAR activities, Board, DG, senior management, core publications and minimal management and service costs), and project subsidies. We are not confident that donors will readily accept to pay a greater percentage of the real costs of projects, including overheads. Annex A-3 Page 4.. . . In addition to the management action we are already taking, we need to increase the percentage of core budget obtained in the unrestricted category in order to mnction as a fir11CGIAR center. Our other alternative is to become more like a consulting firm in operations, charging full overheads and refusing work unless these conditions are met. Such a transition will take several years to achieve, would need seed funds to invest in setting up the mechanisms to compete with other consultancies, and could negate our role as a strategic research center. I seek your advice on what ICLARM can do to help improve its funding situation. A number of options suggest themselves, including: an appeal to donors (I seek counsel on how best to do this); mechanisms for tiding ICLARM over restricted core funding gaps such as we are now experiencing in Malawi; mechanisms for developing a sufficient reserve to improve our chronic cash flow problem, caused by late payments and the small unrestricted core from which we can carve out the reserve. Any assistance or advice you could provide would be most welcome at this stage of ICLARM’ s development. Yours sincerely, MERYL J WILLIAMS Director General cc: Esecutise Secretary, CGIAR Chair, TAC Executive Secretary, TAC Chair, Finance Commitee Cosponsors ANNEX A-4 LIVING AQUATIC RESOURCES AND SUSTAINABLE IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD FOOD SECURITY (Summarystatementprovided by ICLARM) Introduction Global-scale changes in the supply, demand, value, managementand uses of living aquatic resourcescould threaten progress towards sustainable food security in many parts of the developing world, but they could also stimulate improved management and use of the resources. Users of the resource face a period of transition, akin to a cusp in catastrophe theory, in which actions, even small ones, can have great impact. On the land, similar earlier expansionsof hunting and gathering, and the later transition to cultivation and domestication, occurred when human populations were small, interactions between different human impacts were negligible, technology had much less power to transform practices and the environment, for better or for worse, and humans had little knowledge of the long term environmental effects. Research, well-targeted to the strategic issues, can and must play a vital part to improve the outlook for low income-people in the developing world, The Present Situation The present transition follows four decadesof rapid expansion of harvesting from the oceans, and a more recent upsurge in aquaculture. Overall, however, the supply of aquatic products from our oceans has now begun to decline and as populations continue to increase, per caput consumption is declining, after almost doubling over the last three decades. In the developing world, 14 to 20 million people are directly involved in fisheries and aquacuhure; 50 million people if postharvest handling and marketing are included; and about one billion people rely on protein from aquatic p;oducts as their main source of animal protein. As a food commodity group, fish products far outweigh any of the 4 terrestrial animal commodity groups (beef and veal, sheepmeat, pig meat and poultry meat). In the developing world, fish production of approximately 60 million tonnes even approachesthe total of 4 animal commodities (approximately 70 million) Annex A-4 Page 2 Sustainable food security is achieved through (i) sufficient, stable, predictable and sustainable food supply; (b) access to food; and (c) nutritional adequacy for all. The transition now occurring means that supply of vital aquatic food products is under threat, but better all round utilization could yield more value despite a decreasing supply and hence greater purchasing power and access to other foods, provided low-income users maintained their access to the use of the resource. Nutrition is threatened in low-income households during the transition, especially where aquatic products are currently important dietary items. Five international initiatives will affect future management and use of living aquatic resources: negotiations of highIy migratory and straddling stocks; the codes of practice on responsible fishing and aquaculture; the International Convention on Biological Diversity; the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; and the UN Conference on Population and Development. Capture fisheries production (both marine and inland); representing 86% of total production, has reached its upper limit and is declining. In 1992, world marine production was 81.5 million tones (93% from capture fisheries). World aquaculture production doubled since 1984 and further growth is possible if care is taken in the expansion. Nevertheless, aquaculture will require large research investments and adequate access to scarce water and space if it is to sustainably increase its contribution to world production. Of the 200 main marine fisheries stocks worldwide, over a quarter are overexploited, depleted or recovering; 38% are fully exploited; and about a third are of unknown status, underexploited or moderately exploited. Total aquatic production from the developing world has exceeded that from the developed vvorld since the late 1980s. Worldwide, the top 20 countries produce 80% of total production. Fish consumption is also geographicaIly concentrated, being highest in maritime countries with greatest access to supplies., greater purchasing power, and or fewer altern3tive sources of animal protein. In economic terms, capture fisheries are overcapitalized and almost universally subject to economic as well as biological overfishing. World fleets do not even cover the costs of their operation. Annex A-4 Page 3 Internationally, fisheries and aquaculture products are highly traded. Trade grew from 32% of world production in 1980 to 38% in 1990. As per caput supplies fall and as affluence and health concerns increase demand in some countries, there is a growing supply-demand gap which will increase pressure on trade and prices. About 30% of total production goes to animal feeds in aquaculture and agriculture and the demands for feed are increasing. In most societies, small-scale fishers have Iow social status and little political influence, frequently losing resource access share to larger-scale fishers and other sectors of the economy. Fishers are predominantly men but women play vital but nearly invisible roles in the postharvest sector. Most aquatic products are highly perishable and postharvest losses can be high. Many products command widely different values depending on the form in which they are sold. Prices can vary by three orders of magnitude for products from the same species. The aquatic ecosystems which support fisheries and aquaculture production are generally less well understood than their terrestrial and atmospheric equivalents. These systems are also the eventual sinks for all terrestrial and atmospheric pollutants and they have major influences on global climate as well as being influenced by climate and ciimate change. Issues for the Transition During the transition facing users of living aquatic resources, five cross-cutting issues arise. Utilization: Taking advantage of the great range of possible options for use of aquatic life, the best economic, social or cultural use of the resources should be sought. Increasingly, this will not be as animal feed or human food but as sources of ornamental, recreational, conservational and specialized high value products. Improved postharvest handling will deliver the most immediate gains in supply and value. Bycatch, now estimated at about 27 million tonnes annually, should also be better used than at present when much of it is discarded. Annex A-4 Page 4 Resource management: Natural fisheries resources are classed as commons, and therefore coordination and restraint are required to prevent individuals continuing to exploit them beyond sustainable limits. Many fisheries resource management arrangements have failed in their tasks of coordination and restraint, leading to increasing scarcity and conflict. A central cause is the lack of any restraint on access but, even when access is restrained, most fisheries now still have excess numbers of fishers who can claim legitimate access. There is a need to find alternative livelihoods for many of those now depending on the diminishing resources. Equity in access is also critical and in the developing world, small-scale fishers frequentiy lose out to large-scale operators because of their more obvious contributions to markets, exports and national economies. In many fisheries systems, resource conflicts may be diminished, management better implemented and resources better managed when user groups are more involved in management of resources together or as well as state-level authorities. Aquaculture also faces some common property resource issues through access to suitable space and the sharing of water. Intensification: The limits to intensification are inelastic in capture fisheries and intensification only produces greater yields up to a limit, after which the resource base begins to decline. Production in some fisheries c:ould be improved by relieving the intensity of use to allow recovery of the resources. Intensification holds considerable promise for increasing aquaculture production but only provided great care is taken to ensure it is environmentally sustainable. A large research investment and a cautious approach to intensification will be needed. Integration: Greater recognition needs to be accorded to the integral nature of fisheries and aquaculture resources and their interlinked aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems; of fishers and farmers in economic, social and cultural systems; and of the effects of climate and climate change. Many of the problems (e.g., siltation, pollution, coastal construction, interactions with alternative sources of employment), and their solutions lie outside the sector. Nationalization and Internationalization: More than most other food commodities, tension between national and international interests arises over issues such as trade, market competition for fish, access to fisheries resources, and management of shared stocks. On top of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the International Convention on Biological Diversity strengthens national rights over living aquatic resources and