SCIENCE COUNCIL CGIAR
Report of the Fifth External Program and Management Review (EPMR) of the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)
Review Panel: Elias Fereres (Chair) Ahmed Goueli Stephen Baenziger John Passioura Camilla Toulmin Juliet McKee Frederick Kalema-Musoke

JANUARY 2007

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS: • Extracts from the Summary Record of Proceedings of the Annual General Meeting 2006 (AGM06) Science Council Commentary Transmittal Letter and ICARDA Response to the Fifth EPMR Transmittal letter and Report of the Panel on the Fifth ICARDA EPMR

• • •

iii

The SC of the CGIAR encourages fair use of this material provided proper citation is made. Correct citation: CGIAR SC (2007) Report of the Fifth External Program and Management Review of the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). Rome, Italy: SC Secretariat.

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
CGIAR Annual General Meeting, 2006 (AGM06) Agenda Item 6. Evaluation ..... External Program and Management Review of ICARDA1 Noting that the ICARDA EPMR report had been fully discussed at SC and ExCo meetings, K.Sierra opened the discussion and welcomed Stephen Baenziger (EPMR panel member representing the Panel Chair, Elias Fereres) who was able to participate through video conference. Discussion: • Some Members agreed on the global relevance of ICARDA’s programs and noted the Center could be involved in other regions in coordination with other Centers. However, its main focus should still be regional, i.e. the current target of its work. • Climate change issues were pointed out as an important component of research work in the dry areas. • ICARDA was complimented on its farmers’ participatory approach in crop improvement. • The panel’s recommendation to strengthen the Center’s capacity in socio-economic research was welcomed, but concerns were expressed on the plan to house the additional staff in a single department. S.Baenziger said that the panel thought it was the best way to protect the skills base and increase relevance. • S.Baenziger also noted that given sufficient investment, the Center has the opportunity and the tools to attract young scientists. • The Center DG responded that the Center already has a succession plan for staff replacement in the coming three years. On policy/socio-economic research, ICARDA will ensure integration of physical and socio-economic research work, and also collaborate with IFPRI. Decision: The CGIAR endorsed the ICARDA EPMR recommendations.

1

Extract from the Summary Record of Proceedings of Annual General Meeting, 6-7 December 2006.

viii

ix

Science Council Commentary on the Fifth External Program and Management Review of the International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) September 2006 The Science Council considered the Report of the Fifth External and Program Management Review (EPMR) of ICARDA, and the Center’s response, at the SC’s sixth Meeting in Cali, Colombia on the 11th of September 2006. The main findings of the report were presented (by videoconference) by Professor Elias Fereres, Chair of the EPMR Panel and brief responses made by Dr Guido Gryseels, ICARDA Board Chair, (also by video) and by Dr Mahmoud Solh, the new ICARDA Director General. There was a follow up meeting between selected SC Members and Dr Solh prior to the preparation of this Commentary. Overview: The SC welcomed the indications in the Report that ICARDA had established excellent general and collaborative research relations with national partners in C-WANA, and had formed strong regional programs which were well positioned to tackle the problems of dryland agriculture. However, the Panel noted that the Center’s focus on regional adaptive research may have been at the cost of addressing the long term scientific challenge of the region viz improving water capture and efficiency of water use in the agricultural systems of the drylands region. The Panel’s major recommendation of the Report is for ICARDA to raise its focus to a more strategic global mission and to de-emphasize somewhat its purely regional activities. The SC endorses this important challenge for the institute.

The Report noted that in many programs, scientific output had been below accepted levels. The Report identified where further strides could be made by ICARDA to enhance the targeting and staffing of the scientific program and, by providing appropriate attention to human resource issues and governance processes, to improve the contribution and morale of Center scientists. The SC believes it is important that the Center regains its role as a world leader in dryland agriculture. The Report makes 22 recommendations; one in relation to the mission of the Center, four in relation to the structure of research and possible changes that could be made, seven recommendations on science, one on science quality, seven on Governance and Board processes and two relating to financial management. The response of ICARDA’s Board and Management to the EPMR Report had been very positive, treating the Report as useful guidance in the further development of the Center under new management. The SC is pleased to note that ICARDA had accepted the recommendations of the EPMR Panel’s report virtually in toto, and was moving swiftly to implement the Panel’s recommendations.
Research relevance: The major recommendation of the Report is for ICARDA to focus on the strategic research issues to improve the productivity of dryland agriculture and in so doing become the “global” research institution for dryland agriculture. This will require the institute to de-emphasize somewhat its purely regional activities. The intention of this recommendation is for ICARDA to address the fundamental long-term challenges of dryland

x

agriculture rather than spread current technologies to wider geographical areas of the drylands agroecoregion (although this may be possible given the platform for research developed through benchmark sites and partnerships in CWANA). These include enhancing the efficiency of water use, closing yield gaps for staples, finding judicious means to diversify the farming systems of the region for improved income, and improving the enabling environment for the uptake of new natural resource management practices (e.g. for rangelands) and other technologies. For this, the Center will need to enhance its own scientific quality in order to mobilize and leverage the best of global science. The SC strongly endorses this Recommendation, and the other Recommendations on scientific quality and the targeting of approaches which derive from them. The SC notes that the Panel have focused the strategic question on increasing the productivity of water by more strategic research on the agroecosystem - seeking solutions from understanding causes of yield gaps (i.e. the difference between potential driven by water and actual yield) to balance the work on genetic improvements to tolerance to drought. The SC believes that the Panel has raised an important area of strategic research, often neglected in other agroecosystems as well, viz knowledge about the potential yields based on a limiting resource and strategic system-based research (agronomics) to close the yield gaps. In relation to the recommendations for strengthening science, the SC notes that the Center will act to enhance in-house capacity for agronomy, GIS, and agroecological characterization to evaluate yield gaps in staples and guide the application of new technologies. The Panel’s Report expressed concern that the Center’s review of its strategic direction was delayed (albeit for good reasons – see following) but that the Center had nevertheless gone ahead with the introduction of a new Program structure (of MegaProjects), which the Panel judged to be less than optimum to meet the needs of ICARDA and its drylands research program. The ICARDA Board Chair reported that the Center had purposely deferred the finalization of the Strategic Plan until after the arrival of the new Director General, even though substantial programmatic changes were initiated prior to this. The SC welcomes the Center’s assurance that the Board is now overseeing the strategic planning process and expects to receive a new draft of the Strategic Plan for endorsement at ICARDA’s next Board meeting to be held in February 2007. There will be an opportunity to revisit the current program structure after the new strategic plan is in place. The SC agrees with the Panel’s view that the ICARDA figure of 8.4% of its resources being devoted to “development” is likely to be an underestimate. In the Panel’s view, 20 of the 44 outputs listed in the MTP for 2006 reflected a very low research content, with several country-specific activities unlikely to yield IPGs. The Panel notes that ICARDA works in a geographical region of currently variable political stability and there are calls on the Center to become involved in post-conflict rehabilitation of agricultural systems or associated technical assistance activities that have minimum research content. However, the Panel has indicated that this involvement in regional activities may have come at a cost to a more longterm strategic research program and a decline in international standing as the world leader in arid lands agriculture. The SC endorses this view. The SC understands that such local activities may be hard to resist due to ICARDA’s position in the CWANA region. However, the Board must develop a new Strategic Plan, and Management a firm commitment to implementing the plan not swayed by donor needs for activities outside the strategy. In the event

xi

that some activities fall outside the CGIAR’s System Priorities for research, these should be properly characterized as part of the so called 20% of non-SP activities. ICARDA is urged to articulate better ex ante what the “learning” component is from its various development undertakings. Planning and choosing circumstances through which knowledge can be developed as IPGs may not necessarily favor research in post-conflict countries.

The Panel expressed concern about the need for a stand alone project on knowledge management as contained in MP 6. It preferred to see the various components embedded instead in the other MPs. The SC agrees with this assessment. The SC notes that ICARDA has conducted a lot of useful research into participatory plant breeding (PPB) particularly of barley. This has proved a useful tool with this crop in addressing the needs of farmers in heterogeneous environments, but the EPMR Report urges ICARDA to balance its global breeding programs (particularly with other staples) with a view to wider adaptability. The SC appreciates the careful appraisal by the Panel of this issue and notes that this has been accepted by the Center. There can be a trade-off with PPB in attaining broad adaptability and the associated international public good attributes, and the SC hence encourages ICARDA to assess the relative value and desirability of such an approach for all its mandate crops compared with conventional breeding approaches. The Center is well placed on the basis of its past research to examine when conventional and PPB approaches might best be used either individually or jointly in order to maximize global benefits. Development of a more coherent and better focused program on aspects of natural resources management underpinning production from dryland farming systems is also required. For example, the work on water harvesting and supplementary irrigation could benefit from strong linkages with ICRISAT, which has a long history of research on this technology. The causes of lack of adoption noted by the Panel may lie in a focus on low-value staples rather than high-value crops, which was the experience at ICRISAT. Recovering the high capital costs is problematic with life-saving irrigation of low-value crops. Noting that diversification and improved income from agriculture for the alleviation of poverty were leading components of the CGIAR System Priorities for Research, the SC welcomed the Panel’s analysis of the best means for ICARDA to address opportunities for diversification in CWANA. Diversification contributes to reducing production risk but might add to market risk for smallholders. Hence it would be important for the Center to develop and adhere to appropriate criteria for ICARDA’s involvement in potentially high value species and products. The Center is also urged to link with existing global sources of expertise in horticulture to assist both the evolution of ICARDA’s diversification program and that of its NARS partners. The Panel’s Report noted that there is room for further strengthening of the socio-economics expertise at ICARDA, including supporting adoption and policy research on improved technologies for water management. The Center agrees with the need to enhance this capacity and will consider the options for the optimal deployment of such capacity. The SC finds this an acceptable response, noting the need to balance improved capacity in this area with the desirability of having socio-economics research properly integrated with biophysical research.

xii

Science quality: The Panel reported that the scientific publication record in most programs was below acceptable levels even after consideration of the mission-oriented research of the Center. There are notable exceptions. The Panel found good progress in the formulation of an excellent program on water and in aspects of socio-economic impact assessment of ICARDA technologies and in the adaptive research carried out by the regional programs. However, overall, the Center needs to urgently address its scientific standing in the international community. The age profile of the scientific staff and succession planning for both scientific and management functions are mentioned as priority concerns for ICARDA in the Panel’s Report. Whilst succession planning is desirable, it should not be so rigorously applied as to prevent genuine open competition. Whilst some senior scientists have good publication records helping to catalyze the necessary connections to global science, the Panel suggests that Center management evaluate the reasons for the wide variability in scientific productivity of scientists at ICARDA. A figure of 40% of scientific staff having belowaverage productivity, according to the Panel, is a cause for concern. The SC endorses the Panel’s assessment and the Center’s response and the sensible planning measures that are being put in place to address these issues in the near future2. Inter-Center interactions: The SC welcomes the development of a new agreement between ICARDA and CIMMYT on wheat breeding and the joint program for implementation that is being developed. The SC hopes that ICARDA will build upon the momentum recently gained to develop joint approaches on other research problems. Governance-Board processes and financial management: The SC notes that the Center has accepted all Panel Recommendations in relation to the improvement of governance and financial management processes at the Center. Further, the SC notes that the Board also welcomed the Recommendation to hold a CCER on Finance and Management and has set the CCER process in train. The Center is sensitive to the issue of staff quality, including the links between staff quality and salaries, which are being reviewed for international competitiveness. In relation to resource mobilization, the Center reports that it had already acted to develop a new Priorities and Strategies Committee. In summary: Recognizing the high esteem in which ICARDA is held by its regional partners and the demand for ICARDA services, the EPMR Report suggests that ICARDA is in a better position now to grasp the key challenges to dry land agriculture than it was at the time of the previous EPMR. Notwithstanding the gains in developing a strong partnership in the region, the Panel highlighted detraction this may have caused from addressing the long term strategic research issues for the arid systems. The Panel have provided good insights as to what those issues might entail. The SC welcomes the Panel’s Report and Recommendations and looks forward to seeing how these issues will be taken up by ICARDA, initially through its new Strategic Plan and then ultimately in the subsequent Medium Term Plan. Such changes may mean that ICARDA forego some national and regional activities in order to take up the

2

The SC draws attention to the more general issue for future EPMR panels to the choice of indicators to be used to judge the scientific outputs of a Center. There were likely to be different indicators depending on the types of research and their time-frames.

xiii

important global challenge to improve the productivity of the agricultural systems in arid lands.

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

ICARDA’s Board and Management Response to the Recommendations of the Report of the 5th External Program and Management Review August 2006

The Board and Management of ICARDA wish to thank and express their sincere appreciation to the EPMR Panel Chair and Members for their insightful analysis and constructive comments in the review report. We agree, in general, with the recommendations made in the Panel’s report. These recommendations and the many suggestions made by the Panel will provide valuable inputs as ICARDA finalizes its strategic plan, and charts its course for the future. We are pleased to note that the Panel’s overall assessment over the last five years, ICARDA, through its research for development activities, has made many substantial contributions towards alleviating poverty and enhancing food security in the CWANA region which accounts for more than 80% of non-tropical dry areas globally. It is also reassuring that the Panel felt that the Center in several ways was better placed now than when the previous EPMR was held in 1999/2000, and that its financial management was sound. This confirms the recent rating of ICARDA as ‘outstanding’ for its performance measurement indicators, and serves as a tribute to the management and staff of the Center. We are also pleased that the Panel reports that in collaboration with the NARS, ICARDA has developed an excellent outreach effort through its regional programs and is an important player in the development and dissemination of agricultural knowledge in dry areas. According to the Report, everywhere NARS scientists and government officials expressed appreciation of ICARDA’s scientific expertise, and support in the development of regionwide networks, projects and in capacity building including training, using existing NARS facilities. It is also reassuring that the Panel’s survey of ICARDA’s donors revealed their very positive attitude and high satisfaction with ICARDA’s performance. Regarding ICARDA’s inter-Center and collaborative arrangements, the Panel in general commends ICARDA’s approaches to collaborative and collective action as a way to improve effectiveness and efficiency in serving its mandate for the Dry Areas eco-region. We thank the Panel for the balance in the report between assessing past performance and charting the future course and note the practicality of the suggestions made for the future. Overall we welcome the Panel’s analysis of the future challenges to the dry areas, which we supplement with the issues of climate change, gender and the prevailing geo-political environment. We would also like to express our appreciation for the excellent relations that ICARDA has with its host Governments in Syria and Lebanon. We are pleased that the Panel views the future of ICARDA with optimism and that it perceives that there is a unique opportunity for the Center to grow and develop into a world class research institute for the Dry Areas.

xviii

Overall we welcome the Panel’s proposals on future research directions to address the problems of dry areas, which will assist the Center in charting a perspective course of action for the next five years to more effectively serve the poor in the dry areas of the developing world. We appreciate the findings of the review not only in terms of the Panel’s specific recommendations, but also their other suggestions. These need to be considered in their totality within the overall context of the new strategy, which has been expressly timed to allow consideration of the EPMR’s report and the views of the Center’s new management. The overall financial and staffing implications of the Panel’s recommendations will also need to be carefully considered. Additional capacity will be sought through partnering with national programs, advanced research institutes and, where appropriate, through outsourcing specific areas of research. Our responses to the specific recommendations made by the Panel are given below.

In relation to ICARDA’s mission Recommendation 1: The Center should emphasize its global mission and de-emphasize somewhat its regional mandate to become a world class research institution for the Dry Areas, for which ICARDA needs to improve its science quality. Response: Accepted in principle. We share the Panel’s view that ICARDA emphasizes its global ecoregional mission, focusing on the key challenges in dry areas. ICARDA will maintain its activities in Central and West Asia and North Africa (which accounts for more than 80% of the non-tropical dry areas), focusing on activities that address the underlying problems of agriculture in the dry areas and contribute to our global objectives. It is important for ICARDA to continue to build on the knowledge base gained from working in the subregions and with its vast network of partners. The balance between global emphasis and subregional needs will be a cornerstone of the new Strategic Plan. Our commitment to science quality is paramount. It is unrelated to the geographic focus of the research and addressed under later recommendations. In relation to the structure of the scientific program Recommendation 2: The Panel recommends that the current science structure consisting of six MegaProjects (MPs 1-6), that are really large programs, needs further realignment. This leads the Panel to recommend that ICARDA reconsider the readjustment of its thematic program structure along the following lines: Recommendation 3: The two currently separate MPs focusing on natural resources, MP3 (on desertification) and MP1 (on water) should merge as a single Water and Land Program, while the MP3 activities on land tenure, rangelands and policy options should be integrated with work on diversification (currently MP4) and other work on socio-economics and policy be integrated in MP5. Recommendation 4: The MP6 activities on knowledge management should be integrated within the other research programs and MP6 should not be a separate research program, given the priorities and dimensions of ICARDA. The Seed Unit, now in MP6, should move to MP2, while other parts of MP6 fit better in MP5 or in horizontal units.

xix

Response to Recommendations 2-4: Accepted in principle. We recognize that there is scope for improvement in the thematic program structure. Decisions on the final structure will flow from the Center’s new strategic plan. Recommendation 5: To avoid further disruptions to researchers, the Panel recommends that the recommendations made above are considered for implementation only after new strategic plans are in place. Response: Accepted. We agree with the Panel that further changes to structure should be made after the new strategic plan is in place to minimize disruption to ongoing research. In relation to research The Panel views that there is a need to specifically strengthen collaboration between research on water management per se and research on water policy and institutional constraints to the adoption of water conservation technologies, so as to develop strategies for improving rates of adoption. Recommendation 6: The Panel recommends that MP1 embraces research on water policy, institutions and adoption strategies to further enhance a very good program in water management. Response: Accepted. We are conscious of the importance of policies and institutions in providing an enabling environment to enhance the adoption and impact of improved water management and conservation technologies and practices. We will further strengthen ongoing activities in these areas. The Center has already included in its 2006-2008 Medium-term Plan outputs related to water policies and institutions. The water management research program (MP1) will continue implementing research in these aspects through collaborative activities with the Center’s socio-economic program (MP5), and with national programs and other partners including IWMI and IFPRI. Research to meet the pressing future food production requirements of the CWANA regions needs to focus on productivity improvements, and more specifically on bridging the yield gap between actual and attainable production. The Panel believes that ICARDA’s efforts should be more balanced in relation to the current realities of dryland agriculture. Recommendation 7: The Panel recommends increased efforts in agronomy to assist countries in bridging the yield gap between actual and attainable yields, by researching the agronomy, crop management and economic incentives required to generate the needed synergies with the breeding efforts. The Center should consider deploying the new staff at appropriate regional programs/offices of ICARDA.

xx

Additionally to such an effort, supporting both research on yield gaps and to conduct additional research in the areas of agroecological characterization, spatial analyses, remote sensing and related fields in natural resources management: Response: Accepted. ICARDA will further enhance its emphasis on agronomy and related research and will strengthen its ongoing activities and expertise to focus on producing agronomic international public goods using modeling and agroecological characterization tools. It will build on the experience gained in reducing yield gaps in several countries of the region. The specific deployment of additional staff will be decided based on the Center’s new strategic plan. Recommendation 8: The Panel recommends that additional investments are made in the GISU unit by providing it with sufficient scientific staff to tackle the challenges of the new Water and Land Program (Recommendation 3). It is further recommended that ICARDA should map, with the help of modeling and available data on actual yields over several years, the difference between actual yields of crops and the yields expected if the crops were limited only by water and not by disease or management. Response: Accepted. We are conscious of the importance of GIS and remote sensing in research on sustainable management of natural resources, germplasm collection and conservation, poverty mapping, and in up- and out-scaling the results of its location specific work. ICARDA will seek additional resources to support the GISU in enhancing its activities and expertise in modeling and mapping and to support the analysis of yield gaps and the additional research listed under Recommendation 7. An evaluation of the role ICARDA might play in high-value crops as a means of raising the contribution of agriculture to poverty alleviation is timely, meeting regional demands and the new Priorities of the CGIAR. The Panel has considered this issue and recommends the following strategy: Recommendation 9: The Panel recommends the development of a strategy for research in horticulture by identifying the subject matter where the return on research investments would be highest in the various agroecologies of the Dry Areas. The Panel identified tree crops such as olive, almond and pistachio, as one of the most promising areas for horticultural research in the Dry Areas. The Panel believes that networking and partnering would be the most appropriate instruments for knowledge dissemination and problem solving, with ICARDA linking the NARS with advanced institutions. Response: Accepted in principle. We share the Panel’s view on the need to develop a Center strategy for research in horticulture with a clear focus on horticultural options that are well adapted to dry areas and which will enhance the livelihoods of resourcepoor farmers. In 2002 on the request of the Board, ICARDA commissioned a study on the desirability and feasibility of research on fruit and vegetables, which was subsequently discussed and approved by the Board. Olives, almonds and pistachio

xxi

would be appropriate candidates but others such as dates, figs, pomegranates, grapes and other horticultural crops might also be considered. The Center’s strategy would define the criteria for selection of the most appropriate horticultural options for the various production systems of the dry areas and clearly define ICARDA’s specific role and comparative advantages in such a research program. ICARDA agrees that networking and partnering would be the most appropriate approach ICARDA has already established partnership in horticulture with AVRDC (the World Vegetable Center). In addition, ICARDA has been conducting research on dryland fruit trees, vegetables, and medicinal, herbal and aromatic crops over the last few years, in partnership with national programs and NGOs through specific restricted projects. The information from this initial research will be considered in developing the proposed strategy on horticultural research, which will align with the new CGIAR System Priority 3 on reducing rural poverty through agricultural diversification and emerging opportunities for high-value commodities and products. Noting the opportunities for forage research supporting both crop-livestock systems and livelihood opportunities and goals for improved natural resource management, the Panel seeks synergies from forage research across ICARDA programs and partnerships: Recommendation 10: The Panel recommends that the forage (feed) legume program should be merged with one or all of the food legume programs on the basis of the cropped area, potential impact and technology transfer, similarity of species, and need for synergism among the research groups. Response: Accepted. We agree with the Panel’s recommendation to merge the feed/forage legume improvement program with the current food legume programs. ICARDA will revisit the staff allocation in feed and food legume improvement based on an analysis of opportunities and needs in a changing environment and in alignment with the Center’s new strategic plan. The Panel notes the large agenda for socio-economics and policy research in support of regional agriculture and the needs of ICARDA itself for impact assessment research, including the development of new methods in natural resource management impact assessment, markets etc. The Panel believes that a critical mass of social-economic researchers with required competence profiles (institutions, policy and gender among others) must be secured to allow timely delivery, continuity and high quality output. However, the allocation of some socio-economists outside MP5 does not support such efforts, and the Panel recommends that all socio-economists be hosted under MP5. Recommendation 11: The Panel recommends that additional staff is hired to increase the capacity of the socioeconomics Program. Response: Accepted in principle. We recognize the need for additional staff to respond to the increased demand for socioeconomic, policy, gender and institutional research in the dry areas. We also recognize the value of a critical mass of socio-economists,

xxii

but must ensure the continued integration of socioeconomic with biophysical research. In this regard, we will assess the merits of hosting all socio-economists under a single socio-economics program. We plan to recruit an additional P-level position in production economics and risk analysis and to seek additional expertise in policy and institutions, gender, and marketing/competitiveness. In addition, ICARDA will continue strengthening its collaboration with other CGIAR centers, advanced research institutions and national programs. ICARDA is discussing with IFPRI the resumption of a joint appointment for research in policies and institutions. Recommendation 12: The Panel is keenly aware that in suggesting growth in certain scientific areas, and that, if funding is not substantially increased, such changes will be at the expense of existing areas. To generate the needed resources, the Panel recommends a strategy of combining consolidation of some MPs (3 and 6), together with the consolidation of service units, and the replacement of retiring senior staff with junior scientists. Response: Accepted. We share the Panel’s view that, if funding is not substantially increased, the growth in certain specific areas suggested in the Center’s new Strategy will be at the expense of other areas. Among measures to generate the resources necessary, we agree to consolidate some MPs and Units and, as part of succession planning, to replace senior staff with junior scientists, where appropriate, while ensuring that research leadership and science quality is maintained. In relation to science quality To ensure the maintenance and growth of ICARDA’s scientific cadre, to raise the profile of ICARDA’s science and to generate links with new sources of scientific expertise, the Panel has made four interlocking recommendations on science quality (see recommendations 1, 13, 17 and 21) which should be considered in this light as well as individually: Recommendation 13: In cases where outputs in refereed, international journals were less than adequate, the Panel recommends an assessment of the causes for the low productivity. Response: Accepted. We concur with the Panel’s assessment that the output of refereed international publications is uneven across the spectrum of the Center’s research. We agree with the consequent need to assess and address the causes for the differences in publication outputs among scientists. We note, however, the Panel’s observation that the production of other types of publications, such as edited book chapters and monographs, by ICARDA scientists has increased in the last five years. We share the Panel’s concern of the use of international refereed journal publications as a sole indicator of science quality. We would look forward to contributing to a system-wide debate on this issue.

