•'»'  ì■
; I
: !
i AGR/TAC:IAR/84/18 Restricted*
L THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Thirty-Fourth Meeting, Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), 21-30 June 1984
M•:y
EXTERNAL PROGRAM REVIEW OF ISNAR
PROGRESS REPORT
(Agenda Item 9 (c))
Proposed Objectives of the Discussion
At TAC 31 the Committee had a first preliminary discussion re­
garding the arrangements for the first EPR of ISNAR. It was agreed then 
that:
the evaluation of ISNAR required by thè ISNAR constitution 
should be conducted by TAC along the lines of regular EPRs;
the timing of this review should be towards the end of 
ISNAR's 5-year trial period (1985);
at TAC 34 the Committee would take decisions on program 
structure, panel composition and the selection of a Panel 
Chairman.
TAC will now wish to consider the proposals set out below3 re­
garding timing, review program and Panel composition. It will then wish
to :
- confirm the timing of the review
- approve a program
- decide on size, structure and composition of the panel
- select (in closed session) the Panel Chairman and a short list 
of potential Panel members.
TAC SECRETARIAT
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
June 1984
EXTERNAL PROGRAM REVIEW OF ISNAR
PROGRESS REPORT
1. Background
ISNAR's Constitution provides for an evaluation of the Service after
its first five years of operation, This evaluation shall determine the
viability of the ISNAR concept and provide the basis for decision-making by 
the CGIAR regarding the continuation of this Service.
In view of this constitutional requirement for a CG decision whether 
or not to continue this Service, ISNAR and hence its first EPR differ sub­
stantially from all other CG supported Centers and their program reviews.
There has been considerable discussion by ISNAR Board and Manage­
ment, the CGIAR Cosponsors and the two Secretariats (TAC ad CGIAR) re­
garding the modalities for review conduct and subsequent decision-making on 
the continuation of ISNAR. There is broad-based agreement among all 
parties that
the ISNAR evaluation should be conducted by TAC along similar lines of 
regular EPRs
- the review should be conducted at the end of ISNAR's 5—year trial 
period
- final authority of decision-making rests with the CGIAR. TAC is
expected to formulate a recommendation regarding the viability of the 
ISNAR concept and the continuation of the Service.
2. Terms of Reference and Guidelines
The EPR of ISNAR will be conducted by a Review Panel commissioned by 
TAC under the Terras of Reference and Guidelines for EPRs that were adopted 
by the CGIAR at its November meeting in 1983 (AGD/TAC:IAR/84/2).
As is customary, a list of specific questions relating to the ISNAR 
concept, the ISNAR program and its impact will be appended to the standard
Terms of Reference. It should be pointed out in this connection that at
ISNAR a lot of staff work has been done towards preparing an appropriate 
list of questions that will deal with the specific features of ISNAR ' s
program. A first draft of a list of questions and issues is attached.
3. Timing of the Review
In accordance with decisions mentioned earlier it is proposed that 
the ISNAR review be conducted in the period 22 August to 20 September 1985.
The Panel's conclusions and recommendations would be presented to 
the ISNAR staff, management and Board on 20 September 1985 on the occasion 
of a special meeting of the ISNAR Board or its Executive Committee.
2
Thereafter the review report would be submitted to TAC for con­
sideration at its 38th meeting in late October 1985 or its 39th meeting in 
March 1986.
Together with TAC's commentary and recommendations the report would 
be submitted to the CGIAR at its May meeting in 1986.
4. Rewiew Program
In consultation with the ISNAR Board and Management a proposal for 
the review program has been worked out.
This review program is based on the specific features of ISNAR as a 
service unit in the CGIAR System and the resulting evaluation requirements. 
It recognizes the need for intensive interaction of the review panel with 
the following groups:
- ISNAR staff, management and Board of Trustees
- ISNAR's clients (existing and potential), It is important to ensure
interaction with a range of NARS representing
— different levels of economic and institutional development and hence 
different needs
— different regions (Africa, Asia, Latin America)
— different levels of intensity of ISNAR involvement: cases of 
intensive and continuing involvement (review mission and follow-up 
activities); cases of less intensive involvement (only review
mission), as well as cases of punctual or extensive involvement 
(project preparation activities or specific technical advise in 
limited areas).
- ISNAR's sister organizations in the CGIAR System , i.e. the IARCs
- Bilateral donor institutions which may have specific perceptions 
regarding ISNAR's role and functions
- Multilateral funding and technical assistance organizations (in 
particular development banks)
- Development assistance institutions that have programs similar to that
of ISNAR.
The program proposed consists of three steps:
(a) In-House Review at ISNAR
In order to allow for an early familiarization of the Panel with a 
complex program and a new institution it is proposed that the entire Panel 
(five persons) participate in the In-House Review at ISNAR, 10-13 December, 
198 4.
3
(b) Meeting of ISNAR Board of Trustees
It is proposed that the Panel Chairman, possibly accompanied by one 
Panel member attend the meetings of the ISNAR Board and its Program 
Committee from 3-7 May, 1985.