increases national responsibilities. Countries will have to strengthen their resource management capabilities to discharge these rights and responsibilities. Annex A-4 Page 5 Conclusions: As human uses of living aquatic resources reach the limits which natural endowments can sustain, the world needs and seeks better ways of managing the resources and of boosting and protecting their productive capacity through culture, stock enhancement and habitat protection. However, the pressures on the resources are mounting as growing numbers of people want food and livelihoods from them and competing activities stress the supporting ecosystems. Every country faces this challenge: will the actions taken in the next few years go fast enough and far enough to halt the decline in aquatic resources? Or are we now witnessing the end of a period during which we have seen the peak contribution of aquatic resources to food security? &dNEX A-S Page 1 1 Nature’ s Limits Lester R. Brawn In September 1994, the 179 national delegations assembled in Cairo at the International Conference on Population and Development reached agreement OR a plan designed to stabilize world population. The World Population Plan of Action may be the boldest initiative ever undertaken by the United Nations, dwarfing some of its earlier achievements, such as the eradication of smallpox. On the twenty-fifth anniversary of the 1969 moon landing, we can paraphrase American astronaut Neil Armstrong: Cairo was a giant step for humankind.1 In the preparatory meetings leading up to the conference, delegates had rejected the notion that population growth would continue on the high trajectory, reaching 11.9 billion by 2050. Instead, they opted for an extraordinarily ambitious pIan. to stabilize population between the medium projection of 9.8 billion by 2050 and the low projection, where popuiation would peak at 7.9 billion by 2050. Their strategy reflects a sense of urgency-a feeling that unless population growth can be slowed quickly, it will push human demands beyond the carrying capacity of the land in many countries, leading to environmental degradation, economic decline, and social disintegration. Among other things, the plan calls for quickly filhng the family planning gapfor providing services to the estimated 120 million women in the world who want to limit the number of their children but lack access to the family planning services needed to do so. But more important, it addresses the underlying causes of high fertility, such as female illiteracy. It calls for universal primary school education for girls, recognizing that as female educational levels rise, fertility levels fall-a relationship that holds across all cultures.g Twenty years earlier, the first U.N. population conference, in Bucharest, had agreed that access to family planning services was a human right. In Cairo, the focus was on gender equity. Kaval Culhati, a veteran family planning leader from India, may have put it best: “Unless women can manage and control their own fertility, they cannot manage and control their own lives.“3 The goals set in Cairo will be extraordinarily difficult to achieve, but if the world succeeds in stabilizing human numbers at 8 or 9 billion, it will satisfy one of the conditions of an environmentally sustainable society. The plan recognizes both the earth’ s natural limits and the need to respect those Iimits. In the mid-nineties, evidence that the ANNEX A-5 Page 2 world is on an economic path that is environmentally unsustainable can be seen in shrinking fish catches, faihng water tables, declining bird populations, record heat waves, and dwindling grain stocks, to name just a few. The world fish catch, which climbed more than fourfold during 40 years, is no longer rising, apparentiy because oceanic fisheries cannot sustain a greater catch. The failure to coordinate population policy with earlier carrying capacity assessments of fisheries means the world now faces a declining seafood supply per person and rising seafood prices for decades to come.4 Concern over water scarcity is rising in many areas. A prolonged drought in northern China, for example, and the associated water shortages have raised questions about the suitability of Beijing as the national capita1 and renewed discussion of a 1,400-kilometer (860-mile), canal that would bring water from the south to the water-deficit north. Although the cost of building this enormous conduit--comparable to bringing water from the Mississippi River to Washington, D.C.-was initially estimated at $5 billion, the total could ultimateIy be several times larger. Among other things, it wili challenge engineers because it must cross 219 rivers and streams, including the Huang He (Yellow River), en route to Beijing.5 Although collapsing fisheries and water scarcity attract attention because of their immediate economic effects, the decline of bird populations may be a more revealing indicator of the earth’ s health. Recently compiled data by BitdLife International of Cambridge, EngIand, show populations dropping on every continent. Of 9,600 species, only 3.000 are holding their own; the other 6,600 are in decline. Of these, the populations of some 1,000 species have dropped to the point where they are threatened with extinction. The precise reasons for this vary, but they include deforestation, particularly in the tropics; drainage of wetlands for farming and residential construction; air and water pohution; acid rain; and, for some species, hunting.6 After two decades of steadily rising global average temperature, including thae highest on record in 1990, the June 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines gave the world a brief respite from global warming. The explosion ejected vast amounts of sulfate aerosols into the upper atmosphere, which qu.ickIy spread around the globe. Once there, the aerosols reflected a minute amount of incoming sunlight back into space, enough to exert a cooling effect. By early 1994, however, almost all the aerosoIs had settled out, clearing the wa.y for a resumption of the warming trend.’ .Evidence of new temperature highs wa.s not long in coming. A ptemonsoon heat wave in central India lasted several weeks with temperatures up to 46 degrees Celsius (115 degrees Fahrenheit), taking a heavy toll on humans and livestock in the region. For the western United States, hundreds of new records were set, creating hot dry conditions that led to a near record number of forest fir~,-s.8 Japan had the hottest summer on record. Intense heat led to excessive evaporation and water shortages so severe that many utilities and manufacturing firms in Tokyo and surrounding areas were forced to import water by tanker from as far away as Alaska. Over a thousand miles to the west, Shanghai-with little air conditioning-suffered during July through 14 days above 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit) and 16 da,ys between 33 and 34 degrees Celsius. And in parts of Northern Europe, inclulding Germany, Poland, and the ANNEX A-5 page 3 Nature 5 Limits (5) Baltic states, mid-summer temperatures soared well above 32 degrees Celsius, exposing both residents and ecosystems to unaccustomed levels of heat.9 On the food front, developments were particularly disturbing. Even though in 1994 the United States returned to production ail the grainhnd that had been idled under commodity supply management programs, global food security declined further as the world’ s projected carryover grain stocks from the 1994 harvest dropped to the lowest level in 20 years. A combination of spreading water shortages, declining fertilizer use, and cropland losses, particularly in Asia, led to another harvest shortfall and the drawdown in stocksi Thus in various ways, nature’ s limits are beginning to impose themselves on the human agenda, initially at the local level, but also at the global level. Some of these, such as the yieId of oceanic fisheries or spreading water scarcity, are near-term. Others, such as the limited capacity of the atmosphere to absorb excessive emissions of carbon without disrupting climate, will manifest themselves over the longer term. Three of the earth’ s natural limits are alreadv slowing the growth’ 1” wor!d food nroductionr the sustainable yield of oceanfisheries, the amount of fresh water produced by the hydrological cycle, and the amount of fertilizer that existing crop varieties car effectivelv use. Nature’ s knits are beginning to impose themselves on the human agenda, initially at the local level, but also at the global level. THREE IMMINENT LIMITS One of the key questions that emerged as the world prepared for the Cairo conference was. How many people can the’ earth support ? Closely related was, What exactly will limit the growth in human numbers? Will it be the scarcity of water, life-threatening levels of pollution, food scarcity, or some other limiting condition? After considering all the possible constraints, it appears that it is the supply of food that will determine the earth’ s population carrying capacity. More than 20 years have passed since a marine biologist at the U.N. Food and Agricuiture Organization (FAO) estimated that oceanic fisheries could not sustain an annual yield of more than JOJ million ton _ In 1989, the world fish cdng that from inland waters and fish farming, reached exactly that number, an amount equal to world m-oXiction of beef and pouItry combined. (‘ See Chapter 2.) During the following four years, it has fluctuated between 97 million and 99 million tons, dropping the fish catch per person 8 percent in four years. Recent FAO reports indicate that all 17 oceanic fisheries are now being fished at or beyond capacity. With the total catch unlikely to rise much%ve 100 milhon tons, the decline in the seafood su&v per oermelast G+Gyears will continue &definitely---or a-a-m World Population Plan actIon succeeds in stabilizing oopula: A combination of pollution and overharvesting is kihing many inIand seas and coastal estuaries. The Aral Sea, for instance, once yielded 44,000 tons of fish per year; the wholesale diversion of river water to irrigation has shrunk that ANNEX A-5 Page 4 (6) Slmoftht world I995 With land-based food stocks, limits on production are being imposed by the amount of fresh water supplied by the lnydrological cycle. Today, two thirds of all the water extracted from rivers and underground aquifers is used for irrigation. In parts of the world where all avail.able water is now being used, such as the southwestern United States or large areas of northern China, satisfying future growth in residential and industrial demand will come at the expense of agriculture.15 Although there are innumerable opportunities for