xxiii

In relation to Governance: The Panel finds that several Board practices and processes could be improved to enhance its governance role. Of greatest importance to the Center is to develop a strategy and implementation plan for research in the coming decade, given the changing contexts of CWANA, and new research opportunities. The Center must plan both for the implementation of research and an overall strategy for funding the strategic plan. In the light of the foregoing the Panel recommends: Recommendation 14: That the Board oversees the development of a succinct strategic plan by Center management to provide clear direction to ICARDA. Response: Noted: Planning for the new ICARDA Strategy was initiated by the Board in 2004 and the Strategy 2007-2016 will be concluded early in 2007. Finalization of the new Strategy was timed specifically to allow consideration of the EPMR Recommendations and the views of the new Director General. Recommendation 15: That the Board and management develop a donor strategy designed to increase the spread of long term grants. Response: Accepted in principle. We agree with the Panel’s view to develop and regularly update a Board-approved strategy for resource mobilization. Recommendation 16: Monitoring of the performance of the DG and Board based on the strategic goals to ensure timely implementation of the strategic plan Response: Accepted. The Board is conscious of its responsibility for regular performance appraisal of the Board, Board Chair and Director General. We agree with the Panel that such performance appraisal includes monitoring of strategic goals to ensure the timely implementation of the strategic plan. Recommendation 17: A Board policy be developed on succession planning to ensure senior staff in key positions have a potential successor in place and that this requirement is included in the performance targets for the DG, ADGs and Directors of Finance and HR. Response: Accepted in principle. We share the Panel’s concern over succession planning for key senior staff positions in line with Center needs. This may not require a separate Board policy since the Board will continue to oversee management actions in this regard.

xxiv

Recommendation 18: Adopting a formal Board policy with a clear process for reporting inappropriate behavior, which is communicated clearly to all staff. Response: Accepted. We agree with the Panel on the need for a “whistle-blower” policy regarding unacceptable behavior, which will be developed and communicated to staff. Recommendation 19: Adopting a Board policy that the Chair of Audit Committee approves the Chair’s expenses and the Chair approves the Director General’s expenses or such policy that ensures protection for the Chair, DG and finance officers. Response: Accepted. The current procedure on the expenses of the Board Chair and Director General will be updated, resulting in a Board-approved procedure. Recommendation 20: conferencing. Response: Accepted. As of 2007 the Board will have two regular meetings per year. Extraordinary meetings of the full Board or its Executive Committee may also be convened, if and when necessary. We will examine the practicality of video conferencing and other media. That more frequent full Board meetings be organized including video

In relation to Finance and Management: The Panel notes that whilst the Center has carried out CCERs on scientific and capacity building aspects of the Center’s activities, the Panel has not recently evaluated its management and finance practices. Given the change in management, the Panel believes it would be timely for the Board to commission such a CCER with an emphasis on the recommendation to the new management of best practices to be followed in the future. The Panel provides advice for the focusing of such a CCER: Recommendation 21: ICARDA conduct a CCER on Management and Finance to investigate and provide best practice to ICARDA Management on: (i) The Finance Department’s role within the wider ICARDA body (ii) The HR strategy to attract and retain the highest caliber staff with fair and transparent performance management systems. Response: Accepted. We agree with the Panel's recommendation to have a CCER on Management and Finance to assess and provide best practices to ICARDA management including the role of Finance within the wider ICARDA body and an HR strategy to attract and retain high caliber staff.

xxv

The CCER will include the issues raised by the Panel and will be conducted prior to the 2007 Board Meeting. Recommendation 22: Given the dispersed nature of ICARDA’s research activities, the Panel also recommends that External audits should routinely include visits and reviews of the regional and outreach centers, at least on a random (selective) or rotational basis. Response: Accepted: We share the Panel's view that the External Auditors will routinely review the Center’s regional and outreach offices on a selective or rotational basis, in addition to the regular reviews by our internal audit.

xxvi

xxvii

xxviii

xxix

CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SCIENCE COUNCIL AND CGIAR SECRETARIAT

Report of the Fifth External Program and Management Review (EPMR) of the International Center for AGRICULTURAL Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)

Review Panel

Elias Fereres (Chair) Ahmed Goueli Stephen Baenziger John Passioura Camilla Toulmin Juliet McKee Kalema-Musoke

xxx

xxxi

CONTENTS
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT......................................................................... 7 EPMR Panel, terms of reference, mode of operation and acknowledgments .................................... 7 The dry areas and ICARDA ...................................................................................................................... 8 Science to meet challenges of dryland agriculture in semi-arid environments ................................. 9 Understanding the behavior of agricultural systems and their responses to management interventions: the use of benchmark sites by ICARDA........................................................................12 ICARDA current focus and themes ........................................................................................................13 History up to the last EPMR ....................................................................................................................14 Last EPMR recommendations and Center responses...........................................................................14 Recent Center Commissioned External Reviews ..................................................................................15 Assessment of the Outreach CCER .........................................................................................................15 Assessment of Integrated Gene Management CCER ...........................................................................16 Assessment of Natural Resources Management and Social Science CCER.......................................17 STRATEGIC PLANNING: SETTING PRIORITIES AND PROGRAM STRUCTURE......................19 ICARDA mandate, vision, mission and goals .......................................................................................19 Mandate in relation to dry areas and/or CWANA: regional or global?.............................................19 ICARDA’s Strategic Plan ..........................................................................................................................20 Currency of Strategic Plan and Panel comment....................................................................................21 Positioning of ICARDA in the R&D continuum ...................................................................................21 Seeking comparative advantages ............................................................................................................23 Prioritization processes and current focus .............................................................................................24 Rationale for current program organization..........................................................................................25 Adoption of a new project structure for ICARDA’s MTP 2005-2007 .................................................27 ICARDA’s Regional Programs and Country offices.............................................................................30 Panel comments on the de facto matrix – accident or design? ............................................................31 QUALITY, RELEVANCE AND IMPACTS OF SCIENCE ...................................................................33 MegaProject 1: Management of Scarce Water Resources and Mitigation of Drought in Dry Areas ......................................................................................................................................................................33 MegaProject 2: Integrated Gene Management......................................................................................36 MegaProject 3: Improved Land Management to Combat Desertification .........................................49 MegaProject 4: Diversification and Sustainable Improvement of Crop and/or Livestock Production Systems in Dry Areas ...........................................................................................................55 Agronomic management of cropping systems......................................................................................59 Research in Sustainable Alternatives to Opium Poppy Cultivation in Afghanistan .......................62 MegaProject 5: Poverty-Livelihoods analysis and Impact Assessment .............................................64 MegaProject 6: Knowledge Management and Dissemination for Sustainable Development in Dry Areas............................................................................................................................................................67 Science Quality: Indicators and Assessment..........................................................................................71 Research Support Units ............................................................................................................................73 Human Resource and Development Unit (HRDU)/Training..............................................................73 REGIONAL PROGRAMS, PARTNERSHIPS AND LINKAGES.........................................................77 The Regional Programs.............................................................................................................................77 Arab Peninsula Regional Program (APRP)............................................................................................77 Central Asia and the Caucasus Regional Program (CACRP)..............................................................78

2

3

4

xxxiii

Nile Valley and the Red Sea Regional Program (NVRSRP) ................................................................80 North African Regional Project (NARP) ................................................................................................81 West Asia Regional Program ...................................................................................................................82 Highland Research Regional Network (HRN) ......................................................................................83 Afghanistan ................................................................................................................................................83 Iran...............................................................................................................................................................85 Turkey .........................................................................................................................................................85 Latin America Regional Program (LARP)..............................................................................................86 ICARDA in the CGIAR: Inter-Center relations .....................................................................................87 5 REVIEW OF ICARDA GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE 2000-2005 ................97 Conclusions of the Panel in relation to Governance ...........................................................................103 Management and finance review 2000–2005 .......................................................................................103 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS .................................................................................111 Overall assessment ..................................................................................................................................112 The future challenge................................................................................................................................114 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................116

6

ANNEXES ..........................................................................................................................................................117

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The fifth External Program and Management Review of ICARDA was conducted in two phases between end of April and June 2006. The Panel received presentations from management and program staff, conducted individual and small group discussions and Panel members visited four of the regional program sites. The Panel reviewed the Center’s scientific publications and other outputs, monitored the ICARDA Board Meeting and conducted three surveys (of science, stakeholders and professional staff) and contacted a selection of donors and CGIAR partners. The review was conducted at a time when the Center was changing its Director General and Board Chair and the Panel is grateful to both outgoing and incoming Directors-General, and for the cooperation of all staff and Trustees, for the open and constructive manner in which the Review was conducted.
The Panel found many cases where ICARDA’s activities have had significant impact on improving agricultural productivity in a sustainable way, on improving livelihoods, and on the NARS. Examples include the breeding of new chickpea and lentil cultivars and of barley varieties in a participatory fashion, the successful introduction of supplemental irrigation in wheat production, the progress made in developing integrative packages in the Khanasser Valley and in the Mashreq-Maghreb project, and the Afghanistan program aimed at assisting the reconstruction of its agriculture. Many of the impacts that have been achieved derive from the success of the Regional Programs in reaching out to the many different partners in the Region, as in the successful case of Inter-Center collaboration in Central Asia and Caucasus. In many ways, the Center may be better placed than it was at the time of the earlier EPMR in 1999/2000. Several Center-Commissioned External Reviews (of outreach and selected programmatic activities) have been undertaken, and the Center has attempted to integrate and focus its research with variable success. However, to effectively grasp the long term challenges facing dryland agriculture, continuous development in terms of strategic direction, of scientific capacity and scientific linkages and of the balance between strategic and adaptive research activities are all required. The relative success of the sub-regional project activities may have led the Center away from addressing some of the key long term scientific challenges in the most coherent fashion. The challenges of food security, poverty alleviation and the sustainability of natural resources supporting the productivity of the CWANA region and globally require that the Center readdress itself to a focused set of these longer term research issues. The Panel’s Report includes the following findings and recommendations. In relation to ICARDA’s mission: Recommendation 1: The Center should emphasize its global mission and de-emphasize somewhat its regional mandate to become a world class research institution for the Dry Areas, for which ICARDA needs to improve its science quality. In relation to the structure of the scientific program: Recommendation 2: The Panel recommends that the current science structure consisting of six MegaProjects (MPs 1-6), that are really large programs, needs further realignment. This leads the Panel to recommend that ICARDA reconsider the readjustment of its thematic program structure along the following lines:

1

Recommendation 3: The two currently separate MPs focusing on natural resources, MP3 (on desertification) and MP1 (on water) should merge as a single Water and Land Program, while the MP3 activities on land tenure, rangelands and policy options should be integrated with work on diversification (currently MP4) and other work on socio-economics and policy be integrated in MP5. Recommendation 4: The MP6 activities on knowledge management should be integrated within the other research programs and MP6 should not be a separate research program, given the priorities and dimensions of ICARDA. The Seed Unit, now in MP6, should move to MP2, while other parts of MP6 fit better in MP5 or in horizontal units. Recommendation 5: To avoid further disruptions to researchers, the Panel recommends that the recommendations made above are considered for implementation only after new strategic plans are in place. In relation to research: The Panel views that there is a need to specifically strengthen collaboration between research on water management per se and research on water policy and institutional constraints to the adoption of water conservation technologies, so as to develop strategies for improving rates of adoption. Thus: Recommendation 6: The Panel recommends that MP1 embraces research on water policy, institutions and adoption strategies to further enhance a very good program in water management. Research to meet the pressing future food production requirements of the CWANA regions needs to focus on productivity improvements, and more specifically on bridging the yield gap between actual and attainable production. The Panel believes that ICARDA’s efforts should be more balanced in relation to the current realities of dryland agriculture. Recommendation 7: The Panel recommends increased efforts in agronomy to assist countries in bridging the yield gap between actual and attainable yields, by researching the agronomy, crop management and economic incentives required to generate the needed synergies with the breeding efforts. The Center should consider deploying the new staff at appropriate regional programs/offices of ICARDA. Additionally to such an effort, supporting both research on yield gaps and to conduct additional research in the areas of agroecological characterization, spatial analyses, remote sensing and related fields in natural resources management: Recommendation 8: The Panel recommends that additional investments are made in the GISU unit by providing it with sufficient scientific staff to tackle the challenges of the new Water and Land Program (Recommendation 3). It is further recommended that ICARDA should map, with the help of modeling and available data on actual yields over several years, the difference between actual yields of crops and the yields expected if the crops were limited only by water and not by disease or management.

2

An evaluation of the role ICARDA might play in high-value crops as a means of raising the contribution of agriculture to poverty alleviation, is timely, meeting regional demands and the new Priorities of the CGIAR. The Panel has considered this issue and recommends the following strategy: Recommendation 9: The Panel recommends the development of a strategy for research in horticulture by identifying the subject matter where the return on research investments would be highest in the various agroecologies of the Dry Areas. The Panel identified tree crops such as olive, almond and pistachio, as one of the most promising areas for horticultural research in the Dry Areas. The Panel believes that networking and partnering would be the most appropriate instruments for knowledge dissemination and problem-solving, with ICARDA linking the NARS with advanced institutions. Noting the opportunities for forage research supporting both crop-livestock systems and livelihood opportunities and goals for improved natural resource management, the Panel seeks synergies from forage research across ICARDA programs and partnerships: Recommendation 10: The Panel recommends that the forage (feed) legume program should be merged with one or all of the food legume programs on the basis of the cropped area, potential impact and technology transfer, similarity of species, and need for synergism among the research groups. The Panel notes the large agenda for socio-economics and policy research in support of regional agriculture and the needs of ICARDA itself for impact assessment research, including the development of new methods in natural resource management impact assessment, markets etc. The Panel believes that a critical mass of social-economic researchers with required competence profiles (institutions, policy and gender among others) must be secured to allow timely delivery, continuity and high quality output. However, the allocation of some socio-economists outside MP5 does not support such efforts, and the Panel recommends that all socio-economists be hosted under MP5. Recommendation 11: The Panel recommends that additional staff is hired to increase the capacity of the socioeconomics Program. Recommendation 12: The Panel is keenly aware that in suggesting growth in certain scientific areas, and that, if funding is not substantially increased, such changes will be at the expense of existing areas. To generate the needed resources, the Panel recommends a strategy of combining consolidation of some MPs (3 and 6), together with the consolidation of service units, and the replacement of retiring senior staff with junior scientists. In relation to science quality: To ensure the maintenance and growth of ICARDA’s scientific cadre, to raise the profile of ICARDA’s science and to generate links with new sources of scientific expertise, the Panel has made four interlocking recommendations on science quality (see recommendations 1, 13, 17 and 21) which should be considered in this light as well as individually: Recommendation 13: In cases where outputs in refereed, international journals were less than adequate, the Panel recommends an assessment of the causes for the low productivity.

3

In relation to Governance: The Panel finds that several Board practices and processes could be improved to enhance its governance role. Of greatest importance to the Center is to develop a strategy and implementation plan for research in the coming decade, given the changing contexts of CWANA, and new research opportunities. The Center must plan both for the implementation of research and an overall strategy for funding the strategic plan. In the light of the foregoing the Panel recommends: Recommendation 14: That the Board oversee the development of a succinct strategic plan by Center management to provide clear direction to ICARDA. Recommendation 15: That the Board and management develop a donor strategy designed to increase the spread of long term grants. Recommendation 16: Monitoring of the performance of the DG and Board based on the strategic goals to ensure timely implementation of the strategic plan. Recommendation 17: A Board policy be developed on succession planning to ensure senior staff in key positions have a potential successor in place and that this requirement is included in the performance targets for the DG, ADGs and Directors of Finance and HR. Recommendation 18: Adopting a formal Board policy with a clear process for reporting inappropriate behavior, which is communicated clearly to all staff. Recommendation 19: Adopting a Board policy that the Chair of Audit Committee approves the Chair’s expenses, and the Chair approves the Director General’s expenses or such policy that ensures protection for the Chair, DG and finance officers. Recommendation 20: That more frequent full Board meetings be organized including video conferencing. In relation to Finance and Management: The Panel notes that whilst the Center has carried out CCERs on scientific and capacity-building aspects of the Center’s activities, the Panel has not recently evaluated its management and finance practices. Given the change in management, the Panel believes it would be timely for the Board to commission such a CCER with an emphasis on the recommendation to the new management of best practices to be followed in the future. The Panel provides advice for the focusing of such a CCER: Recommendation 21: ICARDA conduct a CCER on Management and Finance to investigate and provide best practice to ICARDA Management on: (i) The Finance Department’s role within the wider ICARDA body (ii) The HR strategy to attract and retain the highest caliber staff with fair and transparent performance management systems.

4

The latter may include: • A new strategy for attracting post-docs, doctoral students (for example, reduce or eliminate high fees) and young scientists. • A survey of salaries including Syrian public service, international agencies based in Syria and international agencies, outside of Syria, for comparative purposes. • Contracts for periods longer than one year to give security to staff and to enhance the potential for attracting the highest caliber staff to the Center. • Simpler processes for authority of expenditure and for approval of minor expenditures, and change the format for reporting project expenditures for effective control of budgets by principal investigators to a simple comprehensible summary. • ICARDA’s treasury operations and cash management with a view to develop and adapt more efficient and pro-active investment strategies, guidelines and practices. • Training or recruiting dedicated staff with accounting/financial management background and Oracle systems expertise. Recommendation 22: Given the dispersed nature of ICARDA’s research activities, the Panel also recommends that External audits should routinely include visits and reviews of the regional and outreach centers, at least on a random (selective) or rotational basis. The Panel views the future of ICARDA with optimism because it perceives that there is a unique opportunity for the Center to grow and develop into a world class research center for the Dry Areas. The new leadership, with the appointment of a new DG and a new Board Chair, should renovate areas in need and give a new impulse to conducting research of high quality by the Center. The substantial efforts devoted to the development of the Regional Programs in recent years should now shift towards developing stronger global research activities. The outputs from such efforts would be easily capitalized on by ICARDA to ensure impacts using the current Regional Programs and networks that the Center has already developed.

5

6

1

INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

EPMR Panel, terms of reference, mode of operation and acknowledgments The Panel for the 5th External Program and Management Review of ICARDA was convened under the Chairmanship of Professor Elias Fereres. The composition of the Panel, the background of Panel members, the schedule and the Terms of Reference for the conduct of the review are given in Annexes 1-3. The Panel first assembled at ICARDA’s headquarters in Tel Hadya, Syria for the first phase of the review on 22 April 2006. The Panel Chair and members met with the Director General, Dr Adel El-Beltagy, who was to complete his term of office directly following the ICARDA Board Meeting in the following month. The Panel participated in presentations of the Mega-Projects, the Regional Programs and scientific support units and was able to interact with staff in plenary and in small group meetings. Where necessary Panel members or groups of Panel members held separate meetings with individual scientists, including the Assistant Director General for Research. Panel members visited laboratories and support units at Tel Hadya. The rangelands and livestock consultant to the Panel visited the Khanasser Valley project site. The Governance Panel member and Finance consultant met with Administrative and Finance staff, the incoming and outgoing Auditors and members of the Audit Committee of the Board. In the week following the 30th of April, ICARDA held its Annual Board Meeting. The Panel Chair and Governance expert met with the outgoing and incoming Board Chairs as well as the incoming Director General (Dr Mahmoud Solh) who was to take up office on 8 May. They monitored the Program Committee and other aspects of Board function. The Panel were able to consult Center policies, plans, strategic documents and other publications placed on a special website or provided to the Panel in hard copy on request. The Panel also received inputs and views from stakeholders through structured surveys. The Panel prepared and administered three surveys: 1. The Stakeholder Survey addressed to ICARDA partners (NARS, universities, donors, NGOs and the private sector) consisted of 10 open-ended and multiple choice questions. It was administered through the web-based MonkeySurvey tool and the link was sent to the stakeholders by email. The survey was also sent as an attachment by email and faxed in three languages English, French and Arabic (the survey form is reproduced as Annex 4). 2. The Personnel Survey, addressed to all ICARDA professional staff, was composed of 10 open ended questions which allowed staff to provide detailed comments to support their answers. The survey, which respected the anonymity of the staff, was also administered through the web-based MonkeySurvey tool and the link was sent to the staff through the ADG of Research. (The list of questions is provided in Annex 5). 3. The Scientific Assessment Survey requested standardized CVs from professional staff, information on their research area as well as a list of their publications during 2000-2005. A request was sent to the ADG of Research asking him to provide the Secretariat with the final forms for each individual (the CV form is provided in Annex 6). Members of the Panel visited selected outreach sites and contacted national collaborators in the run up to the main phase of the review between the 6th and 11th of June, as detailed in Annex 2. During the main phase the Panel Chair conducted telephone interviews or email exchanges with (i) some of the current leading donors to ICARDA to garner their perceptions on Center performance and challenges and (ii) with the Directors General of CIMMYT, IWMI, ICRISAT and ILRI. The Panel developed and wrote the Report, including the reports of the two consultants, in Tel Hadya between 12 and 22 June, contacting staff on matters of clarification.