(c) Main Phase of Review
Activities during this phase (22 August - 20 September, 1985) will 
concentrate on four areas:
Briefing and interaction with staff at HQ. 2 days 
Field visits to NARS and other relevant institutions 15 days 
Discussions at HQ. and report writing 12 days 
Presentation of findings to Board and Management 1 day
30 days
Regarding the program of field visits it is suggested that the Panel 
visit 5-6 NARS, selected in accordance with the criteria listed on page 2. 
The complete Panel could visit 1-2 countries and then split into 2 sub­
teams, each of which would visit two additional countries.
As regards the choice of countries to be visited ISNAR has 
suggested - in accordance with the criteria above - the following list (in 
order of preference):
- Africa: Rwanda, Somalia, Malagasy Republic, Upper Volta, Kenya, Zimbabwe 
- Asia: Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Fiji
- Latin America: Dominican Republic, Costa Rica i
At present a proposal could be:
- Africa: Rwanda, Somalia (and possibly Malagasy Republic) 
- Asia: Indonesia, Sri Lanka
- Latin America: Dominican Republic
A final list of countries to be visited and an itinerary will be
elaborated in due course, Due consideration will be given of course to
practical aspects, such as the need to keep the program of visits within 
reasonable limits of cost and time requirements.
Visits to a number of donor representatives (USAID, World Bank, plus 
one or two of the European donor agencies) could be arranged for individual
Panel members on their way to the briefing session at ISNAR.
A visit to IRRI or CIMMYT with whom ISNAR has had a number of con­
tacts could be included into the subteams' visits to Asia or Latin America.
4
5. The Review Panel
(a) Size
For the Program Review it is suggested that the optimum size of the 
Panel is constituted by a Chairman plus 4 members. This will ensure 
manageability from the point of view of the receiving institutions (NARS 
and ISNAR) and yet allow for an appropriate mix of talents on the Panel in 
terras of professional background, disciplines and regional/institutional 
origin.
(b) Composition and Profile
In determining the profile of this Panel and its members it is 
suggested that in view of ISNAR's specific mandate, program and structure 
the combined expertise on this Panel needs to cover a range of fields, It
appears important that the Panel be well balanced in terms of the following
categories and requirements:
professional background
— experience in research management and leadership in LDCs
— awareness of the complexities of research systems development in
developing countries
— experience in the evaluation of research systems (systems' analysis)
institutional background
awareness of the needs and opportunities of NARS development as seen
from the points of view of both beneficiaries (NARS) and donors 
(multilateral development and funding agencies as well as bilateral
donors)
regional background
— balanced representation from developing and industrialized countries
knowledge of the CGIAR System
awareness of IARC programs and their linkages with NARS 
awareness of the System's linkages with the donor community
disciplines
— balanced representation of the biological and social sciences
linguistic competence
some competence in French and Spanish would undoubtedly help 
communication with ISNAR's clients in francophone Africa and in Latin 
America.
(O Candidates for Panel Chairmanship and Panel Membership
A list of potential candidates will be submitted to TAC separately 
for discussion in closed session.
»*2%"’ - . — -• -- • . '
>
ANNEX I - Page 1
EXTERNAL PROGRAM REVIEW OF ISNAR
List of Questions/Issues
The specific modalities of this review resulting from ISNAR's 
constitutional evaluation requirements have been pointed out elsewhere. 
In view of these specific requirements ISNAR has given considerable 
thought to the concept and conduct of this review. ISNAR has prepared a 
set of questions and issues which it would like the Panel to address. 
These questions and a general comment are set out below, They will be
complemented in due course by questions and issues suggested by other 
parts of the CGIAR System.
The focus of the evaluation should not be simply on whether or not 
ISNAR should continue, although CGIAR will need to make that specific 
decision and the evaluation must facilitate it. The evaluation will be 
more useful, if ISNAR is worthy of continuance, if the evaluation points 
to the future working of ISNAR, as well as to the decision, The
evaluation should be structured to help ISNAR evolve the most appropriate 
form and function to suit its purposes, as seen in 1985, reflecting 
several years' experience with ISNAR and a better awareness of developing 
country research systems and their needs than were available in 1979.
1. Review of enabling and facilitating documents and procedures
1.1 Review the Constitution to identify any substantive changes 
needed to facilitate the Service's strengthening of national 
agricultural research capacities in developing countries. 
Particular attention is drawn to the statements of purposes, 
principles and activities, in terras of their continuing 
relevance, accuracy and completeness.
1.2 Review the location of the headquarters and recommend whether 
or not the location should be changed; and, if so, the 
factors that militate against maintaning the present 
headquarters location and those that should receive most 
consideration in selecting another location.
1.3 Review the agreement between ISNAR and the Kingdom of the 
Netherlands with a view to whether or not the agreement 
sufficiently enables ISNAR to efficiently perform its 
functions.