increasing irrigation efficiency, only limited potential exists to expand freshwater supplies for irrigaItion. For example, roughly one fifth of US. irrigated.land is watered by drawing down underground aquifers. A recent study of India found that water tables are now falling in several states, including lmuch of the Punjab (India’ s breadbasket), Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Gujurat, and Tamil Nadu-states that together contain some 250 million people. The drop ranges from less than one meter to several meters a year.i6 In many parts of the world, the diversion of water to nonfarm uses is also reducing water for irrigation. In the western United States, for instance, the future water demands of rapidly growing Las Vegas will almost certainly be satisfied by diverting water from irrigation. Similarly in China, most cities suffer from severe water shortages, and many of them will meet their future needs by taking water away from irrigation.t7 The physiological limit on the amount of fertilizer that current crop varieties can use is an even broader threat to world food expansion. In countries where fertilizer use is already heavy, applying more nutrients has little or no effect on yield. This helps explain why fertilizer use is no longer increasing in major food-producing regions, such as North America, Western Europe, and body of water, raising its salt content and making the salt in effect a pollutant. All 24 species of fish that were once fished there commercially are believed to be extinct. In the Caspian Sea, the famous sturgeon harvest has been reduced to perhaps 1 percent of the level of 50 years ago through pollution and overfishing.‘ * The Black Sea, which is the dumping point for the Danube, Dniester, and Dnieper Rivers, is the repository for chemical and organic pollutants for half of Europe. Of the nearly 30 species that once supported commercial fisheries there, only 5 remain. During the last decade the total catch has dropped from nearly 700,000 tons to 100,000 tons-a result of pollution, overharvesting, and the accidental introduction of destructive alien species of fish.15 The U.S. Chesapeake Bay, once one of the world’ s most productive estuaries, is deteriorating rapidly from a lethal combination of pollution, overhatvesting, and-for oysters-disease. Formerly a major source of this delicacy, the bay’ s annual harvest has dropped from nearly 100,000 tons of edible oysters (roughly 1 million tons in the shell) around the turn of the century to less than 1,000 tons in 1993. (See Figure l-l.)‘ * ANNEX A-5 Page 5 Nature 3 Limitr (7) East Asia. During the last several decades, scientists were remarkably successful in increasing the responsiveness of wheat, rice, and corn varieties to ever heavier applications of fertilizer, but in recent years their efforts have met with little success.t8 Worldwide, fertilizer use increased tenfold between 1950 and 1989, when it peaked and then began to decline. During the following four years it fell some 15 percent, with the decline concentrated in the former Soviet Union following the withdrawal of subsidies. In the United States, fertilizer use peaked in the early eighties and has declined roughly one tenth since then. With China, the other leading food producer, the peak seems to be occuning roughly a decade later. Some countries, such as Argentina and Vietnam, can still substantially expand their use of fertilizer, but the major food-producing countries are close to the limit with existing grain varieties.ts For nearly four decades, steadily rising fertilizer use was the engine driving the record growth in world food output. The generation of farmers on the land in 1950 was the first in history to double the production of food. By 1984, they had outstripped population growth enough to raise per capita grain output an unprecedented 40 percent. But when the use of fertilizer began to slow in the late eighties, so did the growth in food 0utput~O The era of substituting fertilizer for land came to a halt in 1990. (See Figure l-2.) If future food output gains cannot come from using large additional amounts of fertilizer, where will they come from? The graph of fertilizer use and grainland area per person may capture the human dilemma as the twentyfirst century approaches more clearly than any other picture could. The world has quietly and with little fanfare entered a new era, one fraught with un- Certainty over how to feed the projected massive growth in world popula-tion.sl Unless plant breeders can develop strains of wheat, rice, and corn that are much more responsive to fertilizer, the world may not be able to restore the rapid growth in grain output needed to keep up with population. Either science will have to come up with a new method of rapidly expanding food production, or population levels and dietary patterns will be forced to adjust to much tighter food supplies. With the prospect of no growth in ocean-based food supplies and of much slower growth in landbased food supplies, the world is facing a future far different from the recent past. THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS The depletion of natural capital-of forests, rangelands, topsoil, underground aquifers, and fish stocks-and the pollution of air and water have reached the point in many countries where the economic effects are becoming highly visible, including a loss of output, of jobs, Page 6 and of exports. Some countries have lost entire industries. As the global demand for seafood overruns the sustainable yield of tisheries or as pollution destroys their productivity, for instance, fisheries collapseraising seafood prices, eliminating jobs, and shrinking the economy. The economic wreckage left in the wake of these collapses can be seen around the world: Fishing villages that once lined the Aral Sea are now ghost towns. In Newfoundland, the collapse of the cod and haddock fishery has left 33,000 fishers and fish-processing workers unemployed, crippling the province’ s economy. And in New England, families who for generations have made their living from the sea are selling their trawlers and searching for other jobs.** 0olh-s Per Ton 250 (1987 dolIars) 2m 150 /\I” loo 1 50 1 1980 I I Sourtz FAO 1985 1990 199s 2cm Figure 1-3. World Price of Seafood, 19.33-94 Seafood prices are likely to keep rising for as long as population continues to grow. Even as fisheries are being destroyed, the world demand for seafood is rising. Seafood was once a cheap source of protein, somethmg that people ate because thev could not afford meat. In 1960, a kilogram ot seafood cost only half as much as a kilogram of beef. In recent years, that margm has narrowed anZ?K appeared as seatood prices have risen Love beef. Dunng the last decade&eworld price of seafood, in real e nsen na percent a year. (See Figure l-3.)23 undoubtedly go higher since the breedin the Atlantic has ing population dropped from 250,000 I:O 22,000 as a result of overharvesting. A giant Caspian !sea beluga sturgeon, laden with prized caviar, can sell for almost as much as a bluefin tuna.P4 When the price of fresh swordfish hit $18 a pound in Washington, D.C., a local supermarket chain started buying frozen swordfish from more distant fisheries at $10 a pound. This merely brought closer the day when swordfish scarcity would be worldwide. Not on-lr, has seafood become more costlv, but prices are likely to keep rising for as long >ts population contmues to grow, forcing In a few cases,prices have reached astronomical levels. In November 1993, for instance, a 300-kilogram bluefin tuna caught in the North Atlantic was sold for $80,000 to an agent for top-of-the-line sushi restaurants in Tokyo. While this is not, by any means, an average price for bluefin tuna, prices are climbing and will - In some economies, overcutting forests has done even more economic damage than overfishing. The clear-cutting of tropical hardwood forests by lumber companies has almost completely destroyed this valuable resource in some developing countries, devastating their economies. Cote d’ Ivoire, for example, enjoyed a phenomenal economic expanscion in the sixties and seventies as its rich tropical hardwood forests yielded export ANNEX A-S Pai3 7 Nature 5 Limits (9) earnings of $300 million a year. It became a development model for the rest of Africa, bui as in many other countries that did not practice sustainable forestry, clear-cutting decimated its forests: exports dropped to $30 million a year in the early nineties. The loss of this major source of employment and export earnings, coupled with declining prices for other export commodities and other economic setbacks, led to a steady decline of the economy. Within just half a generation-from 1980 to 1994-income per person fell by half.96 Similar forest destruction in other tropical countries, such as Nigeria and the Philippines, also led to industry collapse and to job, income, and export losses. Nigeria was once a major exporter of logs; by 1988, the nation was spending $100 million to bring in forest products. In the Philippines, exports peaked at $217 million per year in the early seventies, disappearing entirely by the early nineties.47 As noted earlier, in many farming areas the claims on underground water supplies now exceed aquifer recharge rates. For farmers in northern India, where wheat and rice are doublecropped, the rate at. which the water table is falling-more than a meter per year in some areas-may soon force a shift to less intensive cropping practices. Most likely this will mean a replacement of rice with a less water-demanding, lower-yielding staple crop, such as sorghum or millet, Although this may arrest the fall in the water table, it is not a weltome development in a country whose population is expanding by 17 million per year and is projected to reach a billion within the next six years.