7

Draft chapters of the Report were shared with Center management (principally Dr Mahmoud Solh) for reviews of factual errors, and the Panel Chair presented the major recommendations and findings of the Panel verbally to staff on 22 June. Acknowledgements: The Panel is pleased to acknowledge the substantial cooperation provided by ICARDA’s Board, management and staff in the preparation and conduct of the review. The Panel is very grateful to all staff (including the Directors General, scientific managerial and administrative staff, catering, transport, communications and liaison) who combined to make the Panel’s stay as efficient and comfortable as possible during the period of the review. Thanks are also due to staff of the Center, particularly to ICARDA consultant Dr Mohan Saxena in the first phase and to Dr Willie Erskine overall, for organizing program presentations, formal responses and material on behalf of the Center in response to requests for information. The dry areas and ICARDA In Central and West Asia and North Africa (CWANA) water scarcity is the principle constraint to agriculture. The Dry areas are characterized by unpredictable spatial and temporal variability in its most precious resource (water) creating inherent variations and uncertainties in food security. West Asia and North Africa (WANA), a sub-region of CWANA, is the most water-scarce region of the world. Over 75% of the available water is used by agriculture. Demand for water is increasing due to the expansion of demand from population growth and urbanization. In CWANA, most of the arable land (80%) is rainfed, and only 20% is irrigated. This creates a challenge for the region to find means and ways to increase water productivity. Of the 1.8 billion hectares of land in CWANA only 8% are arable. Some 70% of the agricultural lands in CWANA are desert and semi-desert (steppe). Annual rainfall in steppe land is mostly below 200 mm and the lands usually used for communal grazing. Degradation in the steppe can be severe because of over-grazing. High population growth in CWANA is creating pressure on natural resources and expanding food consumption. The high population growth rate requires high expenditure on social services including education and health. The CWANA region also suffers from high rates of unemployment especially among the young. All CWANA countries are in food deficit except for Kazakhstan, Turkey and Syria. Food imports are increasing due to population growth, growth in per capita income and consumer preferences. Cereals are the major imported item. Imports of livestock products are projected to increase substantially during the next two decades. There is an expanding demand for animal feeds (including poultry). CWANA countries have to rely on the international markets to satisfy a proportion of their food needs. Choices have to be made between locally produced and imported food items (including taking account of the costs of “virtual” water). The competition between humans and animals for cereals requires alternative policies to avoid having adverse impacts. The countries in CWANA vary greatly in terms of their annual per capita income. It is low for Afghanistan, Mauritania, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Yemen, Ethiopia and Eritrea where it ranges from US$ 230-260, to about US$ 2,900 – 3,300 for Lebanon and Turkey. Countries like Egypt, Jordan and Morocco are middle-income countries whereas the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries have a relatively high per capita income.

8

Poverty is a common feature in CWANA countries, especially in rural areas. The number of the poor in the CWANA region may be estimated from those with below US$ 1 per day (132 millions); below US$ 2 per day (442 millions) and below the national poverty line (380 millions). The spread of poverty in the CWANA region is caused by many factors including the poor natural resource base, especially water, dependence on very insecure rainfall, low investment in rural areas, discriminatory policies against rural areas, population pressure, soil degradation, unemployment etc. According to the MDG goals, CWANA countries are committed to cut the number of poor by 50% by 2015. Since 1980, agricultural production has been increasing, as exemplified by increasing yields per hectare e.g. of wheat in Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia etc. Increases in productivity were due to technology transfer, particularly improved varieties in an economic reform environment which ensured better incentives to farmers. Most of these countries are still in a transition phase from being heavily controlled by the state to being largely driven by market forces. Changes in policies - especially the macro-micro policy linkages -have a strong impact on technology transfer. The challenges faced by the Region are enormous and ICARDA, with its headquarters in Syria and responsibilities for CWANA, has a unique role in contributing to meeting these challenges. There are very many opportunities to do so; for example, the mandate region includes the center of origin for numerous important crop plants (e.g. wheat, barley, rye, oats, chick pea, lentil, faba bean, cotton, pea, Alliums, forage legumes (including alfalfa), olive, fig, pistachio, grape, pear, prune, almond, and apple). As such, ICARDA is uniquely positioned for doing research on: in situ and ex situ germplasm conservation and collection; for the improvement and utilization of germplasm of its globally mandated crops (barley, lentils, kabuli chickpeas, and faba beans); for many of its regional crops (e.g. wheat and forage legumes); and those plants recently added to enhance livelihoods (e.g. dryland fruits), especially for germplasm adapted to low rainfall areas. Additionally, ICARDA can contribute the research on cropping systems management and on the social and institutional issues, which are requisites for the success of all crop improvement programs. Science to meet challenges of dryland agriculture in semi-arid environments Agricultural production in dryland semi-arid environments, both arable and rangeland, is typically limited by water. The search for drought tolerant plants has been a pervasive aim. Their essential characteristic is resilience in response to long periods without rain. In rangelands, native vegetation is adapted to the climate, and has proven to be resilient under traditional grazing pressures. With growing human populations in the rangelands, however, overgrazing has become common, which brings with it accelerated erosion and loss of biodiversity. While overgrazing is a problem that transcends scientific analysis and is essentially a social and political issue, there are interventions that can improve productivity and thereby take some of the pressure off the native vegetation. These require substantial research, and include water harvesting, and the introduction of nutritious resilient plants such as spineless cactus (Opuntia spp.) or saltbush (Atriplex spp.). The principles involved in designing and managing these interventions are international public goods that are being pursued effectively by ICARDA. In water limited environments, the disposition of water from various sources determines its availability for beneficial use. In catchments, rainfall, surface and groundwater are sources and runoff, evaporation, and drainage are sinks. Human manipulation of sources and sinks influence water use in many ways and the objective is to maximize beneficial use of the limited resource. In

9

agriculture, the first step is to augment the water that is available for evaporation through the crop, i.e. transpiration. Options to increase the amount of water available for transpiration range from agronomic and soil surface management manipulations to the capturing of runoff by water harvesting, and each requires substantial research to maximize the beneficial use of the limited resource. In arable agriculture, both irrigated and dryland, the idea of drought tolerance is less useful. Production rather than resilience is what is required. Thus, the idea of drought tolerance is giving way to the idea of water productivity (‘‘more crop per drop’’). This change is a great advance because the latter can be quantified, with units of amount of crop yield per volume of water supplied or used, say, kg m-3 or kg ha-1 mm-1. Because it can be quantified, it enables improvements to be charted, thereby encouraging faster progress. In irrigated agriculture “water productivity” has several meanings. To a geographer or irrigation engineer, it might mean the value of crops produced in an irrigation area in relation to the water supply to that area. To an agronomist or farmer, it means the amount of crop yield per amount of water supplied or used. Here the scientific challenges are to use limited supplies of irrigation water to best effect. This includes optimizing supplemental irrigations, developing effective techniques of deficit irrigation that reduce water use more than they reduce yields, and making effective use of drainage water. These are substantial challenges that are being effectively pursued by ICARDA. In dryland agriculture, water productivity usually denotes the amount of crop yield per unit of water supply, such as rain during the growing season, or snowmelt, plus any available water accumulated in the soil during between growing seasons. As in irrigated agriculture it is quantifiable, with units of kg ha-1 mm-1. Nevertheless, the idea of drought tolerance, even though it is not clearly quantifiable, remains in widespread use among laboratory scientists such as plant physiologists, biochemists and molecular biologists. It tends to deal more with survival than with production. While it is true that a crop plant that does not survive severe water deficits will not produce any yield, the converse is rarely true. Thus the challenge provided by changing focus from ‘‘drought tolerance’’ to ‘‘water productivity’’ clarifies the targets of research, especially those carried out at the time scales of hours to days that are common in laboratory experiments. Some processes occurring at these time scales, such as the maintenance of adequate floral fertility despite severe water deficits at flowering, can strongly affect water-limited yields. Others, such as the expression of genes during sudden severe water deficits in plants, have little relevance in the field. The reason for this lack of relevance is that crop yield is the culmination of processes occurring over the whole of its growing season. It depends largely on slowly acting processes that occur throughout the growing season rather than on sudden events. In the dryland cropping environment, there are three avenues for converting a limiting water supply into grain yield. We can ensure (a) that as much of it as possible is used by the plant, rather than lost to say, weeds, or drainage beyond the reach of roots, or run-off, or direct evaporation from the soil; (b) that the trade of water for carbon dioxide by the leaves is most effectively converted into dry matter; and (c) that as much of that dry matter as possible is converted into grain, i.e. that we achieve a large harvest index.

10

These three components of dryland crop yield require much agronomic, micrometeorological and crop physiological research if they are to be effectively optimized. Such optimization also requires genotypes whose development, both in timing of flowering and in trajectory of leaf area development, are suitable for the target environment. For example, the trajectory of leaf area development between sowing and flowering influences the loss of water by direct evaporation from the soil surface (a major loss of water in Mediterranean environments), competition with weeds, and the development of sufficient biomass by flowering that the plant is able to set an adequate number of seeds. This trajectory depends critically on adequate nutrition, timeliness of sowing, control of weeds and diseases of roots, and ability of the seedlings to establish well. The understanding and effective manipulation of the various processes involved is critical to increasing water productivity in dryland environments. ICARDA was once at the forefront of this area of research, but is no longer. There is a great opportunity to redress the current lack of expertise in this area. It is common in semi-arid cropping environments worldwide for farmer’s crop yields to be limited more by poor management, or by often unrecognized problems in the soils, than by the limitation of water per se. Robust models now exist for estimating water-limited yields of crops which are free from disease and are well-managed. The gap between actual yields and these so estimated can be very revealing, and can be a substantial inspiration for agronomic, genetic, and socioeconomic research that can reduced these gaps. ICARDA has the capability of mapping these yield gaps, at a range of scales, throughout CWANA, with the judicious use of appropriate models supported by data on soils and weather. To do so would require a team involving expertise in GIS, simulation modeling, and agronomy. Such maps would constitute an essential resource for strategic planning of future research on dryland cropping. The previous discussion focused on production of annual crops, basically cereals and legumes, which are the primary components of the agricultural systems of the dry areas. With the current emphasis on alleviating poverty, research on livestock production systems for the poor is essential, as sheep and goats are often basic elements in sustaining livelihoods in the region. Here it is important to identify the nature of the research required to improve the nutrition and management of livestock and its integration with the management of rangelands and cropping systems. There are substantial opportunities for breeding better livestock, for example by artificial insemination from elite males, and by tapping into the genetic diversity among sheep and goats that abounds in CWANA. There are also opportunities for increasing the value of the products arising from the livestock. Income generation in dryland agriculture by diversification has often been advocated in the past, and alternative crops to cereals have been tested and introduced in many areas around the region, often with limited success. Nevertheless the introduction of “break” crops, especially Brassica spp, into predominantly cereal systems in other parts of the world has been very beneficial – in part through the improved control of often cryptic root diseases – and is worth exploring more thoroughly in CWANA. Some tree crop species merit serious consideration, in particular the olive in the areas where it is adapted. In addition to being an important part of the diet, world demand for olive oil is

11

increasing and orchard productivity is rising rapidly due to the introduction of a new agronomy. Traditionally, olive trees have brought more stability to household income of those dependent on annual crops, and have reduced the risks faced by small farmers. The water productivity of modern olive plantations is currently the highest among all dryland production options in the region, thus research on this crop is of paramount importance. Other fruit and nut tree crops suited for mild climates merit attention in the search for options contributing to risk reduction of small producers. In achieving success in improving agricultural systems, access to appropriate knowledge and technologies has to go hand in hand with the existence of adequate markets and policies that enable farmers to take up innovation and to advance. Policies and institutions are critical in enabling the improvement of production systems while protecting the natural resource base. Therefore, social science research has to be an important and integral part of any research program aimed at meeting the challenge of increasing productivity of dryland systems as a means of improving livelihoods. An appropriate way of carrying out an integrated research program is to identify a representative location and to concentrate all efforts in solving the problems faced by agriculture in the area. This idea has given rise to the concept of benchmark sites. The proper use of such sites guarantees that all relevant aspects are covered, and the involvement of multiple stakeholders ensures that new ideas are tested under real conditions and can be picked up by users as needed. The specific role of benchmark sites at ICARDA is covered in the following section. Understanding the behavior of agricultural systems and their responses to management interventions: the use of benchmark sites by ICARDA To deal with the multi-faceted problems of rural poverty, ICARDA has developed an integrated approach to study the management of natural resources. As part of the effort to gain a deeper understanding of the myriad of processes affected by management and to extend the research results beyond a specific location, the selection and characterization of representative sites of the agro ecological zone of interest is a critical research component. These sites are referred to as benchmark sites (BMS) and are chosen to represent the major agricultural, environmental, and human elements of a region. The concentration of R&D activities at a site guarantees that all relevant aspects are covered, and the involvement of multiple stakeholders ensures that new ideas are tested under real conditions and can be picked up by users as needed. ICARDA has developed a methodology for BMS selection that is coherent and up-to-date, using available biophysical information and GIS-based agro-ecological characterization and similarity analysis to assess the different environments across the CWANA Region. The refinement of the methodologies currently used in ICARDA is evidenced by a recent study of its GIS Unit that subdivides the CWANA and northern Mediterranean region into 677 different agroecological zones, using climate, land use/land cover, terrain and soils as differentiating criteria. The potential of this work as the basis for yield gap research, beyond benchmark site selection, cannot be overemphasized. These methodologies are also used by ICARDA to map livelihood systems as well, when quantitative and reliable socio-economic information is available. A framework has been developed to analyze rural livelihoods in terms of their assets and to assess the likely impact of research on poverty reduction and on the environment. The interactions between biophysical and social scientists are ensured by the fact that such a framework is now an integral part of the research carried out in ICARDA’s BMS.

12

Although the firstly developed BMS is the Khanasser Valley in Syria, (discussed in Chapter 3 under MP3), with others following in Egypt and Uzbekistan, the Water project has developed three BMS for water management research across West Asia and North Africa. The sites are located in Jordan, Morocco and Egypt and they represent the marginal drylands (range-livestock systems), the rain fed and irrigated systems, respectively. Additionally, satellite sites have been selected in other locations to assess the role of system features that vary among similar environments, such as socio-economics and policy issues. Other integrated benchmark research sites have been recently established by ICARDA within the Challenge Program on Water and Food in the Karkheh River Basin in Iran. The research undertaken in these sites is relevant to addressing the water management problems identified in each location, and mechanisms are in place to extend the research results to other locations in similar environments across CWANA. The Panel believes that the use of BMS is very useful to advance the understanding of system behavior and of its response to management interventions. There are risks, opportunities and challenges in the approach, however. One major risk, that occurs very frequently, is an overemphasis on characterization and on descriptive approaches as opposed to functional approaches. If all the ingredients for interdisciplinary R&D are present, there are excellent opportunities for explicit demonstration of the impact of such activities on technology adoption and enhancement of rural livelihoods. There are also opportunities to use the BMS as locations to test adaptive management approaches, in which all stakeholders in a ‘learning by doing’ process make research-based decisions aimed at improving conditions in their environment. In that regard, combining the BMS approach with the “Bright Spots” initiative (selecting within the BMS, groups of advanced farmers that could lead the community) has the possibility of further enhancing the impact of research at the sites. The challenges that are faced relate to: a) the need to ensure financing to sustain quality research throughout the planned period (BMS have been set up under a range of arrangements - core funds, special projects etc. - but to meet their strategic function research will have to be carried out at these sites over a long time span); b) serious involvement by the NARS and other stakeholders so that results are put to use (a proper program of devolution to regions will require training); and c) determining the correct timeframes for carrying out research or terminating the research when planned objectives are met. Benchmark sites can use very substantial research resources and also become identified with the image of the Center. If work carried out is not of the highest quality and it fails to deliver, the damage to the image of the Center would be much more significant than a standard project failure. The Panel is of the opinion that ICARDA’s BMS are well designed and managed, and believes that they will contribute significantly to the programs in natural resources management. ICARDA current focus and themes The focus of ICARDA’s current research is on the management of scarce water resources and mitigation of drought. This involves field-level studies of water use supported by modeling and socioeconomic analysis. An historical focus which remains a major theme of ICARDA is in integrated gene management of its target commodities (particularly barley, wheat, chick pea, lentil, faba bean and forage species) and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity in the dry areas. This research focuses on conservation, characterization and improvement of genetic resources through onstation research, participatory plant breeding and research on seed systems. There are thrusts on natural resources management (including research on, and to ameliorate, the effects of desertification) which includes the improvement of conceptual models as well as field research on resource saving technologies in crop livestock systems. The latter include the widespread

13

pastoral systems in steppe lands in which small ruminant feeds and management are important. Efforts are also being made in the diversification and sustainable improvement of crop and livestock production systems in dry areas as a particular element of ICARDA’s approach to the alleviation of poverty. More research is being planned in this area. Socio-economic and policy research has focused on poverty and livelihood analysis and determining the impact of ICARDA’s research in the region. New initiatives have been proposed in knowledge management and dissemination of best practice in an array of ICARDA technologies to enhance sustainability and development. The structure and evolution of the current research program is described in Chapter 2. ICARDA conducts station and field studies at a range of sites across its mandated CWANA region, and seeks to extend its research (particularly in barley improvement and in small ruminant systems) to similar dry land ecosystems, including to Latin America (see Chapter 2). History up to the last EPMR The origins of the Center date from 1973, when the CGIAR reviewed the research needs of the WANA region and, through the recommendation of a team of experts, decided in 1975, to create a new research center to address the needs of the region while undertaking global responsibility for some crops and production systems. The original plans of having the main headquarters in Lebanon with satellite stations in Syria and Iran had to be modified for political reasons. Following the generous offer of the Tel Hadya farm near Aleppo by the Syrian Government, research activities started in 1978 and ICARDA headquarters were transferred to Syria from Lebanon in 1981. However, ICARDA still operates Terbol Research Station in Lebanon based on an agreement with the Lebanese Government. ICARDA undertook its mission, as defined in its 1975 Charter, with such an enthusiasm that in about a decade, it achieved prestige among the international scientific community and also had significant impact on the region, as described in the 1989 document entitled: Sustainable Agriculture for the Dry Lands: ICARDA’s Strategy. The original focus on research only in dryland agriculture opened the way, as time went on, to exploring other areas related to water scarcity and management such as irrigated systems. Since the early 90’s, ICARDA has been carrying out research on the improvement of water productivity in both rainfed and irrigated systems. In its revision of its strategy during that period, ICARDA also proposed an expansion of the original WANA region to include the newly independent countries in Central Asia and the Caucasus that have agroecologies similar to those of countries within the original regional mandate. Soon after the publication of ICARDA’s current strategy document in 1998, the CGIAR accepted that ICARDA’s new geographical mandate would include those countries as well, thus leading to the current “CWANA” denomination of the region. In line with this decision, ICARDA revised its mission statement based on the 1998-2000 Medium Term Plan. In its most recent MTP for 2007-2009, ICARDA’s mandate ecoregion is described as being the “Dry Areas”, which includes principally the non-tropical dry areas globally as well as selected areas within the tropical zone with a geographic focus on the Central and West Asia and North Africa (CWANA). Last EPMR recommendations and Center responses The Report of the Fourth EPMR of ICARDA was submitted in February 1999 and the Center in its response later the same year accepted the majority of the Report’s recommendations (Annex 11). The current Panel has taken the former Report as the point of departure for the current review,

14

focusing on changes that have occurred in the Center’s context of operation and research and research-related activities in the period 2000 to mid-2006. Recent Center Commissioned External Reviews Since the last EPMR, the Center has commissioned four Center Commissioned External Reviews (or CCERs) of different aspects of the Center’s Programs and organization, namely: • • • • ICARDA’s Outreach activities Integrated Gene Management Natural Resources Management and Socio-Economics Capacity Building

The EPMR Panel considered three of the CCER reports, as well as the Board approved responses made by the Center to the recommendations of these CCERs (listed in Annexes 7, 8 and 9). The fourth CCER, on capacity building, was carried out (in June 2005) but due to a serious medical illness to the Chair of that CCER Panel the report has been unavailable to the Center or to the EPMR Panel. The other three CCERs are considered in the following: Assessment of the Outreach CCER ICARDA is a Center serving a heterogeneous region with widely distributed activities (the regional programs are further discussed in Chapter 4). Given the importance of ICARDA’s outreach activities, the Outreach CCER review is a critical element for the assessment of work at the Center. In that regard, the Panel was very pleased to see that the CCER was lead by a person of excellent reputation and considerable CGIAR experience. The terms of reference of the CCER were somewhat diffuse and were not all covered in the Report, but that does not detract from the strength of the assessment and the recommendations made by the CCER Panel. The overall conclusion of the Outreach CCER is that ICARDA has an outstanding outreach program in terms of the extent and diversity of collaborative activities. The CCER Panel commended the Center management and staff for the establishment of the six regional programs that effectively cover all areas of CWANA, and which represent a major instrument for a successful outreach program. The CCER Panel made 10 recommendations, some of them beyond the original focus of the review, but that may have arisen as a consequence of the needs perceived by the Panel. For example, one major recommendation asked to re-formulate the complete research agenda, then with 19 projects, into one with a smaller number of interdisciplinary projects. This recommendation was taken up by the Center and has lead to the formulation of the current research structure of six Mega-Projects (MP). The review also pointed out the effects of the changes in funding—from unrestricted to restricted—have in changing the balance of outreach activities and the regional emphases. The CCER Panel examined the research management structure in relation to outreach. Their report raised two concerns that led to a recommendation on the need for a change in management structure to a single, clear line of reporting for all research matters. It also pointed out the potential difficulties in the interplay between headquarters and regional programs with the current double management structure. As to the activities, the CCER Panel recommended that ICARDA expand its current role as an agent promoting research, in a triangular fashion with NARS and advanced institutions, on crops and themes beyond its current mandate.