1.4 Review the ISNAR Board and Its committees to determine if 
they have been well structured and have served ISNAR well.
Are the working relationships among the Board, its committees 
and management conducive to the efficient functioning of 
ISNAR?
; 4T- *•.’ '
>
ANNEX I - Page 2
2. Objectives and strategies
2.1 Has ISNAR adequately defined its objectives, and perceived 
its role and the roles of other institutions in achieving 
ISNAR's objectives? Has ISNAR given the needed attention to 
how those objectives and ISNAR's role are expected to change 
over time?
2.2 Has ISNAR used strategies most appropriate to achieving each 
of its objectives? Have those strategies been appropriately 
adjusted to correspond to the various circumstances of its 
clients? Have its clients been well established?
2.3 What mechanisms does ISNAR have to provide sensitivity to 
clients' needs?
2.4 Has ISNAR adequately prognosed how its strategies are 
expected to evolve as its clients' needs change?
2.5 Does the internal balance of effort among ISNAR functions 
correspond with CGIAR expectations as ISNAR was formed, or to 
optimum use of available resources to achieve ISNAR's 
purposes?
3. Staff
3. 1 Has ISNAR developed the most appropriate mix of talents and 
experience in its staff to allow ISNAR to fulfill its 
functions, in view of the available funds?
3.2 Do staff management procedures facilitate optimum 
productivity of most staff members?
3.3 Are staff members encouraged and facilitated to increase 
their competence and productivity?
3.4 Are staff policies adequate to maintain the required staff 
stability?
4. Programs and activities
4. 1 Does ISNAR have, or is it developing on schedule, the needed 
programs and activities that best allow it to serve 
developing country needs in its mandate area?
4.2 Considering resources available, is the balance among ISNAR's 
programs and activities about right or should there be a 
shift in balance?
4.3 If additional resources become available which programs and 
activities should receive relatively greater emphasis?
I * *. •
_ ANNEX I - Page 3
4.4 Has ISNAR developed and used resource allocation procedures 
among countries (and other competing demands) that are 
appropriate to it as a CGIAR center?
5. Impact of ISNAR
5.1 Has the interaction and contact between ISNAR and national 
programs had an important impact upon the development 
(strengthening) of the national programs?
5.2 Has the counsel of ISNAR conformed well with the circum­
stances, needs, and opportunities in each of the national 
systems it has sought to help?
5.3 What types of changes have occurred in national research 
systems that ISNAR has worked with? (Resources allocated, 
structural changes, personnel policy changes, research input 
into agricultural policy decisions.)
5.4 Have the training materials, courses, conferences and work­
shops which ISNAR has organized or collaborated on had a 
positive and important impact on the participants and their 
work?
5.5 Has the research program of ISNAR been carried out on highly 
relevant problems and produced information which is useful to 
ISNAR as a reference base for its advice to national programs 
and for general use by national programs?
5.6 Has ISNAR been effective in helping match national program 
needs with donor support?
5.7 What changes, if any, have taken place in attitudes of bi­
lateral and multilateral donors and of developing countries 
toward investing more appropriately in national research 
systems? Has the investment form changed to better 
facilitate institutional development? How, if at all, has 
ISNAR affected these changes?
5.8 Has ISNAR been effective in helping strengthen linkages 
between national programs and the IARCs?
5.9 Have the ISNAR country review reports, annual reports and 
other publications been of good quality and usefulness?
6. Perceptions
6. 1 Do developing countries perceive ISNAR as a source of help in 
developing their research capability (as they would see a 
crop center in relation to a crop research program)?
6.2 Do the services they expect from ISNAR indicate adequate 
awareness of ISNAR's purposes?
i
»4V v
*
ANNEX I - Page 4
6.3 Are ISNAR's purposes and its strategy an adequate response to 
the opportunities to improve national research systems?
Should the nature of ISNAR be significantly changed?
6.4 Should other institutions (i.e. a donor's consortium or a 
technical manpower pool) be developed to complement ISNAR?
7. Relations with other institutions
7.1 Has ISNAR developed effective working relationships with 
other relevant institutions, such as other centers, FAO and 
multilateral and bilateral donor agencies? If not, have 
there been any special mitigating circumstances?
7.2 Has ISNAR's interaction with national programs and IARCs 
affected the research, training or cooperative programs of 
the IARCs?
8. Relations with donors
Has ISNAR adequately communicated to current and potential donors 
the services it performs, its effectiveness and its need for 
resources?
9. Efficiency of ISNAR
Considering the many factors involved, is ISNAR a reasonably 
efficient means of achieving the goal of steadily improving the 
capabilities of national agricultural research systems or are 
there alternative means that would achieve a large percentage of 
the goal much more efficiently?
10. Future for ISNAR
10.1 As countries continue to develop their agricultural research 
systems is there still an important role for ISNAR?
10.2 If there is still an important role for ISNAR, does the mix 
of its program need to change, or are shifts in its emphasis 
among countries needed?
10.3 What should be the future role for ISNAR within the CGIAR 
System?