*8 In the agricultural regions surrounding Beijing, farmers no longer have access to reservoir water. They must now either drill their own wells and pursue the falling water table downward or switch to less intensive rain-fed farming. With some 300 cities in China reportedly now short of water, and 100 of them seriously short, similar adjustments will undoubtedly be made by farmers in the agricultural belts surrounding countless other Chinese cities.29 In the southwestern United States, the need to supply booming cities with water and the depletion of aquifers is eliminating irrigated agriculture in many locations. In arid Arizona, the diversion of irrigation water to the rapidly growing sunbelt cities of Phoenix and Tucson means that large areas of productive farmland have returned to desert. In the Texas panhandle, where the southern reach of the OgalIala aquifer has been largely depleted, farmers have reverted to dryland farming. Although agriculture continues in this region, the drop in intensity, and hence of output, reduces employment in both the agricultural input and service industries and the agricultural processing industries. As a result, some rural communities are being partially depopuIated.30 In situations where years of dverpumping is depleting aquifers, reductions in irrigation lie ahead. If the rate of groundwater pumping in an area is double the rate of recharge, for example, the aquifer will eventually be depleted. As it nears depletion, the withdrawal rate necessarily will be lowered by half, because it cannot exceed the recharge rate, so the irrigated area will be reduced accordingly. One of the commodities most affected by aquifer depletion is rice. Its production is now being constrained by the Iimits of aquifer yields, the scarcity of land suitable for production, and the capacity of available rice varieties to use more fertilizer effectively. In contrast to wheat and corn, which are largely rain-fed, the production of rice depends heavily on irrigation. This makes yield trends easier to analyze simply because the effect of weather fluctuations is much less. ANNEX A-5 Page 8 (10) State of the Wand I995 The precariousness of the balance between world rice consumption and production is becoming more evident each year. In the fall of 1993, world rice stocks were at their lowest level in 20 years, When the Japanese government announced that an uncommonly cool, wet summer had reduced its harvest from 9.6 million tons in 1992 to 7.0 million tons, forcing it to consider emergency imports of close to 2 million tons, the price rise was dramatic. With the market already delicately balanced, these additional Japanese claims doubled the rice futures price in the United States, the world’ s leading exporter, between late August and mid-Xovember.31 A shortfall of 2 million tons of rice is minute compared with a world rice harvest of some 350 million tons-scarcely one half of 1 percent. Nonetheless, when stocks are as low as they are today, even a relatively small shift in the world supply/demand balance can have global repercussions. Fortunately for consumers, particularly those in low-income rice-importing countries, the price of rice began to return to more normal levels in the spring of 1994 as the early rice harvest in tropical Asia neared maturity.= Growth in the irrigated area in Asia, where 90 percent of the world’ s rice is grown and consumed, has slowed to a snail’ s pace. Most’ remaining available sites for large-river diversion projects are either too costly to develop or would displace too many people. The potential for expanding irrigation using underground water is limited by aquifer recharge rates; as noted earlier, overpumping is already lowering water tables in key food-producing regions of Asia.33 The other key constraint on rice output, of course, is the capacity of existing varieties to use fertilizer. On much of Asia’ s riceland, applying more fertilizer has little, if any, effect on yields. In some fertilizer use is declining countries, slightly as farmers fine-tune applications, matching them more precisely with crop needs.s4 With irrigation growing very slowly and fertilizer use levelling off, the rise in cropland productivity is also slowing. The rise in rice yield per hectare, which halted in Japan a decade ago, is now showing nearly everywhere, edging up only 2 percent from 1990 to 1994.35 As the rise in rice yields has slowed during the nineties, the loss of cropland to nonfat-m uses has speeded up during particuaccelerated industrialization, s largest rice. larly in Ghina- the world’ producer. Other large countries, including India and Indonesia, are also losing cropland to industrialization and residential development. With the decline in harvested rice area of 2 percent since 1990 offsetting a 2-percent rise in rice yield per hectare, the harvest has ranged n;an-owly between 350 million and 352 million tons. (See Figure I-4.) A new rice variety under development at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, which promises to boost rice yields by 20-25 percent after being released around the turn of the century, will help offset some of the riceland losses in prospect for the next severai Million Tons 4o01 loosOurcc USDA 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 toop Figure 1-i. World Itice Production, 195&94 ANNEX A-S Page 9 Nature 3 Limits fITI world vulnerable to sharp price rises. The political leaders of Asia-a region adding 57 million people annually-face no more pressing question than how to restore growth in the rice harvest.36 An even more telling indicator of the loss of momentum in expanding grain output ii the drawdown in world stocks since 1987. Then, world carryover stocks of grain from the 1985 harvest totalled 465 milhon tons, an ah-time high and equivalent to 104 days of consumption. During the foilowing eight years, grain stocks were reduced to 302 million tons, a drop of 163 million tons or some 20 million tons a year. (See Figure I-5.) This annual drawdown exceeds the yearly growth in the world grain harvest during this period, which averaged roughly 10 million tons. Stated otherwise, a substantial part of the growth in world grain consumption since 1987 has come from consuming stocks, a trend that cannot continue much longer because current stocks represent only 59 days of consumptionlittle more than pipehne supplies.s7 Million Tons SW I m- 300- ---.; soulre USDA In response to the decline in grain stocks in 1993, the United States released for production in 1994 all grainland idled under its commodity supply management programs. Even with this land returned to use, and even with fair to excellent growing conditions in the world’ s major food-producing regions, stocks continue to decline. If grain stocks cannot be rebuilt in years of good harvests, when will they be rebuilt?38 In the absence of a dramatic new technological advance in agriculture comparable to the discovery of fertilizer or the hybridization of corn, there is now a real possibility that grain production could continue to lag and that prices could begin to rise in the years ahead, following those of seafood upward. The unfortunate reality is that with carryover stocks at such a low Ievel, the world is now only one poor harvest away from chaos in world grain markets. The collision between continuously expanding human demands and nature’ s various limits affects not only the world food supply but also overall economic growth. A I993 study published by the World Bank notes that environmental damage takes many forms, including land degradation, pollution damage, the loss of biological diversity, deforestation, and soil erosion. Using a dozen or so examples, the two authors-both economists-show that the annual costs to countries of various forms of environmental damage can range from less than 1 percent to as much as 15 percent of gross national product. (See Table l-l .> If the data were available to calculate all the economic costs of environmental degradation in its many forms, they would undoubtedly show an enormous loss. The authors observe: “If you asked any economist at the World Bank today if the environment is important to the country they work on, they would say ‘ Yes.’ A few years ago, they wouldn’ t have said that.“39 ANNEX A-5 Page IO (12) Table l-1. Estimates St& of 1hE World I995 Damage of Environmental in Selected Countries Annual Costs as a Share of GNP Country and Year Form of Environmental Damage (percent) Burkina Faso (1988) Crop, livestock, and fuelwood losses from land degradation Deforestation Effects of deforestation and crop output Pollution damage (air, biodiversity) Pollution on the supply of fuelwood 8.8 Costa Rica (1989) Ethiopia (1983) 7.7 6.0-9.0 Germany (199O)l water, soil pollution, loss of 1.7-4.2 Hungary (late eighties) Indonesia (1984) Madagascar (1988) Malawi (1988) damage (mostly air pollution) 5.0 4.0 5.0-15.0 l&10.9 Soil erosion and deforestation Land burning and erosijon Lost crop production Costs of deforestation from soil erosion 1.2-4.4 0.4 0.5-0.8 baler pollution, 17.4 Mali (1985) Netherlands (1986) On-site soil erosion and losses Some pollution Soil degradation. other erosion Pollution damage damage deforestation, Nigeria (1989) Poland (1987) United States* (198 1) (1985) 4.4-7.7 0.8-2.1 0.4 the benefits or environmental &A Air pollution control Water pollution control ‘ Federal Republic of Germany before unification. yvfeasura (avoided rather than actual damages). SOURCE: “Eiwironmental Damage Robs Countries’ Income, ** IF&L David Pearce and Jeremy Warford, IVorld W’iUmuf &f (Washinpn, The crossing of sustainable yield thresholds in sectors such as forestry and fishing and in aquifers, combined with the slowdown in the growth in policy Ntm, March 25, 1993, based on D.C.: World Bank, 1993). To begin with, these primary producing sectors play a unique role in the global economl-. If the growth in production of world grain production, directly affects the performance of the world economy. food f&m both land- and ocean-based sources falls far behind growth in demand, the resulting rise in prices could ANNEX A-S Page 11 Nature’ s LitnilS destabilize some national economies. (‘ 3) Economicgrowth, peaking at 5.2 percent a year in the sixties, dropped to 3.4 percent in the seventies and to 2.9 percent in the eighties. Thus far, during the nineties, it has averaged 1.4 percent, which means that the per capita output of food, energy, housing, and the other goods and services that determine living standards has decimed by roughly 0.3 percent a year. (See Table l-2.)40 Several trends are contributing to slower economic growth, such as a near saturation of markets in some advanced industrial societies for basic consumer goods:aucomobiles and household appliances, for example. In some developing countries, burdensome external debt has .slowed growth, and in Eastern Europe economic reforms have taken a toil. But aiso included among the reasons for sIower world economic growth is the lack of growth in the fishing and farming sectors. Indeed, the 1994 fish catch was an estimated 3 percent smaller than m&90. while the a$Z&arvest down nearly 2 percent. In addition, the economic uncertainty and, in some cases, instability associated with colliding with limits undermines confidence in the future. The bottom line is slower economic growth.41 Although projections by the IntemaTable l-2. World Economic Growth Decade, Total and Per Person Annual Annual by tional Monetary Fund show economic growth accelerating in the years immediately ahead, these could be derailed by