15

The CCER Panel detected increasing pressures on the researchers to deliver more and more in this area, possibly at the expense of the research activities, although the Panel did not emphasize this point. The CCER addressed the concerns of the past EPMR in seven issues. The CCER did not detect any decline in the quality of science since 1990, although they pointed out at a decrease in the quantity of quality outputs, as measured by number of refereed publications per scientist. They also addressed other concerns of the fourth EPMR but did not agree with the perception gained by the 4th EPMR that ICARDA does not have excellent relations with policy makers in the countries of CWANA. The CCER gathered testimonies from over 100 respondents from almost 30 countries that uniformly expressed their positive feelings about the cooperation with ICARDA (41% rated it excellent, and 58%, good). Over half of the testimonies came from directors of agricultural R&D institutions. The CCER also presented specific evidence of technology transfer and impact of the outreach activities that strongly supports the overall conclusion stated above. Assessment of Integrated Gene Management CCER A highly qualified team of four experts - ranging from plant breeding to plant breeding/plant pathology to agricultural economics with expertise in the seed trade - reviewed the Integrated Gene Management activities and made 37 recommendations. Of these 37 recommendations, ICARDA accepted most or all aspects of 29 recommendations. Of the accepted recommendations, many were related to funding and must wait until funding sources can be identified. Of the accepted recommendations, some will need reconsideration or follow-up for monitoring. Specifically, recommendation 8 to develop a “white paper” for the release of farmer-developed varieties is problematic. Farmer-developed varieties will be developed through the participatory plant breeding (PPB) efforts that target the informal seed market and often lack the homogeneity required in the formal seed market. By nature, the informal seed market is largely unregulated and with low profit margins. Hence, while developing a white paper on ownership may provide a clear policy, as a matter of practicality, it is hard to understand how defined ownership rights can or would be effectively enforced in the informal seed market. The formal seed market already has numerous, enforceable regulations that include ownership, hence further efforts on ownership rights may be unnecessary or could be minimally reviewed to determine how best to respond to this issue. Recommendation 14 refers to increased efforts on marker assisted selection (MAS) for abiotic stresses such as drought tolerance, but does not define these abiotic stresses or how they will be assayed with the implicit assumption that the phenotypic assays are proven. Abiotic stress is a complicated problem. Before QTLs can be tagged by molecular markers, a fundamental understanding of abiotic stress is needed; specifically its phenotype, the frequency of the stress leading to this phenotype, and the assay for the measured phenotype must be proven. Recommendation 19 was for further study of adding a pea program to forage legume improvement and the final decision was not mentioned, but we believe it was largely rejected by the Center which is appropriate due the need for a more focused forage program. Eight recommendations were rejected by ICARDA. Recommendation 1 was largely accepted, resulting in the formation of the Integrated Gene Management (MP2) unit. However, including the Seed Unit in MP2 was rejected. The Seed Unit was put into MP6 (Knowledge Management and Dissemination). As described in this report, the Panel believes that the preferred MP for the Seed Unit is MP2, but other MPs could be considered for housing the Seed Unit depending upon its major responsibilities. Recommendation 2 to develop two programs (food and forage legumes,

16

and cereal grains) was rejected because ICARDA decided smaller operational departments were preferred and additional management structures were not needed. The CCER’s rationale for this recommendation were not compelling. Recommendation 6 suggests a number of needs for PPB including the need to retain heterogeneity in variety releases. We agree, as stated by ICARDA, that this is a desirable goal, but may not be accepted in the formal seed market in many of the CWANA countries, hence the recommendation should not be implemented, especially in those countries where strict uniformity standards are mandated. Recommendation 18 proposed delineating ICARDA’s winter wheat/facultative wheat activities into four target areas that differ from those proposed by ICARDA. ICARDA’s response, which we find acceptable, was that small alterations in their WW/FW program allowed coverage of the same major ecosystems but based on ICARDA’s organizational structure. Recommendation 23 proposed further exploration and evaluation of potential forage legumes. ICARDA rejected this recommendation because the previous CCER recommended a more focused approach on fewer forage legumes so as to make greater progress. We agree with ICARDA and the previous CCER that a more focused approach is the better approach. Recommendation 24 was to increase the staffing for forage legume breeding. This recommendation was correctly rejected because of the more pressing need to identify how the current forages can best be added to the prevalent farming systems. Also, staffing for this unit is discussed in the current EPMR report. Recommendations 34 and 35 relate to various aspects of the Seed Unit, PPB, sharing of profits in the village based seed systems, and developing a seed network. ICARDA correctly rejected those recommendations on the basis that the first critical step is to ensure the sustainability of the seed enterprises (e.g. that they are viable) before assuming there were profits to share. They also suggested that a dues paying seed network would be prohibitively costly for many potential members of the seed network, thus greatly reducing its effectiveness. In summary, the review team was highly qualified and made numerous recommendations which were largely accepted by ICARDA. In those cases where ICARDA disagreed with the recommendation, they generally provided strong rationales for their not accepting the recommendation. Only in a few cases did the Panel disagree with both the CCER recommendation and the ICARDA response. Assessment of Natural Resources Management and Social Science CCER A CCER of ICARDA’s Natural Resource Management Program and Socio-economics was carried out in 2005, a year after the restructuring of the research activities into MegaProjects. The review Panel was highly qualified and was perceptive in its comments. It reinforced the recommendations made by the 4th EPMR that related to NRM and socio-economics, and noted that those recommendations relating to NRM had been well implemented by ICARDA. The CCER produced a number of recommendations (see Annex 9), all of which were accepted by ICARDA. The CCER also noted the difficulty of reconciling the allocation of work and projects between the old and new classifications by MP. Since the CCER covers the broader NRM field within ICARDA, it does not focus on the particular constraints faced by any particular MP. For example, in relation to work now conducted under MP3, it does not comment on the role of research oriented towards achieving change in policy for addressing the institutional, legal and management challenges faced by rangeland areas in the CWANA region. It may be easier to identify technical research to be undertaken to raise productivity but few of these technical

17

solutions will be taken up unless rights and responsibilities for managing rangelands and other common property resources are better specified. Also relevant to the current review was the observations that: “Given the recent restructuring, that particular care be taken to ensure effective allocation of responsibility and reporting for management of projects on NRM, many of which span several mega-projects.” The EPMR Panel is of the opinion that the separation and management of research on natural resources management across MegaProjects is less than optimal. The analysis of the socio-economics program did not have the same degree of detail and precision as that of the NRM program. All recommendations of the CCER relating to socioeconomics were accepted by ICARDA and partially implemented – an effort that must have been limited by financial and organizational constraints. The EPMR Panel draws attention to the following recommendations of the CCER: • • • • • In the light of recent improvements in socio-economic research performance, that a P-level socio-economist be appointed to further strengthen work in this area. That appropriate integrated impact assessment methods be developed to complement the integrated NRM approach. That greater focus be trained on the role played by livestock in improving poor people’s livelihoods. Secure and consolidate a critical mass of social science researchers to work with the other MPs. Publication in refereed journals be increased.

For recommendation 2, the Center advertised a P-level position in socio-economics. For recommendation 3, it is accepted by the Center that a methodology for assessment of the impact of NRM is under consideration. The EPMR Panel notes that recommendation 5 has not been implemented in regard to establishing a critical mass of socio-economists at ICARDA and this need is again stressed in Chapter 3 in relation to MP5. In relation to publications by socioeconomics staff, the recommendation is accepted by the Center and work is in progress in this area. The CCER team did a good job and their recommendations are generally valid and appreciated by the Panel.

18

2

STRATEGIC PLANNING: SETTING PRIORITIES AND PROGRAM STRUCTURE

ICARDA mandate, vision, mission and goals ICARDA’s Charter, written in 1975, assigned the following Mandate to the Center: “…promoting improved and more productive agriculture in developing countries having a dry, subtropical or temperate climate through research and training activities, conducted primarily in the countries of the Near East, North Africa and the Mediterranean region in order to raise the standard of living and promote the social, economic and nutritional well-being of peoples of developing countries.” Specific objectives include: “(a) to serve as an international center for research into and the improvement of barley, lentils and broad beans (Vicia faba); (b) to serve as a regional center in cooperation with other appropriate international agricultural research centers, for research in other crops of major importance to the region, such as wheat and chickpea; (c) to conduct research into and develop, promote and demonstrate improved systems of cropping, farming and livestock husbandry; (d) to collaborate with and foster cooperation and communication among other national, regional and international institutions in the adaptation, testing and demonstration of improved crops, farming and livestock systems; and (e) to foster and support training in research and other activities carried out in the furtherance of its objectives.” The Mission Statement was subsequently revised to clarify the above, and the approach to the new area of the Central Asia and Caucuses which was judged to require assistance to its agricultural research capacity following the dissolution of the former USSR. The new revision was included in the Center’s Medium-Term Plan 1998-2000, which was approved by TAC: “ICARDA serves the entire developing world for the improvement of barley, lentil, and faba bean; and dry-area developing countries for the on-farm management of water, improvement of nutrition and productivity of small ruminants (sheep and goats), and rehabilitation and management of rangelands. In the Central and West Asia and North Africa (CWANA) region, ICARDA is responsible for the improvement of durum and bread wheats, chickpea, pasture and forage legumes and farming systems; and for the protection and enhancement of the natural resource base of water, land, and biodiversity. ICARDA’s research contributes to poverty alleviation through productivity improvements integrated with sustainable natural resource management, and the Center’s research outputs constitute international public goods. ICARDA’s mission is to improve the welfare of poor people through research and training in the dry areas of the developing world, by increasing the production, productivity and nutritional quality of food, while preserving and enhancing the natural resource base.” Mandate in relation to dry areas and/or CWANA: regional or global? The Report that recommended a new International Research Center in the Region in 1972 identified a number of research tasks for improving the agriculture in the Dry Areas that were global in nature. There was also a clear mandate to work with the countries of the Region. As discussed in the previous chapter, activities of ICARDA in recent years have emphasized the regional mandate at the expense of coping with some of the global responsibilities for the dry

19

areas. While it may be difficult to act on such a wide scale when dealing with specific problems, the advantages of having global ambitions in research are substantial. The Panel recommends that the Center should emphasize its global mission and deemphasize somewhat its regional mandate to become a world class research institution for the Dry Areas, for which ICARDA needs to improve its science quality. ICARDA’s Strategic Plan ICARDA’s most recently published Strategic Plan dates from 1998. The previous Strategic Planning process at ICARDA began in 1996/97 and was completed in 1998. Historically, ICARDA’s former 19 research projects were formulated as part of this Strategy and incorporated in 1997 into the TAC-approved MTP 1998-2000. Research was conducted under the 19 project format for several years (as shown in the Center’s Medium-Term Plan (MTP) for 2004-2006). In 2001/02, in response to a global initiative of TAC, ICARDA, together with AARINENA and the CAC NARS Forum, undertook a priority-setting exercise for agricultural research in the CWANA region with NARS, sister Centers and other stakeholders. This included sub-regional brainstorming workshops and a widely circulated survey by questionnaire. The priority setting process culminated in a regional meeting in May 2002 at ICARDA. In 2003, as part of the CGIARwide electronic priority setting exercise led by the SC, a CWANA stakeholder Panel consultation was undertaken, which also informed ICARDA’s visioning. In 2004, ICARDA began a new strategic visioning exercise in view of rapid changes in the external environment and the need for a new medium-term strategy. The Center reports that the exercise started with a review of global and regional externalities to re-examine the socioeconomic context, the political/institutional context (including a review of the Center’s research project portfolio), opportunities emerging from new science and technology, environmental trends and lessons learned by the Center’s research to date. The key driver for evolution in the Center’s research agenda was a focus on poverty alleviation in the Dry Areas, taking into account the Millennium Development Goals. The priority setting exercises highlighted the key challenges of the Dry Areas in general, and CWANA in particular, as water scarcity, desertification, biodiversity loss, and the need to diversify options to improve livelihoods. A separate consultants’ report “Proposal for Expanding the Crop Mandate of ICARDA to Include Horticultural Crops” was published by ICARDA in March 2004 but it does not give guidance on where to focus and has yet to be incorporated into a revision of the overall strategy/strategic balance of the Center. The general strategic exercise was essentially an internal process, but took into account the priorities of NARS in the ecoregion derived from the earlier consultative processes. More recently, the Center has considered the concurrently developed CGIAR Research Priorities formulated with a global perspective. Its completion awaits input from the incoming Director–General to take charge of the visioning process. In consequence, the Program Committee of the Board at its April 2006 Meeting received an update on progress from Center staff and reviewed an early draft of the new Strategy. This was not made available to the Panel and publication of ICARDA’s new strategy is scheduled for early 2007. The Center’s approach has been to incorporate new information arising from the strategic visioning exercise conducted so far into the re-planning of MTPs and the research portfolio. ICARDA therefore views the MTP for 2005-2007 and the six MegaProjects therein as representing an “interim” MTP leading to ICARDA’s next Strategic Plan.

20

Currency of Strategic Plan and Panel comment The Panel hopes that this report will be useful in the development of the new strategic plan that should lead to the realignment of the current structure of the center. Among a number of issues, the Panel believes that the Plan should have sufficient outside scientific thinking to identify research needs and to delineate the different research strategies for problem solving. The plan should be able to project better the likely trajectory of change in the region in terms of national capacities and challenges and to define the focus of ICARDA within the broad strategic possibilities. The plan should also identify how new science and partnerships will be used to examine new livelihood opportunities, and how to provide influence in the promotion of enabling policies. Finally, linkages will need to be shown between strategic and implementation plans, including funding strategies. Positioning of ICARDA in the R&D continuum Several of the Strategic Issues raised in the Terms of reference for the EPMR Panel reflect concerns about the placement of ICARDA’s activities in the research for development continuum. The concerns derive from analysis of the Center’s Medium Term plans in the Review period and with the attempts by the SC to refocus CGIAR research on issues leading to international public goods. Thus, to some degree, concerns about the type and placement of research are generic to the CGIAR renewal process. However, there would seem to be three general drivers influencing ICARDA’s specific approaches, namely strategy, interpretation of the regional mandate and funding. ICARDA has responded to the goal of poverty alleviation through substantially raised awareness amongst its staff and (as an example) the introduction of participatory methodologies. The need is expressed throughout ICARDA’s material for pro-poor research. As the pursuit of the germplasm improvement program has shown, this does not mean that all research is necessarily conducted with the poor in marginal areas (but a balanced proportion of applied research may be required). The Panel detects a current indecision of how the marriage of ICARDA’s strategic research on the complex problems underlying agriculture in the region (which would underpin poverty alleviation strategies in the longer term) with the local application of research in many different locations will be carried out. ICARDA’s more recent research on water saving technologies (highlighted in Chapter 3) shows the way ahead here, whilst the Panel’s view is that the future research and expected impacts for other aspects of natural resource management is less well articulated. A clear and up to date strategy has not yet been put in place by the Center (see above) and, as is natural, there has been some considerable drift in application since the last Strategic plan was written in 1998. ICARDA has cast itself as serving the needs of the CWANA region – which is diverse in agroecology, economic development and NARES and collaborative capacity. There is close and frequent contact with the KNARS and a tendency to respond to a set of sub-regional demands (through the regional programs in a matrix approach with the MPs). There are clear successes when the network approach can spread improved (e.g. disease resistant) germless or new IMP technologies across collaborating countries but fewer strategic outcomes from country-specific support programs. The Highlands network was formed relatively recently on the recommendation of the Outreach CICERO. However, as currently constituted, it appears to the Panel to be a collection of country-specific activities (Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan). Work in Turkey (previously on wheat) had been rolled back because of the relative economic

21

advance of that country, and the strategic value of work in Iran has been augmented by the adoption of the Harked River Basin as a benchmark site for the Water and Food Challenge Program. Other elements of this “network” are not integrated in a way that is designed to produce international public goods and there is some degree of “post hoc rationalization” of what these activities may achieve. The SC has asserted that it is the intent in the planning of research programs to produce IPGs which defines international public goods research. The Panel agrees with this view and urges ICARDA to raise the expectation of its research involvement to wider contributions to global dry lands agriculture than becoming involved in research which will lead only to national benefits. ICARDA has argued that its seed systems activities in Afghanistan are similarly IPG research. Research on seed systems is required and should be structured appropriately for greatest learning and spillovers. It is not clear that conducting such research in an unstable country such as post-conflict Afghanistan will lead to sustainability of systems or to generally applicable results. However, other assistance provided to the reestablishment of agricultural capacity in the country has been judged as significant. The Center has increased its core funding in absolute terms, but this more flexible funding (from the Center’s perspective) has reduced as a proportion of total funding in relation to restricted, project-specific funding. Currently, virtually all of ICARDA’s research is conducted through special projects with core being used to “top up” requirements in ways that may change from year to year. Inevitably the implementation of the strategic plan of the Center is modified by available funding. However, there has also been an entrepreneurial and opportunistic aspect to ICARDA’s proposal development that has led the Center to take on development assistance-like activities, including post-conflict rehabilitation activities in individual countries which have little or no research of major relevance to the overall outcomes ICARDA seeks in the region. Whilst there is undoubtedly a moral justification for providing short term assistance in areas of ICARDA’s expertise, the balance of ICARDA’s research could be skewed by pursuing such activities in the long term (e.g. Afghanistan). After an initial intervention, such country-specific activities should be left to other agencies that focus on development. Similarly, ICARDA has suggested that, in the absence of existing extension (usually government) services or national program capacity, there is a need to step in to fill the gap (and so ensure the impact from ICARDA technologies). However, ICARDA also have made use of NARS to NARS transfer methods is some specific cases and more could be done. Similarly, the Center should ask where best to carry out research leading to international public goods, the Center’s role in advocacy and policy support to help put in place infrastructure and other development processes that ICARDA’s research alone will not be able to solve. Is then the Center extending too far towards development activities compared to research? The Center’s own estimation of its investment in development assistance-type activities is that this represents (in monetary terms) just 8.4% of the total portfolio. The Panel’s estimation of the project outputs declared in the Center’s MTP for 2006 suggests that 20 of the 44 outputs represent applied research with relatively low new research content. The Panel recognizes the wide diversity in the vision that different donors have regarding the role that ICARDA should play in the R&D continuum (reported in Chapter 4). The Panel’s assessment is that the appropriate balance of research has been altered by the Center accepting work on post-conflict assistance activities and other projects in which there is a marginal research content. This could be overcome through a visible strategy and better articulation ex ante by the Center of what strategic research questions it is addressing in its activities linked to the dissemination of technologies.

22

Are national institutes stronger, because of ICARDA’s regional stance and support? Clearly ICARDA is appreciated by the NARS and ICARDA-trained individuals and collaborators have risen to positions of importance in agriculture across the region. In specific cases (the ability for ICARDA to reduce research in Turkey, Morocco taking over the program for Hessian fly research, the advance of wheat production in Iran) there has been a clear strengthening of some national programs with time. Progress is uneven across the region and is strongly related to economic growth and stability in individual countries. Much of this progress can be undone through structural adjustment policies with unforeseen effects on manpower (e.g. in Morocco), or through long term instability and conflict (Afghanistan). The countries of the CAC present a special challenge where one political and agricultural system has been superseded by the need for more pluralist approaches and individual responsibility of farmers. The CAC PFU is taking the steps to strengthen countries of this region in the absence of other players. Whilst there may be a specific window of assistance and capacity building required by the countries of the CAC, the poorer countries of the WANA region will require support through international agricultural research and capacity building in the longer term. As seen from the foregoing, ICARDA is taking the opportunity to devolve research responsibilities where possible and is seeking opportunities to involve stronger NARS in triangular arrangements for research and capacity building (e.g. catalyzing support for Mauritania through collaborative programs with Morocco). Does seed systems research work contribute to RPGs? The orientation of seed systems research is dealt with in some detail in the discussion of MegaProject 2 in Chapter 3. The major output has been the mechanical seed cleaner (which may assist the start up of small-scale seed supply in various countries) and some observations on the means to reconstitute seed supplies in postconflict situations. The Panel encourages the Center to be clearer in defining research intent and conducting comparative research in several countries of the region to ensure that practical spillovers will result. Seeking comparative advantages What is the role and comparative advantage of ICARDA versus international development agencies such as the FAO and IFAD in the region? IFAD has a substantial record of assistance to the WANA region and was a major supporter of the Mahgreb & Mashreq project. Its long standing emphasis on assistance to the poor of the region has brought it into close collaboration with ICARDA from whom it seeks developmental outputs and guides to best practices in agriculture. IFAD cannot substitute the research function of ICARDA but may help align research with ancillary aspects of development programs (e.g. aspects of livelihoods support) to produce synergies. IFAD is well placed to advertise and introduce best practices resulting from ICARDA’s research into its continuing programs of support to the region. The similarity in the ambition for knowledge management and packaged technologies for dry areas might profitably be explored further between ICARDA, ICRISAT and IFAD. The FAO and ICARDA have long standing relations, both through FAO HQ’s normative functions, e.g. the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, or country assistance programs (e.g. in the joint “code of conduct” between FAO/ICARDA/MOAL (Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, Afghanistan). In August 2002, ICARDA and FAO concluded a Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperation in Rebuilding Agriculture in Afghanistan within the Future Harvest Consortium (“FHCRAA” which ICARDA leads). ICARDA has collaborated with FAO’s

23

Regional Office for the Near East in Cairo, in the provision of consultancies, expert meetings and joint publications. FAO-RNE and ICARDA are cosponsors of the regional Association of Agricultural Research Institutes of the Near East and North Africa (AARINENA). FAO can act as a development agency. FAO has no resources to support development projects or programs. A small but significant part of FAO work is to implement Technical Assistance (TA) components of major donor funded development program with the main purpose of enhancing the use of a technology or creating favorable environments through training and demonstration (e.g. Farmers Field Schools). In a new project (Food Security / Poverty Alleviation in Arid Agriculture Baluchistan) FAO is the implementing agency for a USAID funded development project on food security and poverty alleviation in Baluchistan, Pakistan. FAO has sub-contracted ICARDA to undertake the adaptive research component of the project, which is intended to identify, test and adapt options that can then be introduced on a wider scale through the development project. To do this, ICARDA has instituted a community-based participatory approach, working in representative pilot communities to test potential options together with the intended end users. While the outputs will be of direct use to this specific development project, ICARDA expects them to be of relevance in similar agro-ecological systems (i.e. produce RPGs). Again, the ex ante diagnosis of where these spillovers may be obtained and clear plans for the development of such spillovers indicate better the true likelihood of inputs to development projects resulting in RPGs. ACSAD: The decision of the Arab countries to found the Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands (ACSAD) in 1968 within the framework of the League of the Arab States highlighted the importance of the arid and semi-arid areas for the future of sustainable agricultural development in the Arab world. The headquarter of the center is in Damascus, Syria. ACSAD undertakes different disciplinary approaches to arid and semi arid areas. ACSAD has five research stations for: crops, fruit trees, rangelands, water and soil, and sheep and goats; three training Centers; gene banks for fruit tree germplasm (pistachio, olive, almond, grape and fig), and for wheat and barley germplasm; a central herbarium for arid areas plants; remote sensing, GIS and other laboratories. ACSAD‘s programs are in four areas: Water resources, Soil and water uses, Plant Studies (including wheat and barley), Livestock (small ruminant improvement and research on camels). In summary, ACSAD is more oriented to development and information activities. Its capacity for research is constrained by its limited budget compared to ICARDA but has complementary areas of interest: in groundwater studies, small ruminant and camels, fruit tree germplasm, and soil and water maps. The Panel suggests that there may be opportunities to renew more effective liaison and research activities between ACSAD and ICARDA in these areas, particularly in data sharing for the evaluation of yield gaps and the prioritization of any new research on fruit trees and horticulture. Prioritization processes and current focus The CCER of ICARDA’s Outreach (of March 2004) discussed the ICARDA Annual Research Planning Cycle principally from the perspective of HQ and Regional Program interactions. Their recommendation was that “... the annual planning meeting is organized in such a manner that it becomes the main joint research planning exercise during the year. All scientists need to be fully involved; projects should be discussed in project working groups and the outcomes of the discussions presented in plenary. It should become a planning week where all professional staff members interact with each other and contribute to the updating of the projects and the development of the research agenda.” ICARDA’s response suggested that this approach had begun in 2004 but the EPMR Panel believes that this is an important area for continuing attention. Interactive planning processes in the institute are critical for confirmation of the development

24

and implementation of a new strategy. It becomes even more important to ensure that IPG research is driving the overall agenda because of the tension between MP and regional programs responding to thematic and sub-regional NARS and donor priorities respectively. The Panel also examined the questions: What strategic changes if any should ICARDA make to respond to the new CGIAR Priorities for Research? What trade offs are to be made and what “real time” activities will ICARDA forego (including funds) or handover in order to respond to the new Priorities? The general relationship between ICARDA’s MegaProjects and the CGIAR Priority areas for research are given in Table 3. The full implementation of the Priorities will require the development of inter-center and consortium plans for research but ICARDA’s own estimation of its current research program portfolio was discussed with the Board in May 2006. ICARDA’s main contributions are likely to be in germplasm conservation (1A, 1B); germplasm improvement for biotic and abiotic stresses (2A and 2B); agrological intensification, IPM and improved management of degraded areas (4D); and water productivity (4C). In 2006, ICARDA already suggests a larger budget commitment to research on fruit and vegetables (3A) - a research program not yet formulated (see below) - compared with livestock research (part of 4D, 3B) and with no apparent contribution to livestock genetic resources (1C). The Panel urges that the balance of ICARDA’s portfolio should be developed strategically in relation to the pressing needs of dry land areas and that new research be developed under criteria which include such externalities as water availability and use. Whilst ICARDA’s socio-economic research is generally ascribed to Priority area 5, there will require to be an augmentation in institutional and market research capacity (at both ICARDA and in the CGIAR generally) to meet international research requirements in these areas. ICARDA describes 8.4% of its effort (in dollars) is committed to nonresearch development assistance activities. The Panel does not suggest the dropping of whole areas of research, but rather that ICARDA continue to focus on the major issues of dry land areas and contributing its research on dryland areas to the overall global programs of the CGIAR focused on IPG. For instance, strategic approaches to livestock health, as a market constraint across the region, is considered to be of higher value than ICARDA’s investment in food technology for local situations which can be met through other means. The Panel paid particular attention to the appropriateness and scope of ICARDA’s plans for the work on high value crops and horticulture including marketing and financial services and this is discussed in relation to MP4 (Chapter 3) as this program is charged to develop plans for the diversification of farming systems in the future. The Panel notes that properly prioritized initiatives in this area would respond to new Priority 3A of the CGIAR Priorities for Research. The Panel’s recommendation is for ICARDA to undertake a cautious expansion of these activities focused on tree crops based on collaboration with other sources of pomology expertise and research in developed countries and in the region (see Box 3 Chapter 3). Rationale for current program organization In 2003 a Center-Commissioned External Review on ‘Outreach’ at ICARDA recommended that: ‘ICARDA undertakes a detailed review of the current breakdown of its research agenda, with the purpose to re-formulate the 19 MTP projects into a smaller number of interdisciplinary projects that can effectively address the research needs of the major production systems in the dry areas’.