the instability associated with food scarcity. The nineties could turn out to be the first decade since the Great Depression when income per person for the world as -a whole actually declines. Incomes fell in some 53 countries containing more than 800 million peopis during the eighties, many of them in Africa. But that incomes might fall for the entire world during the nineties has not been anticipated in any long-range economic projection.42 U~TSUSTAINABILITY INSTABILITY FEEDS Decade 195040 1960-70 1970-80 1980-90 1990-94 SOURCE: Growth 4.9 5.2 3.4 2.9 1.4 Growth Per Person 3.1 3.2 1.6 1.1 -0.3 based on sources (percent) (prel.) Wortdwatch Institute. documented in endnote 40. Once the demand for a particular product, such as seafood, exceeds the sustainable yield of the resource base, the traditionally stable relationship between demand and supply becomes unstable. With thresholds for sustainabIe yields now being crossed for so many rethat have been sources, relationships stable for centuries or millennia are becoming highly volatile in the late twentieth century. Analysis of the relationship between the level of human demand and the sustainable yield of various systems is severely handicapped in many cases by a lack of data. For example, it is known that water tables are falling in many countries because water pumping now exceeds aquifer recharge. As noted earlier, some 21 percent of irrigated cropland in the United States depends on aquifers. drawing down underground But for most of the world, data on sustainable aquifer yields are not available. Few communities or countries know when rising water demand will exceed ANN!3 A-S Page 12 (1-f) State of the World I995 aquifer recharge; overpumping is often discovered after the fact.43 We are also handicapped in analyzing the effects of excessive demand on natural systems by the interaction of biological, economic, and political systems. While academic specialists may understand the workings of individual systems and how they respond to stress, they seldom comprehend the interactions. Fortunately, a new effort to better understand this relationship-the project on Environmental Scarcities, State Capacity, and Civil Violence-was recently launched by the University of Toronto in cooperation with the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in Boston.44 At some point, severe ecological stresses begin to manifest themselves economically on a scale that has political consequences. Rwanda is one tragic example of this, recently much in the news. While the attention of the world in the summer of 1994 focused on the tribal conflict between the Tutsis and the Hutus, there was ample evidence that tensions had been building as the relationship between all Rwandans and the natural systems on which they depend deteriorated. Between 1950 and 1994, Rwanda’ s population increased from 2.5 million to 8.8 million. The average number ofchildren per woman in 1992 of 8 was the highest in the world. Despite impressive gains in overall grain production, output per person declined by nearly half between 1960 and the early nineties. Iand scarcity intensified as increasingly small plots were subdivided from one generation to the next. As population grew, the freshwater supply per person dropped to the point where Rwanda was officially classified by hydrologists as one of the world’ s 27 water-scarce countries.45 But beyond these numbers was the quiet desperation that comes to an agrarian society when population growth overwhelms the carrying capac- ity of the land. Just as a lightning strike in forests in the American West is more likely to turn into an uncontrollable conflagration when it is unbearably hot and dry, so too are ethnic conflicts more likely to erupt when there are underlying tensions about food and the ability to earn a living. A.nother essentially agrarian economy where the situation is in some ways even worse is Haiti: Once richly forested, it has lost all but 2 percent of its forests and much of its topsoil. In contrast to Rwanda, where the overall harvest has continued to rise, grain production in Haiti was one third less in the early nineties than it was in the mid-seventies, which means that grain production per person has plummeted. Political scientist ‘ Thomas Homer-Dixon observes that ~“the irreversible loss of forests and soil in rural areas deepens an economic crisis that spawns social strife, internal migra-< tion and an exodus of ‘ boat people.’ ” He concluded that even when Aristide was returned to power, “Haiti will forever bear the burden of its irreversibly ravaged environment, which may make it impossible to build a prosperous, just and peaceful society.“46 The ecological symptoms of unsustainability include shrinking forests, thinning soils, falling aquifers, collapsing fisheries, expanding deserts, and rising global temperatures. The economic symptoms include economic decline, falling incomes, rising unemployment, price instability, and a loss of investor conlidence. The political and social sym,ptoms include hunger and malnutrition, and, in extreme cases, mass starvation; environmental and economic refugees; social conflicts along ethnic, tribal, and religious lines; and riots and insurgencies. As stresses build on political systems, governments weaken, losing their capacity to govern and to provide basic services, such as police protection. At this point, the nation-state disinte- ANNEX A-S Page 13 grates, replaced by a feudal social structure governed by local warlords, as in Somalia, now a nation-state in name only. One of the diiculties in dealing with the complex relationship between humans and natural systems is that once rising demand for seafood or fir crosses the sustamable yreld threshold of contmuously rising demand and a shrinking resource base can iead from stability to instability and to collapse almost overnight. When sustainable yield thresholds are crossed, the traditional responses proposed by economists no longer work. One common reaction to scarcity, for instance, is to invest more in production. Thus the key to alleviating seafood scarcity is to invest more in fishing trawlers. But in today’ s world this only exacerbates the scarcity, hastening the collapse of the fishery. Similarly, as food prices rise, there is a temptation to spend more on irrigation. But where water tables are already falling, investing in more wells simply accelerates the depletion of the aquifer and the eventual decline in irrigation. Once the demand on a particular sys tern reaches a limit, the resulting scarcity sometimes spills over to intensify pressure on other systems. As seafood became scarce, for example, many expected that fish farming would take up the slack. But maintaining the historical growth in seafood supplies of 2 million tons per year over the last four decades by turning to aquaculture, where 2 kilograms of grain are needed to produce 1 kilogram of fish, requires 4 million tons of additional grain a year for fish raised in cages or ponds. Growth in the seafood harvest, which once relied primarily on spending more on diesel fuel to exploit ever more distant fisheries, now depends on expenditures on grain as more fish are produced in marine Feedlots. With grain supplies tightening, the feed may not be availabie to sustain rapid growth in aquacultural output.47 Some effects of crossing sustainable yield thresholds are indirect. If excessive demand for forest and livestock products leads to deforestation and rangeland degradation, the amount of rainfall runoff increases and the amount retained and absorbed for aquifer recharge decreases. Thus, excessive demand for timber and livestock products can reduce aquifer yields. The combination of continuously rising demand and a shrinking resource base can lead from stability to instability and to collapse almost overnight. As another example of an indirect effect, when carbon emissions exceed carbon fixation, as is happening with the massive burning of fossil fuels, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rises, altering the earth’ s heat balance. The principal effect is to trap heat, raising temperatures. This in turn affects ali the ecosystems on which humans depend, from estuaries to rangelands. Crossing sustainable yield thresholds of natural systems can alter world markets. Ever since World War II. the challicvmakers, exlenge to agricultural ce+t tor bgdef_perio?in.the early to ml -seventies, has been how to manage m. ExnortinP countries typIcally SU insisted on using subsidies to bring farm I prices above world market levels. This strmulated overproduction, leadmg t0 the use of export subsidies and competition for inadequate import markets for grain. Now that production is no longer keeping up with growth in demand at ANNEX A-5 Page 14 slate of the world 1995 current prices, policymakers may once again be faced with managing scarcity and dealing with the politics of scarcity as the historical decline of grain prices is reversed. This new trend is already evident in the seafood market. Managing scarcity could test the capacity of national governments and international institutions. For example, overseeing fisheries was rrrabvely easy when the catch was far below the sustamable-yield. But when the catch ovems‘ that level, reestablishing a balaxe between thecatcn and the reggnerarlve CL pacity of nsheries can bedif5cult. Similar7y, countries that share water basins find it relatively easy to manage water supplies when there is a surplus, but if water becomes scarce and there is no longer enough to go around, the problem of management increases inordinately. The natural systems on which the economy depends--whether it be the hydrological cycle or rangelands-are not merely sectors of the global economy. They are its foundation. If their productivity is diminished, then the prospect for the global economy will deteriorate. In an urbanized world where attention focuses on growth in telecommunications and computers and on the construction of the information superhighway, it is easy to forget that it is these natural systems that underpin the global economy. One unfortunate and little noticed consequence of these various trends of environmental and economic decline is that international assistance programs are focusing more on aid and less on development. In effect, expenditures are shifting from crisis prevention to crisis management, Nowhere is this more evident than at the United Nations, where the budget for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees is nearly as high that of the U.N. Development Programme. The same trend can be seen in Somalia, where social disintegration and conflict reached the point where military intervention was needed just to deliver the food supplies needed to end famine. When deterioration reaches this point, military intervention can easily cost 10 times as much as the food assistance being given.4g The bottom line of the growing instability between human societies and the natural systems on which they depend is political instability. This in itself is beg;inning to make economic development and agricultural progress difficult, if not impossible, in many countries. In some countries, the crossing of thresholds has international repercussions. When the growth in demand for food in a country a.s large as China begins to outstrip domestic productive capacity, the economic effects can spread far beyond national borders, altering the food supply/ demand balance for the entire world. THE CHINA FACTOR The breathtaking pace of economic expansion in China promises to push dernands on some of the earth’ s natural support systems beyond their sustainable yieIds. (For a more extensive discussion of China’ s environmental situation, see Chapter 7.) When Western Europe, North America, and Japan industrialized during the century’ s third quarter, establishing the foundations of the modem c:onsumer economy, they were home to some 340 million, 190 million, and 100 million people, respectively. By contrast, China, which is entering the same stage, has a population of 1.2 billion and an economy that is expanding much faster than the others did earlier. Given recent rates of economic growth, the World 13ank projects that by 2002. greater China (which includes Hong Kong and Taiwan) will overtake the United States ANNEX A-S Page 15 Nature i Limitc (17) and become the world’ s largest economy.50 We have no yardstick by which to assess the effect of this on demand for the earth’ s basic resources-simply because consumption levels have never risen so rapidly for so many people. Yet a sense of the potential effects on at least the world food economy is beginning to emerge. The escalating demand for food in China-where 14 million people are added each year and where the incomes of 1.2 billion people are rising at a record rate-could convert the world grain market from a buyer’ s to a seller’ s market, reversing the historical decline in grain prices.51 The prospect of a massive grain deficit in a country that has essentially been self-sufficient comes on the heels of four decades of agricultural progress-progress that was particularly impressive following the agricultural reforms of 1978. These transferred land from production teams to individual families, unleashing energies that boosted the country’ s grain production by half-from 200 million tons in 1977 to more than 300 million tons in 1984. This put China ahead of the United States as the world’ s leading grain producer and raised output from the subsistence level of roughly 200 kilograms per person to nearly 300 kilograms.s* On the demand side, China is projected to add 490 million people between 1990 and 2030, swelling its population to 1.6 billion-the equivalent of adding another Beijing every year for the next 40 years. Because its population is so large, even a sIow rate of growth means huge absolute increases. Meanwhile, from 199 1 to 1994, the economy expanded by a phenomenal 40 percent-an unprecedented rise in incomes for such a large number of people.53 As incomes rise, people diversify their diets, shifting from overurhelming dependence on a starchy staple, such as rice, to more meat, milk, and eggs. When the economic reforms were launched in 1978, only 7 percent of grain was being used for animal feed; by 1990, that share had risen to some 20 percent, most of it used to produce pork. Now, demand for beef and poultry is also climbing. More meat means more grain-2 kilograms of grain are needed for each kilogram of poultry, 4 for pork, and 7 for each kilogram of beef added in the feedlot.s4 The escalating demand for food in China could convert the world grain market from a buyer’ s to a seller’ s market. China has eclipsed the United States in total red meat consumption largely on the strength of pork consumption alone. At 21 kilograms per person in 1990, China’ s consumption of pork is approaching the 28 kilograms (62 pounds) consumed by the average American each year. Although the consumption of beef, poultry, and milk in China is still minuscule compared with that of Americans, these too are beginning to rise.55 Poultry was once a rare luxury in China, and the average person still eats only one tenth as much as an American, but people are quickly gaining an appetite for chicken. During the nineties, poultry consumption, starting from a small base, is expanding at double-digit rates. So, too, is the consumption of eggs. And the good life for newly afhuent Chinese does not stop with meat and eggs: they are also acquiring a great enthusiasm for beer, and raising individual consumption for all adults by just one bottle takes another 370,000 tons of grain.56 As the conversion of cropland to nonfarm uses continues, the experience of three other countries that were densely ANNEX A-5 Page 16 (18) St&? of Ihe world 1995 urban and industrial demand for water means diverting it from irrigation60 With the cultivated area declining inexorably, China’ s ability to feed itself now rests entirely on raising the productivity of its cropland. Rice yields in China, which have been rising toward those in Japan, are starting to level off, suggesting that the potential for lifting them further is limited to the potential gain of 20-25 percent associated with the forthcoming new variety mentioned earlier. (See Figure l-6.)6’ With wheat, China’ s other food staple, the rise in yield is also slowing. In the early eighties, China’ s wheat yield per hectare surged past that of the United States and has remained well above it, at roughly 3 tons per hectare. The big jump came immediately after the economic reforms of 1978, as yields climbed 83 percent from 1975-77 to 1984. During the following nine years, however, they rose only an additional 16 percen.t6? At issue is how much cropland will be lost and how fast. Rapid industrialization is already taking a toll, as grain area has dropped from 90.8 million hectares in 1990 to an estimated 87.4 million in 1994. This annual drop of 850,000 hectare.s, or nearly 1 percent-remarkably Tons Per Hcaarc 6 .s- populated before serious industrialization got under way-Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan-gives a sense of what to expect. Over the last few decades, the conversion of grainland to other uses in these countries has cost Japan 52 percent of its grainland, South Korea 42 percent, and Taiwan 35 percenL5’ As cropland losses proceeded, they began to override the gains in land productivity, leading to steady declines in output. While production was falling, rising affluence was driving up the ovetall demand for grain. As a result, by 1993 Japan was importing 77 percent of its grain, South Korea 64 percent, and Taiwan 67 percent.58 Now the same changes are commencing in China as its transformation from an agricultural to an industrial society progresses at a breakneck pace. Building the thousands of factories, warehouses, and access roads that industrialization needs requires sacrificing cropland. The modernization of transportation is also claiming cropland as highways and milroads replace dirt roads and footpaths. Sales of cars and trucks, which totalled 1.3 million in 1992 and are expected to approach 3 million a year by the decade’ s end, will translate into claims on cropland for roads and parking lots.59 Along with the continuing disappearance of its farmland, China is also facing the extensive diversion of irrigation water to nonfarm uses-an acute concern in a country where half the cropland is irrigated. With large areas of north China now experiencing water deficits, existing demand is being satisfied pa&y by depleting aquifers. In late 1993, Minister of Water Resources Niu Mao Sheng stated that “in rural areas, over 82 milhon people find it difficult to procure water. In urban areas, the shortages are even worse. More than 300 Chinese cities are short of water and 100 of them are very short.” Satisfying future ;! lSoumz USDA 1950 1960 1910 1960 1990 zc 0 1950% Figure 14 Rice Yields, China and .kwan, ANNEX A-5 Page 17 Nature’ s Limits (19) similar to the loss rates of China’ s three smaller neighbors in their industrialization heyday-is likely to endure as long as rapid industrialization continues.63 Taking all these factors into account, it now appears likely that China’ s grain production wiI1 fill by at least one fifth between 1990 and 2030 (0.5 percent a year). This compares with a 33-percent decline in Japan since its peak year of 1960 (a fall of roughly 1 percent a year), a 31-percent decline in South Korea since its peak in 1977 (1.9 percent a year), and a 19-percent decline in Taiwan, also from a peak in 19’ 77 (1.2 percent a year). Seen against this backdrop, the estimated decline of one fifth by 2030 in China may, if anything, be conservative. (See Figure l-7.)64 The resulting grain deficit is hugemany times the 28 million tons ofJapan, currently the world’ s largest grain importer. In 1990, China produced 329 million tons of grain and consumed 335 million tons, with the difference covered by net imports ofjust 6 million tons. Allowing only for the projected population increase, China’ s demand for grain would increase to 479 miliion tons in 2030. In other words, even if China’ s booming economy produces no gains in the consumption of meat, eggs, and Million Tons 75/ beer, a 20-percent drop in grain production to 263 million tons would leave a shortfall of 2 16 million tons-more than the world’ s entire 1993 grain exports of 200 million tons. But even this is understating the problem, for China’ s newly a&tent millions will of course not be content to forgo eating more livestock products. If grain consumption per person were to rise to 400 kilograms (the current Ieve in Taiwan and one half the U.S. level), total consumption would climb to a staggering 64 1 million tons and the import deficit would reach 378 million tons. (See Figure l-8.)65 The Chinese themselves have apparently been making similar calcuiations. Professor Zhou Guangzhao, head of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, observed in early 1994 that if the nation continues to squander its farmland and water resources in a breakneck effort to industrialize, “then China will have to import 400 million tons of grain from the world market. And I am afraid, in that case, that all of the grain output of the United States could not meet China’ s needs.