25

ICARDA’s 19 projects, first incorporated into the TAC-approved MTP 1998-2000 and used until the end of 2004, are listed in Table 1. The 19 MTP projects were nested within the five themes of the CGIAR namely: Crop Germplasm Enhancement, Production Systems Management, Natural Resource Management, Socioeconomics and Policy, and Institutional Strengthening. The six germplasm improvement projects plus the Integrated Pest Management Project were housed in the Germplasm Program. The Natural Resources Management Program was comprised of 10 MTP projects in the areas of production systems management, natural resource management, and socioeconomics and policy. The activities of the Genetic Resources Unit and the Seed Production Unit were reported under one MTP project each. Research Programs and Units continue to be supported by three service units: Computer and Biometric Services Unit (CBSU), Communication, Documentation, and Information Services Unit (CODIS), and Human Resource Development Unit (HRDU, formerly Training Coordination Unit). Chapter 3 evaluates the rationale and outputs for the new MegaProject format.
Table 1 Nineteen Research Projects of ICARDA’s Medium-Term Plan from 1998-2004 with their respective administrative Program/Unit Medium-Term Project to 2005 Theme 1. Crop Germplasm Enhancement Project 1.1. Barley Germplasm Improvement for Increased Productivity and Yield Stability Project 1.2. Durum Wheat Germplasm Improvement for Increased Productivity, Yield Stability, and Grain Quality in West Asia and North Africa Project 1.3. Spring Bread Wheat Germplasm Improvement for Increased Productivity, Yield Stability, and Grain Quality in West Asia and North Africa Project 1.4. Winter and Facultative Bread Wheat Germplasm Improvement for Increased Yield and Yield Stability in Highlands and Cold Winter Areas of Central and West Asia and North Africa Project 1.5. Food Legume Germplasm Improvement (Lentil, Kabuli Chickpea, and Faba Bean) for Increased System Productivity Project 1.6. Forage Legume Germplasm Improvement for Increased Feed Production and Systems Productivity in Dry Areas Theme 2. Production Systems Management Project 2.1. Integrated Pest Management in Cereal and Legume-based Cropping Systems in Dry Areas Project 2.2. Agronomic Management of Cropping Systems for Sustainable Production in Dry Areas Project 2.3. Improvement of Sown Pasture and Forage Production for Livestock Feed in Dry Areas Project 2.4. Rehabilitation and Improved Management of Native Pastures and Rangelands in Dry Areas Project 2.5. Improvement of Small Ruminant Production in Dry Areas Theme 3. Natural Resource Management Project 3.1. Water Resources Conservation and Management for Agricultural Production in Dry Areas Project 3.2. Land Management and Soil Conservation to Sustain Agricultural Productive Capacity of Dry Areas Project 3.3. Agrobiodiversity Collection and Conservation for Sustainable Program/ Unit GP GP

GP

GP

GP GP

GP NRMP NRMP NRMP NRMP NRMP NRMP GRU

26

Utilization Project 3.4. Agroecological Characterization for Agricultural Research, NRMP Crop Management, and Development Planning Theme 4. Socioeconomics and Policy Project 4.1. Socioeconomics of Natural Resource Management in NRMP Dry Areas Project 4.2. Socioeconomics of Agricultural Production Systems in NRMP Dry Areas Project 4.3. Policy and Public Management Research in West Asia and NRMP North Africa Theme 5. Institutional Strengthening Project 5.1. Strengthening National Seed Systems in Central and West Asia SU and North Africa GP = Germplasm Program, NRMP = Natural Resource Management Program, SU = Seed Unit, GRU = Genetic Resources Unit

Adoption of a new project structure for ICARDA’s MTP 2005-2007 In Response to the recommendation of the Outreach CCER, the Center and the Board of Trustees designed, discussed and adopted a new project structure for the ICARDA research portfolio consolidating the 19-project portfolio into six integrated “MegaProjects,” which came into force on 1 January 2005. The Center reports that the MegaProjects were designed to maximize synergy, facilitate the research process and bring to bear the collective knowledge, expertise and resources available to the Center in tackling the problems of the dry areas in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Part of the rationale for the structure of the six MegaProjects was to ensure the continuity of research activities and additionally to accommodate a number of new approaches and avenues in research direction. These newer avenues are described to include: “improved income generation from high value crops and by adding value to staple crop and livestock products; rehabilitating agriculture in conflict/post-conflict situations; and closer alignment of agricultural research with mainstream development programs through research for development applications”. The six MegaProjects (MPs) are: • • • • • • MP 1: Management of Scarce Water Resources and Mitigation of Drought in Dry Areas MP 2: Integrated Gene Management: Conservation, Improvement and Sustainable Use of Agrobiodiversity in Dry Areas. MP 3: Improved Land Management to Combat Desertification. MP 4: Diversification and Sustainable Improvement of Crop and Livestock Production Systems in Dry Areas. MP 5: Poverty and Livelihood Analysis and Impact Assessment in Dry Areas MP 6: Knowledge Management and Dissemination for Sustainable Development in Dry Areas.

The first four MPs (MP1 – MP4) are designed to address specific thematic problems: management of scarce water resources; agrobiodiversity conservation and germplasm improvement; combating desertification; and diversification of rural livelihoods. The last two MPs (MP5 and

27

MP6) are intended to be cross-cutting in nature. MP5 should support the entire research agenda by providing socio-economic evaluation and impact assessment to refine the targeting of research. MP6 focuses on the management, and dissemination to end users, of the research knowledge generated in MP1- MP5. The relationships of the 19 Research Projects (1998-2004) are mapped onto the six MegaProjects of MTP 2005-2007 in Table 2.

28

Table 2 Nineteen (Pre-2005) Research Projects mapped onto the six MegaProjects of MTP 2005-2007
Nineteen Pre-2005 Research Projects MP2 Integrated Gene Management Theme 1. Crop Germplasm Enhancement Project 1.1. Barley * * Improvement Project 1.2. Durum Wheat * * Improvement Project 1.3. Spring Bread * * Wheat Improvement Project 1.4. Winter and * * Facultative Wheat Improvement Project 1.5. Food Legume * * Improvement Project 1.6. Forage Legume * * Improvement Theme 2. Production Systems Management Project 2.1. Integrated Pest * Management Project 2.2. Agronomic Management of Cropping * Systems Project 2.3. Improvement of Sown Pasture and Forage Production Project 2.4. Management of Native Pastures and Rangelands Project 2.5. Small Ruminant * Production Theme 3. Natural Resource Management Project 3.1. Water Resources * Management Project 3.2. Land Management and Soil Conservation Project 3.3. Agrobiodiversity Collection * and Conservation Project 3.4. Agroecological * * Characterization Theme 4. Socioeconomics and Policy Project 4.1 Socioeconomics of Natural Resource * Management Project 4.2. Socioeconomics * MP1 Water MP3 Desertifi -cation MP4 Diversification MP5 Poverty MP6 Knowledge Dissemination

* *

* *

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

*

* * * *

* * *

*

29

of Agricultural Production Systems Project 4.3. Policy and Public Management * Research Theme 5. Institutional Strengthening Project 5.1. Strengthening * National Seed Systems

*

*

*

*

*

Table 3
CGIAR priority

Alignment of ICARDA’s MegaProjects with the CGIAR Research Priorities
MP1 Water MP2 Integrated Gene Management MP3 Desertification MP4 Diversification MP5 Poverty MP6 Knowledge Dissemination

1. Biodiversity 2. Genetic improvement 3. High-value commodities/products 4. Managing water/land 5. Policies and institutions

xx xx

x xx

x x x x xx

x x x x x

xx x

xx x

x

Concurrent with the re-arrangement of ICARDA’s research into six MegaProjects has been the preparation of the CGIAR Research Priorities by the SC. The alignment of ICARDA’s MegaProjects with the five CGIAR Priorities is shown in Table 3. ICARDA’s Regional Programs and Country offices Collaborative research between ICARDA scientists and NARS partners is conducted through Regional Programs. In 2000, there were seven regional programs: • • • • • • • West Asia Regional Program (WARP). Nile Valley and Red Sea Regional Program (NVRSRP). North Africa Regional Program (NARP). Arabian Peninsula Regional Program (APRP). Highlands Regional Program (HRP). Latin America Regional Program (LARP). Central Asia and the Caucasus Regional Program (CACRP).

The program in the CAC was inaugurated in 1998 with a regional office in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. There was also a Pakistan project with a scientist based in Islamabad. In 1996 an office was opened in Tehran, Iran, with a cereal breeder. In 2002, a country office was opened in Kabul, Afghanistan. Following the recommendation of the CCER on the outreach activities, the Highland Regional Program has been transformed in a Highland Research Network. Research conducted within the six regional programs is an integral part of the six MegaProjects. Regional Programs and outreach projects are coordinated by senior scientists serving as Regional Coordinators and country-based scientists/coordinators. The Assistant Director General

30

(International Cooperation) provides general oversight, while the Assistant Director General (Research) provides guidance on issues and direction of research. The research and associated activities of the regional projects is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. Panel comments on the de facto matrix – accident or design? The adoption of the MegaProjects with regional programs embedded in the MP structure had developed a de facto matrix management arrangement. The Center responded rapidly to the recommendation of the Outreach CCER to increase program focus and integrate the former 19 projects into more useful units. The rather rapid adoption of the MegaProject structure is not yet adding value across the Center (despite enhanced attention to water and socio-economics) and has raised issues of staff time management which have been discussed by the Center but are being tested on a trial and error basis. Some Regional Coordinators report difficulties in commanding the time of MP staff from headquarters to backstop regional projects because of the HQ staff commitments. The Panel notes that the MP structure was inaugurated without either a new strategic plan being developed or a detailed plan for implementation under the new structure. Hiring of new MegaProject directors and staff has continued also in the absence of an updated strategic plan. The Panel discusses elsewhere that it is likely that the MP structure is not optimal to meet the needs of ICARDA and further adjustments will be required. This is likely to take time and, to avoid further disruption, should be done only after strategic and implementation plans are in place, particularly to encompass areas of natural resources management, means to address new initiatives in diversification and for knowledge management.

31

32

3

QUALITY, RELEVANCE AND IMPACTS OF SCIENCE

This Chapter reviews and provides the Panel’s assessments of ICARDA’s thematic MegaProjects, and the quality of science and support services. MegaProject 1: Management of Scarce Water Resources and Mitigation of Drought in Dry Areas Background CWANA covers most of the water poor countries of the world, including 15 that are already below the water “poverty line” of 1000 m3/capita/year. About 75% of available water in the areas is used for agriculture, but increasing competition is coming from domestic and commercial demand driven by a combination of high population growth rates and rising urban standards of living. Water currently available to agriculture is therefore likely to decrease substantially in the coming decades. Sustainable increases in food supplies must therefore come from better productivity of both rainfed and irrigated agriculture, augmented by the use of recycled water and water of marginal quality, though the latter brings with it the risk of rapid salinization. Thus the only option available to generate more agricultural production is to increase the productivity of water, by maximizing the fraction of the total water supply that is beneficially used, and by obtaining the maximum return for every unit of water used beneficially, in both irrigated (6% of the region’s arable land) and rainfed areas. There are considerable opportunities to do this, for current agricultural water use in CWANA is highly inefficient. These opportunities include: • Better agronomic and soil management of rainfed crops that would lead to augmenting stored soil water for crop use and to decreasing runoff and evaporation losses, especially involving conservation agricultural practices. Deficit irrigation in its various forms, all aimed at reducing applied irrigation water while maintaining or increasing net returns to the farmer and to society. One form of deficit irrigation very relevant in the region, given the scarcity of water, is that called supplemental irrigation, which can make use of a small amount of water highly productively at especially vulnerable times for a crop, for example at optimal sowing time if the seasonal rains are late, or at flowering, when water deficits can drastically reduce the number of seeds set. Water harvesting in small catchments, which can capture water that might otherwise by lost by runoff and evaporation and put it to productive use. Use of recycled water, such as surface drainage from irrigation, and effluent, following appropriate sanitary treatment. Judicious use of renewable groundwater resources, including those of marginal quality. Community involvement in developing better practices.

•

• • • •

The 4th EPMR recognized these matters and recommended that “ICARDA place more emphasis on strategic issues of water use/allocation and management at rural community level, and that it join in strategic partnerships to carry out this work”. This recommendation has been well implemented, both before the 2004 restructure of the projects, and after, with the creation of this MegaProject. Of particular note is the involvement of MP1 in Benchmark Sites.

33

A CCER of ICARDA’s Natural Resource Management Program and Socio-economics carried out a year after the restructure persuasively reinforced these earlier recommendations and recommended additionally that socio-economists be engaged to develop appropriate impact assessment methods. Finally, production in water-limited agricultural systems is often not limited by water. Other soilrelated issues (both abiotic and biotic), among many factors, play an important role in determining final yield. Studying water in isolation is not the most productive option to bridge the gap between actual and attainable yields. Current activities include: • A program, involving benchmark sites in Morocco, Egypt and Jordan, is exploring, respectively: rainfed cropping with supplemental irrigation; irrigation with fresh and marginal waters; and water harvesting in the steppe. Each of these sites has satellites. The project is carried out on these various sites primarily by the NARS. • A CP-WF project on Improving On-farm Agricultural Water Productivity in the Karkheh River Basin (KRB) in Iran aims at improving water productivity at farm and basin levels. It involves Benchmark sites selected in representative watersheds for rainfed and irrigated conditions. It addresses sustainable improvement of water productivity and looks into environmental consequences of interventions as well as policy and institutions. • A project funded by ADB, in partnership with IWMI and ICBA, entitled “Bright Spots for Salinity Management in Central Asia”, aims to identify groups of farmers who are managing salinity well, with whom they can work, on-farm, to devise principles of sustainable management of salt-prone land and water resources. • A project on the “Assessment of Water Harvesting and Supplemental Irrigation Potential in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas of West Asia and North Africa”, funded by the CGIAR Systemwide Initiative on Water Management led by IWMI, aims at developing methodologies for assessing the potential and the consequences of implementing water harvesting and supplemental irrigation at the pilot site and country level with out-scaling to the WANA region. • A project on “Crop Water Stress Indices”, with core funding, aims to quantify crop water stress. Crop measurements, including porometry, leaf water potential, and infrared thermometry are being used to develop stress indices for wheat, grain legumes and alternate summer crops. This research aims to contribute to breeding for drought tolerance and improving water productivity under stressful conditions. Achievements include: • The use of supplemental irrigation at the optimal sowing time of a crop was shown to increase yield greatly because of the timely early development of the crop. The increase in water productivity was spectacularly large. • Deficit irrigation of crops was shown to substantially increase water productivity, through using much less irrigation water without a substantial decrease in yield. Optimal strategies for using deficit irrigation were developed. • Rangelands productivity was shown to be increased and erosion decreased with water harvesting. Methodologies inspired by traditional water harvesting techniques were developed, including the selection of suitable sites using GIS and remote sensing. • Increased awareness of the value of water of marginal quality, including brackish water and treated sewage effluent. • Methodology for assessing groundwater resources was developed to guide optimal se.

34

•

Capacity of NARS was developed through training courses and on-the-job training relating to the above advances.

Quality, relevance and impacts of science The research of MP1 is well known internationally, and is published in a timely way in refereed international journals, in conference proceedings, and in research reports that target NARS. The senior staff are often invited to deliver talks at international conferences, and to write chapters in influential books. The group has international leaders in their field and have made major contributions especially in water harvesting and in supplemental irrigation. They have formed effective alliances with IWMI, as cemented by a recent joint appointment, based at Aleppo. They have excelled at involving local communities, especially, in collaboration with IWMI, when catchment matters are involved, as in some water harvesting projects in which people down slope are affected by what happens up slope. Despite their many successes, and despite collaboration with MP5, adoption rates of the new technologies they have developed have so far been low. Reasons include insufficient incentives for water conservation, a well-known paradox of most water-scarce regions of developing countries, and difficulties in finding entry points for the delivery of these new technologies. Collaboration with MP5 has already started on studying some of these issues and its strengthening is in order. Future research plans include: • Continuing with the existing productive research themes (deficit and supplemental irrigation, water harvesting, use of marginal waters, assessment of water resources and their effective use). • Developing methods, options and strategies for drought characterization, preparedness, and mitigation. • Exploring technical, institutional and policy options for improved water use and irrigation demand management. • Developing an inventory on the production and use of marginal-quality waters in CWANA. • Improving the long-term sustainable and economic use of groundwater resources, with emphasis on local options for artificial recharge and water level response management, as well as national-level policy and regulatory frameworks. • Developing technical and policy interventions for managing risk associated with the use of marginal water. • Developing methods such as infrared thermometry to develop and quantify crop water stress and its impact on final yield. Assessment and future challenges ICARDA is undoubtedly one of the world leaders in research aimed at improving agricultural water productivity in semi-arid environments, both irrigated and rainfed. Its work is original, often highly so. It takes pains to put its on-farm research into geographic context, as with the collaborations with IWMI which enables scaling up from farm to catchment. It involves farmers and farming communities early in its research projects, so that it can build on local knowledge. In so doing it makes effective use of benchmark sites augmented with satellite sites for testing the robustness of the findings at the benchmark sites. It is strongly involved with the NARS, who are

35

often responsible for running the benchmark sites, and who are offered a range of training courses. It is a little perplexing then to note that the adoption of the various new, seemingly attractive, technologies developed in this MegaProject has been slow. As already stated above, this may be due to the general lack of incentives to conserve water in irrigation management. Evidently, additional collaboration with social scientists in MP5 is needed to explore the motivations and requirements of the farmers and of water agencies. The Panel recommends that MP1 embraces research on water policy, institutions and adoption strategies to further enhance a very good program in water management. This may entail strengthened collaboration between MP1 and MP5 to add research in these areas. Given the quantitative power of the idea of water productivity, so effectively used in MP1, it is surprising to see sustained interest in the poorly quantifiable idea of drought tolerance, as evidenced by the work on crop water stress indices. While it is true that measuring stomatal conductance, as in porometry, or measuring the difference in temperature between leaf and air, as in infrared thermometry, can help define how plants are responding to water deficits, it is not easy to make use of these measurements in breeding programs, or to make sense of their significance in relation to water productivity. As a contribution to pertinent crop physiology, it may be better to develop further expertise in measuring the water balance of crops and pastures – to characterize to what extent a limiting supply of water to rainfed plants is partitioned into productive water use by the plants and to what extent that water is lost by direct evaporation from the soil, or runoff, or drainage beyond the reach of the plants’ roots, or how the roots take up water from the soil as a function of time and depth during periods of drought. Such knowledge may provide more useful pointers to how to improve water productivity than measurements of the water status of the crops. MegaProject 2: Integrated Gene Management Background The Integrated Gene Management (IGM) MegaProject (MP2) was restructured in 2004 as a clientfocused project that addresses food security needs of the dry areas and CWANA region. The major focus is on improving water productivity of ICARDA’s mandate crops through breeding drought tolerant, high-yielding and better quality varieties. In partnership with national and nongovernmental research for development institutions, the main products of this MegaProject include: 1) drought tolerant varieties of wheat, barley, chickpea, lentil, faba bean and feed legumes; 2) improved methods and/or tools for genetic enhancement; 3) biofortified cultivars; 4) expanded knowledge on in situ and ex situ conservation of cereals and legumes through molecular finger-printing and targeted field evaluations of economic traits; 5) strengthened capacity of national partners; and 6) options for the integrated management of key cereal and legume pests and diseases. This discussion starts with the raw material – Genetic Resources: Conservation, Evaluation, and Utilization of Cereals and Legumes. Subsequently it considers breeding programs, the integrated pest management program, and finally the biotechnology program and future developments.