“66 Will China have enough foreign exchange to import the grain it needs? China’ s trade surplus with the United Million Tms 7cQ Source USDA 1960 1970 19so 1990 2cco Flgurt 1-i. Combined Grain Bshnce. Jnpnn, Sooth Kow and Takh, 196044 ANNEX A-S Page 18 (20) S/ate of the World I995 States alone in 1993 was $23 billion, enough to buy al1 U.S. grain exports, with some to spare. Given the likely continuing growth in China’ s exports, it could import 200 or even 300 million tons of grain at current prices if its Ieaders were willing to use a modesr share of export earnings for this purpose. Of course, this would mean cutting back on capital goods imports, which in turn couid diminish the inflow of technology needed to sustain rapid economic growth.b’ But the far more difficuh question is, Who could supply grain on this scale? The answer: no one. Since 1980, annual world grain exports have averaged roughly 200 million tons, close to half of which comes from the United States. But the United States, with a projected addition of 95 million people during the next four decades, is simultaneously facing growth in grain demand and losses of cropland and irrigation water to nonfarm uses. As a result, the U.S. exportable surplus may not increase much, if at all68 At the same time, huge deficits are projected for other parts of the world. Africa, notably, is expected to need 250 million tons of grain by 2030-10 times what it currently imports. The Indian subcontinent is likely to rack up a deficit several times larger than its present one. Scores of countries with rapid population growth-among them Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Mexicowill find themselves facing huge food deficits in the years ahead. In these circumstances, the vast deficit projected for China will set up a fierce competition for limited exportable supplies, driving world grain prices far above familiar Ievels.6g No one knows exactly when this competition among importing countries will develop, converting the world grain market from a buyer’ s to a seller’ s market. If China turns to the outside world for imports, as projected, rising food prices will forcibly curb demand for food worldwide-reducing consumption among rich and poor alike. For the former, this will mean fewer fat-rich livestock products and, happily, less cardiovascular disease. But for hundreds ofmillions oflowincome rural landless and urban poor, it means tightening their belts where there are no notches left. Acute food scarcity and the associated political instability could bring the Chinese economic miracle to a premature end. At a minimum, this prospective deficit in China will force other governments-however reluctantly-to reassess painstakingly their national population carrying capacity and the closely related questions of population and consumption policies. The bottom line is that when China turns to world markets on an ongoing basis, its food scarcity will become everyone’ s scarcity. Its shortages of cropland and water will become the world’ s shortages. Its failure to check population growth soon enough will affect the entire world. It will probably not be in the devastation of poverty-stricken Somalia or Haiti but in the booming economy of China that we will see the inevitable collision between expanding human demand for food and the limits of some of the earth’ s most basic natural systems. The shock waves from this cohision will reverberate throughout the world economy with consequences we can only begin to foresee. ANNEX A-6 Page 1 ICLARM CONTRIBUTIONS AND IMPACT OF RESEARCH PROGRAMS The two Research Program Directors and the leader of the Fisheries Comanagement project were asked to provide brief summaries of the contributions and impact of their respective research programs. The Director of the Information Division also supplied information on science process assessments (publications and citation analyses) which ICLARM has conducted. Following are extracts of their submissions. The Panel had no time to make an independent appraisal and input but notes that ICLARM plans to conduct some detailed impact assessment work over the next two years. ICLARM pointed out that much of its natural resource management research is not amenabIe to the standard research impact assessment methods of agricultural research and that new ground must be broken in the impact studies to be done. Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapia (the GIFT proiect) The GIFT project (ICLARM-Philippine NARS-Norway) has demonstrated that selective breeding is a rapid and cost-effective route to genetic enhancement of farmed freshwater tropical fish. After one generation of selection applied to a synthetic strain, bred from farmed and new wild-collected founder stocks, the selected fish outperformed currently farmed strains by up to 75% and grew 23% faster than the previous generation. On-farm trials showed almost 50% improved survival and 60% improved growth. Further improvements of about 10% per generation are expected. These successes stimulated the initiation of a self-sustaining Philippine National Tilapia Breeding Program and encouragement by the project’ s major donor, UNDP, to form an International Network on Genetics in Aquaculture (INGA). The INGA is now established with 11 NARS members and four more countries seeking to join. ICLARM is the member-coordinator. Moreover, the success in selective breeding shown by the GIFT project have increased donor and NARS interest in funding aquaculture genetic research. ACLAR, DANIDA, JICA and NORAD are now assisting NARS in applied fish breeding research. The impact of this project was submitted by ICLARM as an entry for the 1994 King Baudouin Award. ANNEX A-6 Page 2 Small-Scale Aquaculture in Bangladesh USAID, IFAD and Rockefeller Foundation funded ICLAlUvi collaborative projects are bringing better nutrition and higher incomes to hundreds of rural families and increased adoption by many thousands more is anticipated. The project activities have caught the attention of many extension agencies, especially NGOs who are now training and involving women in aquaculture. For example, two major NGOs in Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) and Proshika, working with ICLARM and government scientists together, are assisting more than 30,000 fish farmers, of whom nearly 60% are women. The adoption by women of such productive and profitable small-scale farm enterprises helps the empowerment of rural women and the nutrition of their families. Ms. Nur Banu, a housewife with four children, has shown how a rural housewife can help her family’ s nutrition and income through taking to aquaculture. She started culturing silver barb in her 160m* backyard ditch, feeding the fish with rice bran and fertilizing the pond with cattle dung or chicken manure. In seven months, she was able to harvest two crops of fish amounting to a total of 41 kg (2,562 kg/ha) and generate a net benefit of Taka 1,757 (US$41), which is equivalent to 70 days earnings of her husband. The annual fish consumption of a low-income rural family of six members in Bangladesh is estimated at some 24 kg: much less than M:s. Nur Banu’ s production from her small ditch. Small-ScaIe Integrated Agriculture-Aquaculture in Malawi A GTZ-funded project has greatly strengthened the capacity of Malawi to pursue inland aquaculture within its own borders and to fulfill its designated lead role in inland fisheries and agriculture for the SADC subregion. The project provided or facilitated opportunities for eight M.Sc.‘ s and three Ph.D’ s. The project also more than doubled the aquaculture research facilities available in the country, including ponds, laboratories and a library at the National Aquaculture Centre - formerly just a fish seed production station. This and the 115 scientific publications from the project have contributed to a policy shift on the part of the Government of Malawi to foster small-scale integrated agricultureaquaculture (1.4.4) development rather than large intensive estate farm aquaculture. Successful I.~JX practitioners still number in the tens rather than the hundreds, but some have doubled or tripled their farm income by adopting the results achieved by ICLARM and its collaborators. The keys to this have been farmer participatory research and an integrated resources management perspective; viewing ponds as farm ponds not just as fishponds. ANNEX A-6 Page 3 Small-Scale Integrated Agriculture-Aquaculture in Ghana A GTZ-funded ICLARM collaborative project has set a new direction in aquaculture development in Ghana, and hopefully its neighboring countries, by emphasizing natural resources management and farmer participatory research, rather than aquaculture development per se. The area in which the research activity was carried out is characterized by denuded hillsides, strong erosion, depleted soils, seasonal streams, short fallow periods (1-2 years) and a maize cassava-plantain .intercropping system. Farm ponds helped to catch some of the sediment runoff and provided nutritious mud and water to adjoining fields. This work has indicated the potential benefits from combinations of agroforestry, biointensive gardening and aquaculture of indigenous species. Although initially intended as a test-bed for trials with few farmers for a three-year project ending in 1994, has taken on a life of its own and integrated agriculture-aquaculture has spread in the area. On their own initiative, about 30 farmers recently formed a local fish farmers association, with the aim of exchanging experience, assisting new entrants, organizing fingerling distribution, and purchasing a communally owned net for fish harvests. The process proved successful in that the approach taken was not the conventional top-down technoIogy package dissemination. Rather, a farmer-participatory approach started decision-making, and design and implementation process of farm change in the minds of the farmers, who constructed their ponds witbout external inputs (aside from loaned tools). Network of Tropical Aquaculture Scientists The IARSP has developed, since mid-87, a global Network of Tropical Aquaculture Scientists (NTAS) that now has over 500 members in 85 countries. The NTAS is an information network. ICLARM links NTAS members, helps them to find information and, for some, helps to publish some of their first scientific contributions. NARS members have sent in positive feedback. mNEx A-6 Page 4 Tropical Fish Stock Assessment Methods ICLARM scientists have developed several fish stock assessment methods especially targeted at use in tropical multi-species fisheries. Many of these methods have now been implemented as computer software packages with wide distribution and also used in fish stock assessmenttraining courses. ICLAFW monitors the numbers