36

Genetic resources: Conservation, evaluation, and utilization of cereals and legumes The goal of the Genetic Resource Unit (GRU) is to enhance food security and sustainability of agricultural production systems based on the conservation and utilization of the biodiversity of ICARDA’s mandate crops: wheat, barley, lentil, chickpea, faba bean and pasture and forage legume species and their associated rhizobia. Saving and investigating the biodiversity still available in CWANA, the center of origin and diversity of the world’s major food crops, is not only important to meet the present challenges, but is indispensable for future needs of agriculture. The achievements of this program, since the last EPMR (1999) include 3,728 new germplasm collections, 11,087 new accessions acquired, 220,000 seed samples distributed (86,000 within the GRU, 50,000 to other ICARDA users, and 84,000 world wide), 353 NARS participants trained, and fingerprinting 3,000 barley, 1,000 lentil, and 1,000 faba bean accessions, and 4000 chickpea accession in collaboration with ICRISAT. Current activities include: identification and collection of new germplasm to fill gaps in the collection and collaboration with the Vavilov Institute (VIR) to acquire or rescue the unique germplasm of ICARDA mandate crops, seed increase of new accessions and germplasm characterization and evaluation, continued efforts on finger-printing barley, lentil and faba bean accessions, and chickpea accessions in collaboration with ICRISAT, ex situ conservation of germplasm, germplasm documentation through linking the GRU databases, capacity building in plant taxonomy and genetic resources, wheat pre-breeding, and introduction of new seed health diagnostic techniques. In the future, the GRU will explore and develop genetic information databases through the use of the advanced information technology (especially those in the CAC countries), use molecular tools for germplasm characterization, increase ex situ conservation activities, strengthen in-situ/onfarm germplasm conservation and management of rangeland and arid land biodiversity, continue to rescue the unique VIR collections, and continue wheat and mandated crops prebreeding. Assessment and future challenges To put these accomplishments and plans in perspective, the ICARDA collection had more requests for accessions than any other collection in the CGIAR; an indicator of success, accessibility and user friendliness. It is also making very good use of its being in the center of diversity (e.g. the in situ germplasm conservation and the ex situ collections) for many of the world’s major or regionally important crops. Three aspects that deserve particular note are first that the barley (an ICARDA global responsibility) curation has inventoried all major (61) barley germplasm collections to identify distinctiveness and overlaps among accessions, areas of collection etc. so that the global barley efforts can determine which collections are most distinct to sample for rare genes. This effort may be the most advanced electronic curation of the global germplasm resources of any major crop and is available to global users. Second, as part of the wheat prebreeding efforts, introgression of important agronomic traits from the A genome donor and putative B genome donor of wheat, as well as from the D genome donor, are underway. Wild species introgressions have been extremely valuable in applied plant breeding and most of the previous efforts have concentrated on moving specific pest resistance genes from wild relatives or using the D genome (e.g. the CIMMYT research on “synthetic” wheat). Efforts using the A and B genome may be equally beneficial to create synthetic cultivars but are much rarer in wheat prebreeding. The third, very important aspect of germplasm research in this unit, is the fingerprinting of numerous lentil and faba bean accessions to develop better strategies for

37

understanding the ”population” structure and diversity in the collections. This information will be very valuable to develop novel germplasm strategies. Hence the GRU is truly cutting edge in three major areas. For lentils and faba beans (crops with smaller resources globally), the ICARDA germplasm collection is invaluable, as are the ongoing efforts in the maintenance, documentation, computerization, and distribution of legume germplasm (legume seed being generally more difficult to maintain than cereal seed, requiring additional care). As the GRU unit continues to add accessions and information, the resource demands for seed increase, data collection (phenotypic, GIS, and molecular), database information, and seed distribution will increase. These pressing needs will always have priority over other important requirements, such as prebreeding. Hence human and facility resources (especially for crops needing pollination cages) will have to increase to ensure that collection’s growth does not affect quality. It is already the most highly used collection in the CGIAR and has a truly remarkable capability that every seed shipped is tested to ensure it does not harbor unwanted diseases. In addition, the in situ collections are prime research areas to develop novel ways to understand germplasm and opportunities exist for detailed studies through collaborations with NARS or ARIs. CWANA includes the Center of Diversity for numerous crops and ICARDA is ideally suited for germplasm (wild relatives and landraces) introgression research (pre-breeding). Though there are some notable efforts by GRU scientists in this area, prebreeding is an area that could be greatly expanded (including more time to publish ongoing research) by the addition of ICARDA scientists or working with NARS to fully take advantage of ICARDA’s location and the global need for this research. Plant breeding programs The GRU supplies germplasm to various crop improvement programs that are part of ICARDA’s mandate. Before discussing the crop improvement programs, it is important to understand that the impact (as determined by market share and use) of released varieties developed during the evaluation period (2000 to 2005) is extremely difficult to measure. The reasons for this difficulty are that many countries do not have varietal surveys (e.g. estimates of market share by variety) or an adequate extension service to promote improved varieties. Most recently released varieties need time (growing seasons) to increase seed for commercial sale hence their impact is long (3 or more years) after the initial release, and varieties developed and used in informal seed systems are usually without records other than their release, and are hence difficult to measure. The ICARDA documents on variety release reflect this difficulty and reported the number of varieties released and, occasionally, the national production and income gains for various crops. The production and income gains are due to both genetic and agronomic improvements. ICARDA did an impact assessment in 2005; however the assessment period was of necessity longer than for the 2000-2005 review period. The cumulative impact of the crop improvement research was large in terms of market share and economic return to the farmer and consumer. Here, each crop improvement program will be discussed individually. Barley improvement Barley is grown annually on 56 million hectares globally and is used as animal feed, malt (the second largest use of barley, a value added cash crop) and human food. Barley straw is used as animal feed and bedding, and as cover material for hut roofs. Barley stubble is grazed in many developing countries. The barley improvement project aims at a sustainable increase in barley

38

productivity with special emphasis in those areas where the crop is grown by resource-poor farmers. The project has adopted a decentralized strategy of selection for specific adaptation in the target environments, with farmers’ participation. To fulfill the global mandate for the improvement of barley, ICARDA has two barley breeders in Aleppo, a barley breeder posted in CIMMYT-Mexico to address the needs of Central and Latin America, and 30% of a breeder posted in Tashkent to address the needs of Central Asia and Caucasus countries. Achievements include: 30 varieties released since 2000, populations created for drought-resistance, and for resistance to major pests and diseases. One project publication on participatory barley breeding received the CGIAR Chairman’s Science Award at ICW2000 for Best Scientific Paper and a World Bank Mission described the participatory barley breeding project in the Matrouh Resource Management Project in Egypt as “an excellent first example of full participatory adaptive research”. More than 40 national program scientists were trained on participatory plant breeding (PPB), molecular marker technology, exploitation of G x E interaction in plant breeding, and two M.Sc. and two Ph.D. students were trained. Current activities include: identification and use of landraces, wild relatives, and other genetic stocks to broaden the genetic base for ICARDA’s targeted traits, development of new methodologies to enhance germplasm development, and studying the genetics underlying adaptation of barley to drought, and institutional strengthening. Future plans include: marker assisted selection (MAS), research on grain end-use quality and salinity tolerance, genomics of root morphology to develop root-related strategies for drought adaptation, and training on PPB. Assessment and future challenges Barley is one of the crops for which ICARDA has a global mandate. As such it is critical that the crop improvement effort be similarly global in nature. The productivity of the Latin America (LAC) program and the CWANA programs have been good, though it is somewhat unclear how they are mutually coordinated, and how they interact in the biotechnology or prebreeding areas. The LAC program emphasizes biotic stress tolerance, while the CWANA program emphasizes abiotic stress tolerance; hence the two programs complement each other. The barley program is a champion of PPB, which was highly supported by the last CCER report, and these efforts are highly regarded by farmers. By being a champion of PPB, the barley program may not describe its full efforts in decentralized plant breeding which appear to be more conventional plant breeding and involves more advanced lines. A concern with PPB is that the targeted niche is resource-poor farmers and the “informal” seed sector. The size of this niche and its relation to the “formal” seed sector needs to be considered, especially with regard to ICARDA’s global mandate for barley and the seed laws in NARS which may require a level of phenotypic homogeneity that is hard to achieve using PPB. Participatory plant breeding has raised a number of concerns within the CGIAR system on PPB-developed line ownership (and potentially other intellectual property rights [IPR]) and white papers are currently proposed or under development. The IPR issues of PPB may be overstated in that the informal seed market is largely unregulated, hence once released ownership may be unenforceable. It also makes assessment of longer term impacts more difficult. The formal seed market, with its defined regulations and laws, requires a level of homogeneity that PPB may not achieve. While conventional plant breeding has its limitations, its strengths include systematic testing for agronomic performance, various end-use qualities (such as for livestock feed uses), nutritional
39

enhancement, and protection from pests, diseases, and stresses that may be found rarely in a farmer’s field or where field heterogeneity reduces heritability and selection efficiency, but provide a level of risk avoidance that is needed in subsistence farming. Conventional plant breeding will also produce uniform lines, which can be released by the formal seed sector, which in many countries complements the informal seed sector and would increase the impact of ICARDA-NARS research. The barley program is aggressively incorporating modern biotechnology through the use of molecular markers and doubled haploids for mapping populations. A major challenge for the PPB approach will be to effectively incorporate MAS and doubled haploidy. Biotechnology can be incorporated in the decentralized plant breeding efforts which involves the distribution of advanced lines, and possibly though prebreeding/selection with molecular markers in early generations before the populations are released for PPB. However, the use of biotechnology will add constraints to PPB and the current PPB approaches will need to be modified to incorporate these new tools. Past reports have suggested that ICARDA should expand its efforts into malting barley as a value-added product that may alleviate poverty in developing countries through domestic or export uses. Efforts in this area are currently underway with a number of important linkages made with the domestic brewing industry, which is critical to the success of the program. Large scale brewing experience and brewing microassays (those needed for small quantities of seed as would be found in a breeding program) are often found only in brewing companies. The activity is progressing slowly, in part because the malting barley target was only recently identified and, possibly, because the socio-economic report on the potential for malting barley to alleviate poverty was completed only in 2006. This report was very thorough in highlighting where the opportunities exist (mainly in those countries with existing malting barley production, a domestic brewing industry, and a free and competitive market) and where they do or do not help the small farmers who are in poverty. Also, in sophisticated markets, breeding for malting quality requires extensive selection and testing which is not really amenable to PPB, but would be amenable to the diversified plant breeding efforts that involves more tested and finished lines. Finally, while end-use quality (including malting quality) is a major target for barley improvement, the project includes improving nutritional and food quality, which may have higher priority for those relying on barley as a food grain in subsistence agriculture. The plans indicate the malting barley has been thoroughly studied and an appropriate breeding strategy developed which is being implemented. It is too early to know if the strategy will be successful. The Panel strongly suggests that as staffing changes occur due to retirements, consideration should be given to complementing the PPB approach with a more conventional plant breeding approach. Greater integration of the global barley programs is needed and cooperation with the wheat programs (relatives of barley) should also be encouraged. Wheat programs at ICARDA To understand Wheat Research at ICARDA, it is desirable to begin discussing the ICARDACIMMYT relationship. ICARDA has the global responsibility for barley (a distant relative of wheat) improvement and CWANA has the highest consumption of wheat in the world. CIMMYT has the global mandate for wheat, triticale, and maize improvement. CIMMYT funded the breeders and ICARDA provided operational support and resources on plant pathology, entomology, agronomy, genetic resources, and the knowledge of the agroecological regions of CWANA. In 2002, this collaboration largely ended when CIMMYT, due to financial concerns,
40

dropped its support for spring bread wheat and spring durum wheat breeding. Due to the importance of spring bread wheat and spring durum wheat to CWANA, ICARDA hired the two former CIMMYT senior wheat breeders and continued the program. All the while, facultative and winter wheat improvement continued as a CIMMYT/ICARDA and MARA (Turkey) joint activity. In 2005, a new memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Centers was signed to recreate a joint ICARDA-CIMMYT wheat improvement program for CWANA with a joint program director who will be based at ICARDA and report to both ICARDA and CIMMYT. The program director will be responsible for all aspects of wheat improvement and management research in CWANA. The rationale for this new MOU is ICARDA must be able to manage those crops which are critical to CWANA. Clearly ICARDA has the stronger recent history of supporting wheat research for CWANA. Similarly, CIMMYT, with its global mandate for wheat, has a commitment to wheat germplasm and biology that underlie many of the genetics and agronomy practices that ICARDA should access for the CWANA ecosystems where wheat is a component. One other aspect of the ICARDA-CIMMYT interaction is the understanding of how both institutions look to the future. ICARDA has used in the past the ecosystem approach where crops are viewed as part of the sustainable, managed ecosystem. CIMMYT with its global mandate for wheat and maize, has been more crop (commodity) focused and often worked with other CGIAR centers to obtain the needed ecosystem information and application. In addition to the wheat improvement mandate for CWANA, ICARDA will be strengthening a research and training program (the Norman Borlaug-Robert Havener Center) which will be discussed below. The first question concerning the ICARDA-CIMMYT MOU is will it work? The simple answer is that it will work so long as both parties find it mutually beneficial for the program to succeed. Until 2002, the previous MOU was successful on the basis of the germplasm development and the scientific interactions between the two institutions for their respective responsibilities. The spring and facultative/winter bread wheat improvement efforts were also very successful after 2002 and before the current MOU, and appear to be working well currently under the new MOU. The success was based on good research that was highly interdisciplinary and continuous support for the efforts, which is now guaranteed primarily by ICARDA. The basis for future interactions will be having an independent, joint director who reports to both ICARDA and CIMMYT, joint planning meetings, joint fund raising (it is expected that ICARDA will lead on some projects and CIMMYT will lead on others), joint offices for all ICARDA and CIMMYT staff outside the respective headquarter offices in Syria and Mexico, and jointly appointed staff to support the overall program. All of these needs have been identified in the current MOU and a plan for implementation is pending. The Panel feels that the measures described above should all contribute to the successful development of the joint program. CIMMYT will continue to have the global mandate for wheat, and hence will continue its global germplasm, physiology, and biotechnology efforts. ICARDA’s breeding efforts have and should continue to actively access and use CIMMYT’s inputs in these areas. As wheat biotechnology become routine (e.g. doubled haploid breeding, marker assisted selection), ICARDA will need to have its laboratories (internal or in cooperation with the NARS) implement these technologies for CWANA. ICARDA has effectively worked with NARS for wheat transformation and will need to link with CIMMYT’s transformation technology. Similarly, ICARDA may need to expand its efforts in wheat agronomy/physiology for drought prone areas. One area, which was previously mainly undertaken by CIMMYT, was the introgression of alien (wild species) germplasm into wheat (known as the synthetic wheat program). With ICARDA residing in the center of origin and diversity of wheat and having in situ collections for this region, there is a golden opportunity for ICARDA to enhance its efforts in alien germplasm introgressions particularly as it relates to

41

drought prone areas. Very strong consideration should be given to enhancing efforts in this area. While some may consider this an inappropriate research activity for a Center in one of the world’s most important Centers of Diversity, the Panel feels that this research poses minimal additional risk as the introgressed genes will come from native wild species and gene flow already is occurring between cultivated and wild wheat germplasm. Previous gene flow has posed no hazard and, in fact, created modern durum and bread wheat. Spring and facultative/winter bread wheat germplasm improvement for increased yield and yield stability in Central and West Asia and North Africa Bread wheat is the principal food source for the majority of the population in the CWANA region where wheat consumption is the highest in the world and provides over half of the calories and about half of the daily protein dietary intake consumed by people in the region. About 50% of the total dryland wheat area in developing countries is located in the CWANA region and most (70%) wheat production is on dryland where productivity and total wheat production is low (about 1500 kg/ha), highly variable, and has not kept pace with the increasing demand. The project aims at achieving sustainable improvement in bread wheat productivity, yield stability and end-use quality. Achievements include: germplasm with high-yield, pest and disease-tolerance, and end-use quality, 42 spring bread wheat varieties and 21 facultative/winter wheat varieties were released, improved experimental design and field plot techniques, doubled-haploid techniques were used to speed up generation advance, and 65 NARS researchers were trained. Current activities include: spring bread wheat improvement and shuttle breeding to screen spring bread wheat and facultative/winter germplasm for adaptation and to serve as early warning for incoming new virulence of biotic stresses including the race of stem rust (UG99), enhancing variability and broadening the genetic base of wheat, and use of doubled-haploid techniques. Future plans include: integration of breeding with conservation agriculture, improved nutritional quality, and research on salinity tolerance will be initiated. Assessment and future challenges Spring and facultative/winter wheat breeding has been highly successful in the past and will continue to be in the future as long as there is stable funding for the joint ICARDA-CIMMYT project. The interactions with NARS and the number of cultivars released are very good and the cultivar impact is huge. The future plans to devote more wheat improvement effort to breeding for emerging farming systems is appropriate and in line with ICARDA’s ecosystem approach. Clearly new farming systems will have new challenges for cultivar development (e.g. new diseases, pests). It is too early to predict if the efforts in biofortification will be successful, but with careful dietary understanding, they could greatly affect CWANA’s poor. The effort on salinity tolerance for irrigated farming systems is well suited for collaborations with ARIs - once the most appropriate phenotypic assays can be identified. As salinity tolerance is a global issue in irrigated wheat, joint projects with CIMMYT would be very useful. The specific salinity tolerance requirements of CWANA may provide an opportunity for increased crop agronomy/physiology research to augment existing research at CGIAR centers and in the ARIs and NARS. As barley is more drought and salinity tolerant than wheat, ICARDA would be well positioned to do comparative physiology for these crops in CWANA and possibly work with IRRI and the Generation CP. The agronomy/physiology research should be tied to other MegaProjects (e.g.

42

Management of Scarce Water Resources and Mitigation of Drought in Dry Areas and Diversification and Sustainable Improvement of Crop and/or Livestock Productions Systems in Dry Areas). Durum wheat germplasm improvement for increased yield and yield stability in Central and West Asia and North Africa The CWANA region, where the crop is subject to wide variation in environmental factors, leads the world in durum wheat production and the annual per capita consumption is about 200 kg. Durum is used for pasta, couscous, and burghul products. Achievements include: nineteen durum wheat varieties have been released in CWANA since the last EPMR including some that are drought-tolerant, Hessian fly resistant, and with high grain yield; germplasm with improved disease and insect resistance and with improved micronutrient grain quality has been produced; a population for pyramiding resistance to drought using carbon isotope discrimination QTLs; advanced germplasm and populations with salinity tolerance were identified and used, training more than 50 research and extension personnel, and two M.Sc. and 5 Ph.D. students are currently conducting their research. In 2002, the collaboration between ICARDA and partners on durum research in dry areas received the Royal Award “Chevalier d’honneur” from the King of Morocco. Current activities include: developing and distributing germplasm with resistance to major biotic and abiotic stresses and to increase grain quality using conventional plant breeding approaches, exploring how to improve breeding methodologies including using physiological traits, developing mapping populations, and institutional strengthening. Future plans include: broadening of the genetic base of durum wheat for biotic and abiotic stress will continue, with research on end-use quality using conventional approaches; identifying molecular makers linked with salt and drought tolerance, increasing adoption of MAS and extending this capability to the major NARS durum breeding programs; identifying the underlying mechanisms of drought adaptation in durum landraces; and extending training in drought resistance and molecular breeding, stress physiology, grain quality assessment. Assessment and future challenges The Durum Wheat Germplasm Improvement Project has released germplasm and lines that were rapidly accepted by the CWANA farmers and directly led Syria from being importer to becoming an exporter of high quality durum wheat, a very positive development to which the joint ICARDA-CIMMYT program has made a significant contribution. ICARDA has also developed germplasm and lines tolerant to diseases, pests, and abiotic stresses, thus reducing the risk of growing durum wheat on marginal lands, increasing sustainability, and food security. The future plans also highlight the need to develop an understanding of the “underlying mechanisms of drought adaptation in different landraces from different dryland agro-ecological zones”. Clearly this understanding will be highly beneficial. It will also require great skill, as there are potentially many different ways to express drought adaptation and this is an area where increased agronomic/physiological understanding will be required. The program has emphasized, in many different aspects, the importance of MAS and creating new markers for the breeding effort. Some care will need to be taken to ensure that the number of desired markers does not become so large as to reduce the number of breeding populations that can be studied and that phenotypic assays for identifying drought tolerance are proven. Abiotic stresses, in particular drought tolerance, are

43

complex problems. Before QTLs can be tagged by molecular markers, a fundamental understanding of trait stress is needed which often requires specialized agronomic and physiological training. For drought tolerance, it is critical that the phenotype, the frequency and variability of stress patterns leading to this phenotype, and the assay for the measured phenotype must be validated. Marker assisted selection for abiotic stresses and that QTLs will be identified rest on the implicit assumption that the phenotypic assays are proven. MAS works best when QTLs with large effects have been identified and they have small environmental (E) interactions (e.g. QTL x E are small). It is not know the magnitude of the drought adaptation QTLs or their QTL x E effects. Hence MAS must be a complementary approach to the more conventional plant breeding efforts which clearly are well established within this project. Research and training in wheat As previously described, capacity building is an integral part of ICARDA’s mission. Recently, the Norman Borlaug-Robet Havener Center for Wheat Improvement in CWANA was inaugurated at ICARDA’s headquarters. The Center will “serve as a major platform for the much needed capacity building for advanced research in wheat improvement to attain new breakthroughs in productivity gains and yield stability of wheat under the harsh environments of the region….”The Center will collaborate with CIMMYT, CWANA NARS, and ARIs. Housed in the Center of Origin/Diversity of wheat, the Center will have unique capabilities for understanding germplasm and the continuum of wild relatives, to land races, to improved varieties. In addition, the Center complements a critical global need for the continued development of plant breeders. The Panel strongly supports the development of this Center. The only potential drawback is that all ICARDA mandated crops and their scientists need continuous renewal through training and the Center will focus specifically on the needs of wheat. It is hoped that the Center will mesh seamlessly with the rest of ICARDA’s (and CIMMYT’s) training efforts. The Borlaug-Havener Center, in addition to its research and educational mission, will allow scientists to develop their scientific and professional networks and may become the entry point for recruitment into regional and global programs, so enhancing ICARDA’s global reputation. Germplasm improvement of food legumes Food legumes (chickpea, lentil and faba bean) are an integral part of farming systems in many developing countries for their high protein content and their ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen which improves soil health. ICARDA has the global mandate for lentil, faba bean and Kabuli chickpea improvement through an MOU with ICRISAT. ICARDA has a fully fledged crop improvement program for lentil and Kabuli chickpea, and a pre-breeding program for faba bean. Achievements include: the release of 24 lentil varieties, 28 chickpea varieties, and 21 faba bean varieties, the genetic base of food legumes was widened for biotic stress resistance and end-use quality, and incorporated advanced molecular research tools to improve breeding efficiency. The joint ICARDA/ICRISAT submission on chickpea improvement won the King Baudouin Award of the CGIAR in 2002. Current activities include: development and distribution of early generation segregating materials, improved genetic stocks, and elite lines, research on nutritional quality in lentil, faba bean, and chickpea, development of improved methodologies to enhance germplasm development and dissemination, and institutional strengthening.

44

Future plans include: broadening the genetic base of chickpea and lentil, bio-fortification of chickpea and faba bean, development of molecular markers for selected stresses, and research on high temperature tolerance in faba bean. Assessment and future challenges ICARDA has the global mandate for lentil and faba bean and the regional mandate for Kabuli chickpea research. As such, ICARDA must retain programs in these crops. The global mandate for chickpea improvement is with ICRISAT, and ICARDA and ICRISAT have a MOU on joint collaboration (signed in 1993) on this crop. Despite the MOU, ICRISAT greatly reduced its support for chickpeas (in 1996) and the ICARDA/ICRISAT cooperation has been spotty and entrepreneurial thereafter. The fundamental science that underpins chickpea improvement such as germplasm identification and utilization of wild relatives, and biotechnology needs to be fully integrated to ensure the CGIAR resources are efficiently utilized. Of course, this integrated approach assumes that ICRISAT is actively pursuing its global mandate. The Panel suggests that the MOU needs to be revisited and updated to reflect the current situation and future plans of both Centers. The ICARDA breeding programs have correctly chosen to highlight disease resistance in their efforts. The food legume program has a commendable record of creating excellent new germplasm that was released throughout CWANA and other countries. It is particularly noteworthy that the Australian lentil program is based on ICARDA germplasm, and one of ICARDA’s chickpea lines and one of ICARDA’s faba bean lines were released in Australia, a country well known for its breeding expertise and resources, which is a tribute to the ICARDA breeding efforts and germplasm. These crops are of specific regional importance but of less global importance, hence their programs have been similarly sized for their potential impact. In many cases one senior scientist is providing much of the scientific leadership. A major concern is whether there are sufficient researchers for a succession strategy as senior scientists retire; skilled scientists in these fields are rare globally. Forage (Feed) legume germplasm enhancement for increased feed and food production and system productivity in dry areas In the dry areas of CWANA there is an increasing pressure on agricultural land due to rapidly growing livestock and human population. Animal feed shortages are increasing the burden on the rangelands, which are deteriorating. Severe feed and food deficits have also triggered the replacement of cereal-fallow rotation with continuous cereals, especially barley in dryland agriculture and increased cropping on marginal lands with attendant soil degradation. The use of legumes can augment feed and food supply. Their introduction in the crop rotation increases the productivity of food and feed crops and, therefore, the animal carrying capacity. Achievements include: nine improved Vicia spp. and Lathyrus spp. cultivars were released, improved grasspea lines with low grain levels of the neurotoxin β-ODAP (<0.1%) which could be identified by their flower color, and tolerant to biotic stresses were developed, identified improved self-regenerated amphicarpic vetch (Vicia sativa subsp. amphicarpa). and proved the potential of underground vetch to regenerate naturally when grown in rotation with barley, and trained more than 40 research and extension staff , one M. Sc. and two Ph.D. students. Current activities include: selection and dissemination of high-yielding and better quality lines of V. sativa, V. narbonensis, V. ervilia, V. panonica, and V. dasycarpa, selection and testing of high-

45

yielding and grasspea lines with low grain β-0DAP content or with either grain or fodder production, and studying the effect of grazing on seed bank dynamics of underground vetch. Future plans include: develop and disseminate feed legume germplasm, focusing grasspea improvement on the development of high-yielding grain (predominant effort) and forage cultivars with low levels of neurotoxin, and determine the effect of environmental stresses on the level of β-ODAP. Assessment and future challenges The forage (feed) legumes are some of the best crops for drought prone regions that can be used by the poorest farmer on the most marginal lands, for land cover, N fixation in very poor soils, and livestock feed. Access to technology is extremely limited for these farmers, thus making the impact (though not the need) for this research extremely difficult. An innovative strategy (most likely in cooperation with NARS, NGOs, and other MPs) for adoption of the improved varieties is needed to maximize their impact and should be included in ICARDA’s future plans. In addition, because there has been very little previous breeding efforts in these crops, the breeding program has the opportunity for creating numerous varieties and publications (the easiest improvements are generally in those crops where there is little previous breeding history because everything needs to be done and every success can be published). Clearly the need for grasspeas with low βODAP neurotoxin is critical. It is not clear if the recently developed low β-ODAP lines have sufficiently reduced the level of neurotoxin in an environmentally insensitive manner, or during droughts, such that eating grasspeas in large quantities (as would occur in severe droughts) no longer poses a problem for human health. If the level of neurotoxin is sufficiently low, the breeding program should concentrate on maintaining this low level rather than decreasing it further through extensive germplasm and somaclonal variation research. It is doubtful that cloning β-ODAP degrading genes from soil microbes which would require plant transformation or food additives can be effectively used or deployed for the target areas. The rationale to separate food legumes and forage legumes into two programs is unclear as organizationally all of the legume projects have very few senior scientists, hence cooperative work and cross-training is critical. The Panel therefore recommends that the forage (feed) legume program should be merged with one or all of the food legume programs on the basis of the cropped area, potential impact and technology transfer, similarity of species, and need for synergism among the research groups. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in cereal-based and legume-based cropping systems in dry areas ICARDA recognizes the need to develop more sustainable production systems and places strong emphasis on genetic resistance to diseases and insect pests. Limited use of chemical pesticides is encouraged as an alternative, where host-plant resistance proves elusive. Integrating host plant resistance, biological or chemical control, and crop management techniques in pest management have been effective. IPM-pilot sites and farmer field schools have been adopted as a tool to support NARS collaborators to introduce IPM options to resource-poor farmers in CWANA. Achievements include: diagnostic kits for viral diseases, documenting the role of natural pest enemies in IPM, identifying host resistance of cereals and food legumes developing and testing best-bet IPM packages, strengthening Farmer Field Schools (FFS), non-degree specialized courses, and expert systems and e-learning modules and training 11 M.Sc. and 12 Ph.D. students.

46

Current activities include: evaluation of a wide array of germplasm for new cereal and food legumes sources of resistance to diseases and insect pests, determine the diversity in diseases and insect pests, using various technique including ‘hot-spots’ and pilot studies. Future plans include: identifying new resistance genes or gene combinations including to the new stem rust race (UG99), assisting the implementation of MAS for disease resistance, developing germplasm pools for multiple and durable disease resistance, adapting and improving diagnostic kits, expanding research on biological control (including evaluating their impact especially for minimizing pesticide applications), investigating the influence of additional agronomic practices on IPM options/packages, progressively decentralizing most of the disease and insect pest screenings to NARS to exploit known hot spots, reactivating and improving research on legume and cereal soil borne-pathogens, and expand training at all levels. Assessment and future challenges The IPM team is characterized by excellence at all levels, especially for its highly interdisciplinary work within the MP and across MPs. The diagnostic tools are excellent and widely used. The integration of molecular and phenotypic tools is very appropriate for a CGIAR center and critical to the breeding and managed ecosystem efforts. Plant breeders must know the disease race/genotype or insect biotype to effectively breed resistance. The disease and insect resistance in ICARDA’s germplasm has progressively improved and major threats to food security for ICARDA’s agro-ecozones have lessened. A major future threat is the new race of stem rust (UG99) on wheat and the IPM program with the breeding efforts is beginning to muster the needed resources to combat this threat in cooperation with CIMMYT. Where host resistance is elusive, strong programs on biological control or chemical spraying have been developed. The incorporation of NARS to identify “hot-spots” is a clever early warning and early testing system for CWANA that increases national infrastructure as part of ICARDA’s goal for decentralized research. By using “hot-spots” there is a concern for inadvertent disease or insect spread by plant material transfer. ICARDA should be commended for it ability (using technology developed predominantly in house) to ensure all shipped seed is disease and insect free. As with all vibrant programs, the main challenge is setting the right future priorities. Clearly, the IPM program has been successful in setting its priorities in the past. The Panel urges that strategic assessments continue to be made about the priorities for this program including opportunities for flexible responses in the light of emerging issues. Use of biotechnological tools for enhanced germplasm improvement in the dry areas The goal of the project is to increase production of cereals, and feed and food legumes through novel bio-technologies that improve the efficiency of germplasm development adapted to the biotic and abiotic stressed environments of the dry areas. The outputs are: 1) tissue culture derived improved barley and bread wheat and feed legume germplasm, 2) genetic resources of ICARDA mandated crops finger-printed using DNA technology, 3) genes incorporated into legumes and cereals using genetic engineering, and 4) strengthened capacity of NARS through individual and group training and research project activities. Achievements include: developing double-haploid or DH lines for barley and wheat (two DH lines were suggested for release), developing somaclones in Lathyrus exhibiting enormous variation for a number of breeding objectives including β-ODAP , upgrading three more walk-in growth

47

chambers, genotyping and/or phenotyping crop or sheep genetic resources using molecular markers, incorporating MAS, and developing or licensing transformation systems for chickpeas, lentil, barley, durum wheat, and bread wheat. Future plans include: continuing DH research, developing and mapping additional molecular markers, sequencing candidate genes, using MAS, characterizing additional sheep and goats using molecular markers, analyzing reference samples for linkage disequilibrium and association mapping, and continue plant transformation with a major emphasis on biosafety of this technology including testing transgenic plants away from the Centers of Origin for ICARDA crops with NARS. As this is new technology, several training courses have been conducted and the need continues in the future. Assessment and future challenges The ICARDA Biotechnology program is doing good, balanced work in three areas: 1) creation of new germplasm through tissue culture (e.g. grass pea somaclones and cereal doubled haploids), 2) integration of molecular marker strategies into plant improvement that spans from germplasm characterization to MAS, and 3) genetic engineering of mandated crops. Training will be discussed in a different section. As an international Center, the biotechnology program has two main tasks: a) to identify and implement suitable technologies that foster the Center’s mission, and b) to provide the needed expertise and research to prove efficacy and transferability of the technology in cooperation with NARS. As such, the research is rarely cutting edge, discoverybased research except when done cooperatively with ARIs, but can be pioneering in its ability resolve pertinent questions of interest within the Center and CWANA (e.g. identifying somaclonal variants for critically needed germplasm variation or mapping traits that ARIs are uninterested in mapping). It also allows NARS to determine if the technology is useful without duplicative investment by multiple NARS. The use of molecular markers and tissue culture are widely used techniques in crop improvement programs with broad acceptance. The collaboration with ARIs and with the germplasm collection is state of the art. The application of MAS and association mapping are also very good. The use of genetic engineering remains controversial, but the general controversy is expected to be temporary. A major concern will remain about doing genetic engineering in the center of diversity for a crop, hence ICARDA is correct to do field studies with NARS outside the Center of Origin. As part of the biosafety component of the approach, ICARDA will need to conduct experiments on gene flow using non-transgenic, but easily monitored genetic traits, careful isolation, and post study monitoring to ensure no gene flow has occurred. The simplest solution to these requirements might be to identify a suitable testing site at an irrigated oasis where the non transformed crop and its weedy relatives are not grown, thus ensuring isolation. The program has developed or acquired and is currently making those tools available through its central laboratories or through decentralization with NARS or ARIs. This strategy is particularly useful in rapidly evolving fields where today’s technology may change tomorrow and for developing NARS cooperation. ICARDA continues to teach courses on biotechnology and biosafety to NARS to further ensure the quality and safety of this technology as it spreads within CWANA. The challenges for this program include: 1) most of its research is funded by restricted grants, hence it is particularly vulnerable to donor desires, 2) acceptance of genetically engineered crops, the access to useful traits, and ability to release commercial transgenic products (the latter two are difficulties common to all public institutions and not unique to ICARDA), 3) mapping abiotic stress traits that require excellent phenotyping skills and assays to be relevant in the field, and 4) the full incorporation of biotechnology tools into crop improvement programs which may be
48

using breeding techniques that are not readily amenable to biotechnology. For example, as mentioned previously, drought tolerance is a complex trait often defined by its agronomic practices, hence to map a meaningful drought tolerance gene requires a deep knowledge of plant genetics, physiology and agronomy which requires a highly interdisciplinary approach. Similarly, participatory plant breeding with farmer selections will need to be modified to use the markers before the lines are given to farmers for selection or genotyped after the farmer has made his/her selections (retrospective plant breeding). Doubled haploid (DH) breeding will be based on homozygous, homogeneous lines and with the possible exception of early generation selection (F1, F2, or F3) - where most breeders find selection best for culling poor types rather than selecting the best types - will change PPB. The Panel suggests that as the Biotechnology Program continues to mature and find its niche, more of its key people should be moved to the core budget to ensure program continuity. Additionally all crop improvement programs that are cooperating with the Biotechnology Unit need to develop clear implementation plans for how the improvement programs will fully utilize the considerable resources and expertise that the Biotechnology Unit contains to enhance synergism. MegaProject 3: Improved Land Management to Combat Desertification Background MP3 covers work to strengthen management of arid and semi-arid areas in ICARDA’s mandate region. Such drylands represent some 41% of the global land surface area, and house around 2.1 billion people. Many of these people are very poor. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment demonstrated the particular vulnerability of dryland ecosystems and human populations. Many poor groups depend substantially on sheep and goats for incomes and livelihoods (meat, milk, manure, pelts, hides and cash). Hence it is right that a focus on these areas, and the interlocking livelihood systems of grazing common range and dryland farming, should be central to ICARDA’s work program. Desertification is taken to mean “land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations, extreme events, and human activities”. Desertification is seen, rightly, not as “desert advance” but rather a broader set of processes leading to degradation of soils and vegetation due to human mismanagement in regions that are often far from the desert margins. An assessment of the scale and intensity of land degradation is difficult and prone to error. Some estimates have put lost income per year from desertification as worth US$ 42 billion globally. Regardless of the actual figures, the enormous area and number of people covered by this area of work make it a very great challenge to identify ambitious, yet realistic and feasible actions to undertake. Such actions necessarily need to combine technical improvements with institutional and policy interventions which strengthen local management and control over resources. Rights and responsibilities need to be defined and distributed in ways which are sufficiently congruent to ensure incentives for sound long-term management. MP3 extends over the non-tropical dry areas of the CWANA region, which include dryland farming areas, irrigated cropland, mountains, deserts, and very large rangeland areas. While sometimes degradation occurs naturally, in many areas the process is accelerated by human activity, such as over-grazing of rangelands. Rangelands in the CWANA region provide one third of the diet for small ruminants. Typically, sheep and goats flocks gain a substantial

49

proportion of their forage from post-harvest stubble. Many grazing areas are subject to unrestricted access and are in poor condition. Existing policy frameworks often provide limited incentives for effective local management of grazing lands, leading to poor control of livestock numbers and patterns of movement. There is thus an urgent need for changes in policy to strengthen long term rights to land and water. These systems illustrate the classic relations of conflict and complementarity, between desert and sown, between livestock and crops found in many parts of the world throughout the centuries. ICARDA rightly argues that it is very difficult and costly to rehabilitate destroyed rangelands, through re-planting and putting land into reserve. Hence it is much more effective and better value to try and prevent further degradation through improved management ex ante, than try and restore vegetation ex post. However, management of grazing lands cannot be seen in isolation from other key resources, such as water, forest areas and croplands. The question is whether ICARDA has the correct and sufficient emphasis in its research to influence these long-standing problems. MP3 was created at the beginning of 2005 as a consequence of the re-structuring process. This involved breaking down the former large collection of projects managed under the NRM program, and their allocation amongst several of the new MegaProjects. The rationale behind this restructuring is not clear. It is at odds with the increased focus on NRM identified as a principal challenge by ICARDA’s previous EPMR. It is also at odds with the need to embed questions of NRM within a set of technical, institutional and socio-economic parameters. Current activities and achievements The ICARDA MTP 2006-2008 identifies 6 principal outputs sought from MP3, the overall goal of which is: Viable and resilient rural livelihoods in areas affected by or prone to land degradation. The six outputs are as follows with achievements to date in italics: • An Integrated Natural Resources Management (INRM) approach for combating desertification developed and delivered to partners. Comprehensive application of the methods in Syria, in the case of the Khanasser Valley project. A”toolbox” has been developed covering diagnosis, tools for problem-solving, and ways of supporting effective processes. This includes the multi-level analytical framework to help analyse different levels of action and analysis, in terms of ecosystem and stakeholder groups. Assessment of land degradation and development of multi-scale tools and methods to assess land degradation, including the principal driving forces. Development of inexpensive simple monitoring tools for local people to use to assess and monitor changes in ecosystem status. Combined with other more sophisticated tools and GIS models. Best bet technologies and practices developed with end users for the sustainable management of land, vegetation and rangeland resources, and improvements to household livelihoods; Methods include simple soil/water conservation technologies, such as mulches, planting pits, contour water harvesting systems, adapted germplasm. Evaluation of community-based land management practices, especially the management of common grazing lands and livestock systems they support; Assessment and inventory of rangeland resources and degradation, combining sociological survey and ecological inventory; assess socio-economic conditions amongst rangeland communities, analysis of rangeland use in Syria and Morocco. Rangeland rehabilitation and plant materials tested. Intercropping of fodder and barley. Improved policy and institutional options for developing enabling environments to enhance private and public investment in dryland development and to combat desertification; Community management of rangelands in 5 North African countries (from MM project). Modeling

•

•

•

•

50

•

regulation of common rangelands in Morocco, with study of impact of grazing fees, quotas, etc. Payments for environmental services assessed. Work to spread ideas e.g. INRM tools. Focus on participatory technology development with local communities. Training and human capacity building to manage natural resources in areas prone to land degradation; the number of degree and non-degree training activities in NRMP 1999-2004 (and MP3 in 2005 in brackets) were: 41 (2)PhDs; 37 (3) MScs; 65 (4) training courses were held and 1140 (69) National scientists were trained, of whom 221 (6) were female.

Several of the achievements of the Program actually stem from earlier long term efforts in the Mahgreb/Mashreq (M&M) and Khanasser Valley projects (see Text Boxes 1 and 2). MP3 needs to review how to get best value from these interesting in-depth field sites, in terms of training opportunities, analytical outputs and publications. Future plans include: MP3 plans to continue develop proposals along the lines outlined in the MTP to achieve its six outputs: • • • • • • An Integrated Natural Resources Management (INRM) approach for combating desertification developed and delivered to partners. Assessment of land degradation and development of multi-scale tools and methods to assess land degradation, including the principal driving forces. Best bet technologies and practices developed with end users for the sustainable management of land, vegetation and rangeland resources, and improvements to household livelihoods. Evaluation of community-based land management practices, especially the management of common grazing lands and livestock systems they support. Improved policy and institutional options for developing enabling environments to enhance private and public investment in dryland development and to combat desertification. Training and human capacity building to manage natural resources in areas prone to land degradation.

The summary financing plan for 2006-08 shows proposed allocations for MP3 of between US$ 1.72-1.86m, some 7.1 to 7.4% of the Center’s budget. Staff allocated to this MP comprise 4 Plevel researchers, 4 PDF level, and 11 other members of the core MP3 team. These budget allocations suggest that a relatively low priority has in fact been given to this area, relative to other mega projects, which is apparently contrary to a recommendation in the fourth EPMR of 2000. However, there are also strong intra-Center links between MP3 and work being done in MPs 2, 4, 5 and 6 which may partially make up for the perceived low priority given to MP3: • • MP2: Seed management for range species, biodiversity and rehabilitation. MP4: crop-livestock relations, balance between forage sources stubble, range, feedstuffs. Shifts in significance over time, with changing livestock numbers, prices and markets, rainfall, productivity, new crops, subsidy regimes, etc. MP5: Policy and institutions, socio-economic analysis of rangelands and livelihoods. MP6: TIPO toolkits (e.g. from the work of the M&M project).

• •

The expected interactions with water research in MP1 are not apparent. The re-structuring and existence of many joint activities between mega-projects makes it very hard to grasp the precise allocations going to various fields of work. However, a figure of 7-8% of budget seems too low, given the scale and issues of the CWANA rangelands and the large

51

number of people and animals reliant on these resources. There is need for a multi-disciplinary, policy-focused body of work engaged with NARS and governments in the countries concerned. Further joint work with IFPRI might be explored, though there are merits to building up capacity within ICARDA as well as relying on other CGIAR Center resources. The work of MP3 is viewed as contributing to the global framework of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and ICARDA has been active in supporting the meetings of this Convention (see Chapter 4). Assessment and future challenges The range of outputs sought from MP3 is so wide that, with the given resources available, it is hard to see how they will be achieved at any scale. Although an ambitious proposal for simultaneous research on desertification in India and Pakistan has been developed in conjunction with ICRISAT, the Panel suggests that the Center needs in general a much clearer sense of plans for this research and where it aims to focus its efforts. There needs to be better specification of the ecosystems that will be targeted (especially now that the Khanasser Valley project has come to an end), as well as the outcomes that will be sought. If the Center and its partners consider that there is merit in replicating the M&M process in Central Asia and the Caucasus, the plan should be better integrated with other aspects of natural resources management and policy research from the outset. Currently, the list of future activities lacks an overall purpose. A more forwardlooking strategy for MP3 would help drive a vision for what might be achievable over the next 510 years in getting significant improvements in rangeland management and appropriate policy changes in specific countries. It would help to set priorities in terms of the different regions, the long-term expectations of work at bench mark sites and the distillation of some clearer targets than the current list of possible future activities. Among recent publications of MP3, the cross CGIAR work on NRM, “Navigating complexity” is a valuable document reflecting on common experience with the role of researchers in longer term processes of change and transformation of rural livelihood systems in many parts of the world. It serves as a checklist of what needs to be considered in planning and managing integrated NRM interventions. It would merit being turned into a simpler set of tools for use in training. The publications submitted for review were competent and well-grounded pieces of work, documenting the research activities and findings undertaken, with particular emphasis on both practical outcomes and ways forward, as well as policy dimensions stemming from the work. The wide range of journals in which such articles have been published shows that ICARDA work is seen by a good mix of readers. The articles demonstrate a range of different styles and audiences with whom they seek to communicate. Additionally, it should be noted that the M&M project has generated a very impressive range of articles, workshop papers and publications of many sorts. However, it is not clear how many of these to attribute to MP3 in particular. Also, many of the M&M publications have IFPRI staff as lead author. Future challenges in relation to policy In the MP3 area, many of its outputs are focused on up-take and application of techniques as well as a range of economic and institutional policy fields. The linkage between a specific input of research, analysis and work with partners and achievement of certain outcomes in terms of policy and institutional change is inevitably not very clear. This is the challenge faced by all organizations working in the policy research sphere. There are difficulties in establishing a linear process between policy research and policy change, as well as fundamental problems of

52

attribution, due to there being many factors which may ultimately lead to policy change, of which well-focused research and policy briefings may be only one small part. Research work in the field of policy change is particularly prone to difficult measurement, since it is often longterm, involving building of relationships leading to credibility and influence with key decision makers, as well as being subject to changes in broader political circumstance which may prejudice the introduction of new ideas. ICARDA has a strong position to help influence government thinking in the region, given its international status and long-standing relations with many governments. As noted earlier, ICARDA rightly takes the view that it is more cost effective to prevent degradation through better management, than to try and rehabilitate ex post. The Panel suggest that this position should then be followed through into greater investment in understanding constraints on management and working in the policy sphere to help achieve change that bring rights and responsibilities better in line. If the individual elements of natural resources research at ICARDA are of insufficient size to catalyze large scale effects, some reorganization of the research in this area may be warranted. Finally, the Panel believes that there is a strategic issue to be addressed in relation to research on desertification, which is often concerned more with monitoring and analyzing land degradation than with devising better agricultural and grazing practices that both alleviate poverty and protect the land. The Panel’s view is that the expertise in MP3 that is involved in devising better practices, including policy options on land tenure in rangelands, would be more effective if incorporated into other approaches of natural resource management in MPs 1, 4, and 5, and that work simply on monitoring is not centrally important to ICARDA’s mandate.