of known users of the software and citation of the methods in the scientific literature. ICLARM and FAO are shortly to jointly release the most comprehensive set of fisheries stock assessment software in the world @SAT) for use in deveIoping and developed countries. A precursor element of the new package, ELEFAN, currently has over 700 users and the pre-release version of FiSAT has 150 users. Users of these packages are almost evenly divided between developing and developed world scientists. Over the last 12 years, ICLARM’ s methods and various staff have been involved in the FAO/DANIDA training program in fish stock assessment which has reached over 3,000 developing country fishery scientists. Another successful ICLAFUvI model, ECOPATH II, describes the trophic dynamics of resource systems. It has been used I:Omodel over 60 ecosystems worldwide, including over 40 systems described in a joint ICLAFW publication with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the oldest fisheries research grouping in the world. There are now nearly 400 registered users of ECOPATH II, which is becoming a major teaching tool in several universities. Multi-disciplinarv studies of Philippine fisheries - The San Miguel Bay Project, undertaken in 1980-83, was one of the earliest examples of an integrated bioIogica1, social an.d economic evaluation of a developing country fishery. The value of the methodology was recognized by the Government of the Philippines which instituted a 12-Bays project in 1990 to replicate the work in the country’ s principal coastal fishing areas. Local university and government research agency teams were mainly used, as well as ICLARM which played a major advisory and training role and was responsible for the San Miguel Bay and Lagonoy Gulf sectors. In San Miguel Bay itself, ICLAPM repeated and e:xtended eariier work and participated as ANNEX A-6 Page 5 the independent technical advisors to the San Miguel Bay Management Council in drafting and agreeing a management plan for the Bay. The Bay’ s waters are governed by 7 municipal authorities out to the 15 Km mark and by the national government outside these waters. Many different types of fishing gears, commercial and small scale, are used. ICLARM is now studying the implementation process as an exercise in fisheries policy research under the Fisheries Co-management project. The exercise appears to be one of the few well-documented case studies of successful co-management. The success of the consultative process was surprisingly swift and appeared to result from the structured decision-analysis approach adopted during the management planning meetings. ICLARM is now directing its attention to how to get a research multiplier effect from such results. The multi-species, multi-gear fisheries of San Miguel Bay are fairly typical in many respects to those in other parts of the developing and indeed the developed world. The lessons from ICLARM’ s work should also have wide application in the vital search for more effective ways of managing common property fisheries resources. FishBase and ReefBase Fishbase is a global database of biodiversity, fisheries and other data on 12,000 of the 25,000 known fish species. This number includes all the species used by humans, all endangered species and all introductions. It has just been released on CD-ROM and will be distributed at marginal cost worldwide funded by the EC. It is significant collaborative effort between FAO and a large number of other specialists who have contributed datasets (e.g. fish diseases, genetics) which they will maintain and update periodically. ICLARM intends to monitor the number of users and numbers of collaborating scientists and institutions as well as to canvass users’ views on its utility and development. It is particularly attracting attention in global biodiversity issues. ReefBase in a global database of information on the resources, demographics, economic uses and status of the world’ s coral reefs. It is in the early stages of development but has already excited attention and collaborative support, including from the World Conservation Monitoring Center which provided data support from earlier work on the global status of reefs. ReefBase will be a prime focus of a workshop at the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium in July 1996 and has already received attention from the newly emerging International Coral Reef Initiative being developed by USA, EU, France, Japan, Australia, Jamaica and the Philippines. ANNEX A-6 Page 6 Coastal Resource Management In the 1980s ICLARM was an early leader in coastal resource management studies, focusing in South East Asia through a large earlier program. Now that the concept of integrated management across sectors and terrestrial and aquatic systems in the coastal zone is well accepted, ICLARM and p,artners in ASEAll and at the University of Warwick are working on decision-support technologies which can aid the analysis of issues across bio-physical, economic and social dimensions. The coastal transects project. ICLARM’ s early work is often cited and is credited with being instrumental in changing thinking on coastal areas management and fisheries. Village-based farming of giant clams, pearls and sea cucumbers ICLARM’ s work in the culture of high-value reef invertebrates are already contributing to food security in the case of clams and show potential to contribute in the case of pearIs and sea cucumbers. These species; contribute by providing much needed income for island people, thus increasing their purchasing power for food. Increasingly, non-food uses of living aquatic organisms are proving better economic deals for the people with access to aquatic resource systems. There are now 17 countries throughout the Indo-West Pacific farming giant clams. ICLARM’ s work has catalyzed these efforts. Small scale village operations, supported by simple government or private hatch’ eries, are enabling inIand people to add another product to their limited economic oppormnities, and countries to repopulate reefs where local extinctions of clams from overfishing have been common. Clams are versatile in their uses, cultura1, food and economic: significance. Pearl production in parts of the Pacific ha.ve made major economic contributions to local economies. ICLARM is explorin g the possibilities of introducing the pearl oyster culture technology in other parts of the Pacific. This work is still in the early stages. Sea cucumber culture is likewise in its early stages at ICLARM. If the technology of production can be developed for the major market species, this will also add options to the support of island people. Where natural stocks still exist, communities already catch and dry these animals for export. The post harvest handling and marketing therefore are already established. ANNEX -4-6 Page 7 Asian Fisheries Social Science Research Network (AFSSRN] A 1992 review of the AFSSRN concluded that “the AFSSRN has proven its worth to the member institutions. Before the establishment of the AFSSRN, there was no mechanism in the region to pull together economists and other social scientists for the purpose of promotin g research and training in the social science aspects of fisheries.” The mobilization of a core of fishery social scientists for this purpose has been a fundamental achievement of the AFSSRN. The AFSSRN has played a significant role for members in improving their research skills, providing opportunities to interact with and learn from other fishery social science researchers in the region and the world, provided advanced graduate degrees, and expanded the professional pool of trained social science researchers in fisheries, aquaculture and aquatic resource management. The AFSSRN members have developed a growing capacity to help address issues of fisheries policy and fishery aquatic resource management. Citation data ICLARM has recorded nearly 10,000 citations of its work from 1979 to the present, for senior authorship alone. Two authors accounted for more than half this number. From previous studies, the proportion of citations of ICLARM publications in the core western primary literature is probably around lo%, meaning that most use of the Center’ s publications are thus well-cited, especially in less-academic or more applied literature. ICLARM also compared its publication productivity with that of other international research centers, including all the CGIAR centers. In primary literature, ICLARM’ s output was very favourable per scientist and especially so relative to the budget level. In other publications (conference proceedings, reports, Naga, etc.), ICLARM’ s output is well above that of the other Centers. (ICLARM had a greater concentration on widely distributed newsletter and other such material than other CGIAR Centers.) ANNEX A-7.1 300 r - ,‘ /’ ’ 1’ /’ ,’ /,’ / / L -m-m 1 I 1940 I 1950 I 1960 I 1970 Year t- Norwegiansalmon 3 0 m Tropical finfish I 1980 I 1990 I 2ooo A-7.1 Changes in Productivity of Chickens, Dairy Cows, Swine, Norwegian Salmon and Tropical Finfish from 1940 to the late 1980’ s. (Source: The ZCLARM Quarterly NAGA, April 1991). Productivity of terrestrial animals for meat and milk has increased much more than certain aquatic species. Although there have been significant gains in productivity of Norwegian salmon in recent years, there has been little or no increase in the productivity of tropical furfish. ANNEX A-7.2 Beef 3 Pork Chicken SOUE 1 i FAO I 1975 A-7.2 1980 1985 1990 1995 m Indices of Export Prices for Fish, Beef, Pork and Chicken from 1975 to 1993. (Source: Peter Weber [1995]. Protecting Oceanic Fisheries and Jobs. In Lester R. Brown. State of the World. A Worldwatch Institute Report. Progress Towards a Sustainable Society), Since 1985, export prices have increased significantly for fish in relation to beef, pork and chicken--in part reflecting a leveling off in overall yield of fish in recent years. Such price increases have significant implications concernin g the availability of valuable fish protein to poor people in developing countries. ANNEX A-7.3 Million Tom 1007 Soumz FAO and Wbridwati 80- Freshwater Catch A-7.3 Global Marine and Aquaculture Yield from 1950 to 1993. (Source: Peter Weber [1995]. Protecting Oceanic Fisheries and Jobs. In Lester R. Brown. State of the World. A Worldwatch Institute Report. Progress Towards a Sustainable Society). Global marine and aquatic yields from 1950-1993 reflect a steadily increasing amount until the late 1980s. Marine catch began to level off and even drop during this period while aquaculture production--although not a large part of the total global yield-has increased steadily since the early 1980s. DN9165E/1/10.95/450