53

Box 1: The Mashreq & Maghreb project This was set up in 1994 to take over from two separate projects initiated over the period 1989-94 in the North African Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya) and the Middle East Mashreq (Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon). IFAD and AFESD have been the main donors. Each of the M&M countries is witnessing major changes in production systems, with increased degradation of rangelands, greater settlement of livestock keepers, declining transhumance, increased substitution of barley cultivation in place of livestock, and increasing animal numbers. The project has worked through selection of two communities in each of the countries, in which research and action could be undertaken. A comparison of the different countries has enabled cross fertilization of ideas about community management of land and natural resources, systems of control/enforcement, and different roles that can be played by the state. The principal aims have been to diffuse new technology, conserve resources, and address income inequality. The long running nature of the project has provided important continuity in personnel and management which has been very beneficial, in terms of building long term relations with government. Work has been done in both dryland farming areas and rangelands, and on crop-livestock interactions. Sheep and goats are the main livestock. According to the review of IFPRI’s role in the M&M project, its combined activities have increased interest by governments and donors in investing in rangeland areas. M&M helped create a network of economists in the eight countries, working on issues of common interest. It generated a range of workshops and exchange visits amongst the project partners, and helped thereby the diffusion and exchange of technologies between countries in the region; for example, of forage production from North Africa to the Middle East, and of livestock production practices from the Middle East to North Africa. These include imports of cactus into Syria and Jordan, and feed block manufacture from Iraq to the other M&M countries. Supplementary funding and support for the next phase of the M&M project has now been acquired from a range of donors. Several policy measures have been analyzed, such as agricultural subsidies for inputs such as fuel, and feed, especially in drought years. Research work has also been done on common property resource management in rangeland areas. The project helped achieve a major shift in government policy in several countries from use of feed subsidies as emergency relief, to stimulating longer term investment in dryland systems, such as through spread of drought tolerant plants, new barley cultivars, feed blocks, and use of improved rams. It has shown that it is not reasonable to expect the private sector to carry out a range of interventions and activities formerly done by government. There are serious market failures, such as with seed production. Reports identify one issue specific to the M&M project, concerning the lack of attention given to water harvesting technologies, which could provide a valuable complement to new inputs such as fertilizers, and new plant varieties.

54

Box 2: Khanasser Valley project This area was selected as an integrated research site to examine a range of issues characteristic of CWANA dryland regions. It has an annual rainfall of 200mm/year and lies on the boundary of crop and grazing lands. The goal of the project has been to improve the livelihood of land users and the management of natural resources. Problems encountered include declining soil fertility, rising erosion, and lack of incentives to conserve and invest in soils. Incomes stem mainly from small ruminants, and off-farm labor, with food crops relatively less important though they constitute an important part of the overall system. A wide diversity of strategies is being followed, with livestock fattening a major specialization for some, migration to earn cash elsewhere for others, and some families leaving farming all together. There is little or no government support for cropping in this area because it considered too risky, right at the margins of crop production. Activities have focused on development of improved technologies, and tools developed for operationalizing the integrated NRM approach. Interventions include ways to improve the barley-sheep system, through more drought-resistant barley varieties. Better water harvesting methods have been designed to capture the limited rainfall and use it to establish olive and fruit trees. Strengthening local organizations has helped in better marketing of produce, accessing loans, and NRM within the valley area. Diversification into new crops, such as cumin, has been promoted. Khanasser has the advantage, as a benchmark site, of accessibility from ICARDA’s head-quarters. It is also part of a much larger economic system with major flows of livestock, labor and capital into neighboring rangeland areas, the nearby irrigated farmland and urban markets of Aleppo and elsewhere for milk and meat. MegaProject 4: Diversification and Sustainable Improvement of Crop and/or Livestock Production Systems in Dry Areas Background This Project focuses on improving the income of the rural poor by increasing the productivity of crop and livestock systems and their integration, by diversifying agricultural outputs and improving their quality, and by adding value through on-farm processing. In so doing it directly addresses the CGIAR Priority area 3 of “enhancing incomes through agricultural diversification and value-addition linking the poor to markets.” It recognizes that farm households typically account for most of the rural economy throughout CWANA, and that women are often major economic contributors within households, especially in post-harvest activities. It aims not only to improve food quality and nutrition in rural areas but to do so sustainably and to generate opportunities for developing rural agri-businesses and increasing employment. MP4 was formed by bringing together former projects on agronomic management of cropping systems, improvement of sown pastures and forage systems, and improvement of small ruminant production. Given the interconnectedness between livestock and cropping throughout most of CWANA, this was a sensible amalgamation.

55

Major research themes in MP4 include: • Investigating how to increase the often low productivity of agricultural systems, especially integrated feed-livestock systems, which have considerable potential to improve the feed supply, health and fertility of the livestock. Exploring ways of diversifying income-generating opportunities for rural households by both increasing the value of production of traditional crops through improved cropping system management and improved quality of end products, and by diversifying cropping systems to include higher-value crops (horticultural, oilseed, medicinal, and herbal), or through production under protected (controlled) environments such as greenhouses. Investigating options for adding value to crop and livestock products through better post harvest handling and processing accessible to NARS and farmers. Research on household investment patterns and analysis of market opportunities for valueadded crop and livestock products. Policy and institutional research, in collaboration with MP5, to support diversification of income-generating options and their adoption by various target groups (men and women) including private sector links.

•

• • •

The project collaborates in several Systemwide initiatives including the Livestock (SLP), HarvestPlus and the Challenge Program on Water and Food, and it has substantial collaborations with each of the other MPs. This MP is a complex one with a very large remit and with great opportunities for increasing productivity in CWANA, in both cropping and livestock systems. The Panel’s discussion considers three major elements of the program: small ruminants production health and marketing; agronomic management of cropping systems; and current activities on diversification away from poppy cultivation. The specific Panel assessment of the role ICARDA may play in diversification of farming systems through the inclusion of horticulture in its research portfolio is given in Box 3 in this section. Small ruminants: production, health and marketing The livestock sector contributes between 15–50% of the agricultural GDP in many countries in the dry areas of CWANA. About 80-90% of the livestock are owned by rural smallholders. Similar proportions apply in large dry areas of Latin America. Increasing demands for meat and milk, which are expected to double in CWANA over the next 20 years, have created opportunities for improving incomes of small farmers, but chronic feed deficits in the region constrain livestock production. A shift from extensive traditional systems to more intensive mixed crop-animal systems is occurring but farmers’ practices such as continuous cropping and tendencies to overgrazing of rangelands degrade the land and reduce crop and livestock outputs, thus making matters worse. These and other shifts have adversely affected poor farmers, through greater pressure on their resources and increased competition for veterinary and other services. The opportunities arising from the increasing demand need pertinent market research if they are to be grasped. Consequently, MP4 has formulated a market-oriented strategy based on production constraints, on technology development, especially adding value to products on farm and increasing availability of quality feed resources, and on research on biodiversity to match the breed’s potentials to those of the production base and markets. This strategy involves the active participation of farmers, NARS and ARIs. It aims to help farmers improve the production and health of their livestock and thereby gain better access to markets. At national and regional levels, it aims to improve access by poor farmers through research into marketing constraints, such as

56

inappropriate policies, large transaction and transport costs, and to decrease the threat of being excluded from markets because of sanitary regulations, for example, trade in live animals in the NENA region is threatened by transboundary diseases such as foot and mouth, and marketing of milk derivatives is threatened by zoonotic diseases such as Brucellosis. Major feed deficits at certain times of the year continue to constrain production. Better integration of crop-and-livestock management is needed. Options include cereal-forage legume rotations, better manure management, irrigation of forage crops with marginal water, and use of forages in orchards to produce feed and conserve soil. The project aims at developing and testing these options with farmers. It focuses mainly on new rotations involving forage legumes for replacing the traditional rain-fed cereal/fallow or continuous cereal, and building the capacity of national partners. The introduction of new rotations also requires the adoption of new ways of managing livestock in arable areas. Changing traditional practices and adoption of such rotations has been slow despite the substantial rewards from so doing, such as getting high out-of season prices for meat and milk products. Current activities include: improving marketing and market opportunities. Market studies on fattening and milk products (Syria and Jordan) and effect of market and consumer trends on breed diversity in Tunisia. Market opportunities for products of small ruminants and market induction in Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela. Further characterization of animal health delivery systems and disease risk assessment in relation to market constraints. Strategic research on outof-season production of milk and traits associated with milk production for population screening of highly producing ewes. Developing women’s collectives for better marketing. In improving sustainable production and its underlying bases: community based research on crop-livestock interaction technologies and production intensification management in Syria, Tunisia, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, and Central Asia. Analysis and publication of data from completed trials in Syria and Lebanon; Evaluation, with farmers, of elite forage legumes in Afghanistan, Syria and Lebanon. Development of forage systems to reduce the early-spring and winter feed gaps. Selection of high-yielding improved feed/food crops. Achievements include: from improving marketing and market opportunities - Developing and testing a methodological framework (“value chain pathway”) for obtaining information from communities and other stakeholders involved in the production and marketing of small ruminants where transboundary diseases are a concern. Market opportunities for livestock products were identified in CWANA and Latin America and a research framework was introduced to national partners. In CAC, a project on changing and diversifying production to deal with lack of markets for wool and pelts was successfully implemented. Research to change the breeding patterns of Awassi sheep to target out-of season production was successfully conducted. From improving sustainable production and its underlying bases - Animal genetic resources in CWANA were characterized. Two books on the subject in WANA were published and a third book for the CAC sub-region is in press. Genetic differences among Awassi sheep ecotypes in Syria were screened. Improved cereal/legume rotations that increased cereal grain and livestock product yields and soil nitrogen content by 10-20% relative to farmers’ continuous cereal or cereal/fallow rotations were developed and disseminated to farmers in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. A multiple-cropping technology based on a rotation of triticale, oats and fodder pea with maize with potential to produce 50% more than farmers’ practice was developed and

57

demonstrated in central Asia. A low-cost machine for harvesting seeds of herbaceous and shrubby forage legumes was designed and demonstrated. Quality, relevance and impacts of science Two notable research achievements have been a) the characterization of the genetic diversity of sheep and goats, now largely published in valuable compendia, and b) devising new rotations that incorporate legumes into the traditional practices of continuous cereal or cereal/fallow cropping systems. The former is an aid to develop breeding and selection systems, based on quantitative measurement, for farmers to use in improving their own flocks. The latter has major implications for effectively integrating cropping and livestock, and for creating opportunities for out-of-season production which attracts high prices. Unfortunately, it has so far not proven to be attractive to farmers, possibly because it requires a major departure from traditional practices, not only in the rotation itself, but also, in its implied requirement for better control of stock in arable environments. Evidently, collaboration with MP5 and farming communities is needed to develop new farming systems, based on the integration of crops and livestock, that are acceptable to a large proportion of farmers. Given also that much research on productivity of livestock systems in similar environments has been carried out elsewhere in the world, for example, in Australia and the Northern Mediterranean, there is a case for ICARDA adopting more of a brokering and networking role than it does at present. This applies not only to the production, but also to on-farm processing of meat, milk, and fiber. The Panel appreciates the vital importance of marketing research, but it is not clear how general the marketing research in this project is, to what extent it has been effective, and whether or not it is sufficiently general to apply beyond country-specific circumstances. It is to be hoped that the generality will be tested by the submission of papers to appropriate international journals. Future research plans include: in improving marketing and market opportunities – the conduct of quality studies of processed milk products as affected by diets and intensive management of sheep; enhancement of the valuation of breeds to secure better exploitation of genetic diversity for sustainable improvement of farmers’ income in relation with markets; introduction of the methodological framework on the “value chain pathway” throughout WANA . In improving sustainable production and its underlying bases - Developing community-owned, decentralized and participatory breeding plans to allow farmers to access sources of improved animals in LAC and Syria. Continuation of studies concerning adaptive traits of sheep and their potential use in feeding systems. Development of irrigated crop-livestock systems for dairy, fattening and fodder production on small holdings. Development of collaborations with the World Agro-forestry Center and ILRI to develop and test pastoral systems involving forestry. Screening traditional and non-traditional annual and perennial forage crops for high productivity. Development of techniques for using marginal irrigation water for fodder production. Assessment of the economic and environmental impact of fodder innovations. Assessment and future challenges Given the enormous importance of livestock to the well-being of poor farmers in CWANA and LAC, it is surprising to see how few P-level staff have been involved in conducting research on livestock at ICARDA. The Panel notes that one new staff member is currently being appointed, but it is nevertheless clear that ICARDA needs to be highly focused on well-articulated strategic

58

goals in this area if it is to have the substantial outcomes and impacts that are needed throughout its mandated area. Overall, it is remarkable how much this project has achieved, given how few staff it has. The Panel believes that it could achieve even more if it undertook a strategic analysis, perhaps in association with ILRI, of where best to focus to achieve the best outcomes. For instance, strategic approaches to livestock health, as a market constraint across the region, is considered to be of higher value than ICARDA’s investment in food technology for local situations which should be met through other means. One of the impediments to defining a strategically informed sharper focus, however, is the large proportion of restricted funding that the project has been obliged to obtain. That is a problem that any strategic analysis would have to address. Agronomic management of cropping systems Background In general, increases in productivity rely, in roughly equal proportions, on improvements both in cultivars and in crop and soil management, often with strong interactions between the two. No matter how good new crop cultivars might be, they will not achieve their potential and will usually not bring appreciable increases in yields unless they are well managed. As discussed in Chapter 1, this is especially clear in water-limited environments, where it is common, worldwide, for crop yields to be well below reasonably attainable estimates of the water-limited yield of wellmanaged crops growing on reasonably fertile soils. i.e. expected yields if water were the only limitation. In addition, if production is to be sustained in the long term, the soil in which the crops are growing must be protected against degradation. Achieving sustainable production requires an understanding of the physical, biological, and environmental principles that underlie and control the productivity and sustainability of cropping systems. These principles include the dynamics of water movement and nutrients in soil, the dynamics of insects, diseases and weeds and their management options, the reasons behind the marked influence that previous crops often have on the current crop, and the effects on the soil, including the organisms in the soil, of residue management and form of tillage. These principles form the basis of developing INRM methods suitable for extrapolating in collaboration with NARS and ARIs to the regions of CWANA. They are especially important in relation to the goal of increasing the diversity of crops to generate improved livelihoods and buffer against the vicissitudes of the highly variable climate. Current activities include: improving agronomic management of various field crops by optimizing tillage and residue management, sowing date, supplemental irrigation, fertilizer use, and weed control, in various crop rotations in collaboration with NARS. There is a focus on improving barley productivity in dry areas (220 mm mean annual rainfall) by applying phospho-gypsum to improve soil physical and chemical characteristics. Studies include economic use of renewable nutrient sources and improved nutrient use-efficiency in agricultural systems. Achievements include: long-term cereal rotation technologies in the Mediterranean region were developed and refined. Low-input management technologies were developed for dryland areas of Iran which can give 2-4 times better yield than farmers’ practice. ICARDA’s Network on Conservation Agriculture in Central Asia tested and promoted tillage systems; stubble management technologies were tested and promoted in a Mediterranean-type environment in

59

relation to crop yield and soil moisture, fuel use efficiency and sustainability of cropping systems. Management alternatives for improved wheat and grain legume production under supplemental irrigation for water use efficiency were developed for Mediterranean environments. A study identified the prospects of safflower production in dryland areas of West Asia. Quality relevance and impacts of science: ICARDA was once a leader in the agronomic and ecophysiological understanding of cropping systems, but it is no longer. Its capacity for research in this area is now minuscule in relation to its remit, with only one agronomist to service 150 Mha of arable land in CWANA. The Panel believes that there are substantial opportunities for improving the productivity of dryland cropping systems through better agronomy. This will become an increasingly important issue as water available for irrigation inexorably falls over the coming decades. Future plans include: to improve understanding and control of soil properties that affect water movement into and through the soil to improve water productivity in dryland cropping. To establish community-based research in pilot areas to assess on-farm effects of long-term cropping sequences and their associated management options on soil chemical, physical and biological properties, productivity, and efficient use of rain and irrigation water and other inputs. Study systems dynamics using a multi- and inter-disciplinary integrated natural resources management approach. Using crop, soil and water simulation models to allow integration of existing knowledge to facilitate decision making at different levels, and to develop recommendation packages. Assessment and future challenges It is common in semi-arid cropping environments worldwide for farmer’s crop yields to be limited more by poor management, or by often unrecognized problems in the soils, than by the limitation of water per se – that is, that the water productivity is low. There is substantial though patchy evidence that this is so for CWANA, that yields, and thence water productivities, fall well below what would be expected if the crops made as effective use of the given water supply in a given season as is reasonably consistent with appropriate risk management. An example of such a gap is the achievement, noted above, of the use of better management to increase yields of dryland crops to 2-4 times that of local practice. Often a large shortfall may be explicable in terms of events beyond farmers’ control, such as outbreaks of disease or pests and diseases, but robust models now exist for estimating water-limited yields of crops which are free from pests and disease and are well-managed. The gap between actual yields and these so estimated can be very revealing, and can be a substantial inspiration for agronomic, genetic, and socioeconomic research that can reduce these gaps. ICARDA has the capability of mapping these putative yield gaps, at a range of scales, throughout CWANA’s several hundred agro-ecological zones, with the judicious use of appropriate models supported by data on soils and weather. To do so would require a team involving expertise in GIS, simulation modeling, and agronomy. Such maps would constitute an essential resource for strategic planning of future research on dryland cropping. It is suggested that ICARDA should map, with the help of modeling and available data on actual yields over several years, the difference between actual yields of crops and the yields expected if the crops were limited only by water and not by disease or management.

60

If as expected these yield gaps turn out to be large, there is a great opportunity for ICARDA to determine why this is so, and, on the basis of the new understanding that results, devise ways of substantially increasing productivity throughout much of CWANA. Progress will require a combination of socio-economic and agronomic research, and given ICARDA’s small current capacity to carry out such research it will require new agronomists to be appointed. Any such agronomists would be best able to work with their NARS counterparts, and best able to deal with specific regional requirements, if they were based at regional centers. Further, they would be better able to identify the best farmers or groups of farmers (as in the “Bright Spot” initiative at the CAC center) so as to draw on the best local knowledge for inspiring further agronomic research. The Panel recommends increased efforts in agronomy to assist countries in bridging the yield gap between actual and attainable yields, by researching the agronomy, crop management and economic incentives required to generate the needed synergies with the breeding efforts. The Center should consider deploying the new staff at appropriate regional programs/offices of ICARDA. Success in this area will depend on understanding the effects of long-term cropping sequences and their associated management options on soil chemical, physical and biological properties. This accords with one of the future plans in this area. It will also depend on the efficient use of rain and irrigation water and other inputs. It is notable that ICARDA, though once a world leader in this area, now has little expertise in assessing water balance in dryland crops. Subtle changes in water balance can have large effects on water productivity. It is therefore essential that any new appointments in agronomy come with expertise in measuring soil water balance, or at least that consultants be employed to advise in this area. This work is also essential to assess the reductions in consumptive use under supplemental irrigation and the sustainability of irrigation (vis a vis soil salinization) under water scarcity. Close coordination and interactions with MP1 should be sought for maximum efficiency. ICARDA’s research on conservation cropping systems, though restricted, is most promising. It may benefit with closer interactions with agronomists from CIMMYT who are also working in CWANA, most notably in Central Asia. Concerns about land degradation or desertification in arable areas are best addressed through conservation agriculture. Expertise in the current MP3 may be suitable for contributing to this research. A current issue is that fuel for farm use is so cheap that tillage is cheaper than herbicides for controlling weeds, and that therefore adoption of minimum or zero tillage may be unattractive to farmers. However, a decrease in subsidies and a change in fuel prices could occur without warning, and it is important to have options other than frequent tillage available. Because tillage forms part of the farming culture of the region, research on conservation agriculture would require the inclusion of social scientists of MP5 to enhance adoption and impact. ICARDA has demonstrated the value of diversifying from continuous cereal cropping to include food and forage legumes in the crop sequence, although adoption seems to be slow. Further research on such diversification is likely to be worthwhile (and see below), especially if done in cooperation with farmers, if that leads to insights about why adoption has been slow.

61

Research in Sustainable Alternatives to Opium Poppy Cultivation in Afghanistan Background Afghanistan has been the world’s major supplier of illicit opium for many years. With help from the international donor community, the government of Afghanistan has adopted a national drug control strategy which aims to reduce poppy cultivation by 70% in 5 years and completely eliminate it in 10 years. Since the livelihoods of many rural Afghans currently depend on growing opium poppy, sustainable alternative livelihoods must be found. Without such alternatives, there would be substantial increase in poverty resulting from the elimination of the opium economy. Decades of conflict in Afghanistan have devastated the country’s agricultural research and extension institutions. To address this problem a 3-year program, Research in Alternative Livelihoods Fund (RALF) Program, financed by DFID (UK) and managed by ICARDA, began in January 2004. RALF involves many research institutions outside Afghanistan such as other CGIAR Centers, universities in the UK and US, international NGOs, as well as Afghan institutions. The RALF Program aims to set up a competitive mechanism for funding innovative projects, to test recommended technologies and support services, and improve capacity for applied research and extension in Afghanistan. The target outcome is to define legal alternatives to opium production that are practicable in the socio-economic environment of Afghanistan and that are accessible to rural poor. Current Activities Efforts are underway to strengthen the teaching and research capabilities of agricultural institutions in Afghanistan, and to set up appropriate financial and marketing instruments. Alternatives to opium poppy that are being explored are saffron and mint. Achievements A RALF Steering Committee and a competitive mechanism for funding applied research projects were established. Two rounds of funding have resulted in 11 projects funded under three themes: crop diversification and post-harvest value addition; forage/livestock; and socio-economic analysis and intervention. A website and an electronic database were created for the RALF program. Future plans include: a project that has been completed on marketing of livestock and livestock products has been completed and its recommendations disseminated in local languages. Field monitoring of the projects will continue in provinces that were not covered in 2005, a communication strategy will be developed, and alternative sources of funding will be explored. Assessment This is a project that ICARDA is well placed to host, owing to its general experience in central Asia and to its having an existing office in Kabul. Given the instability of Afghanistan, however, it is not clear that the project will have significant outcomes.

62

Box 3: On the diversification issue: horticulture and the role of ICARDA. Diversification of production should aid in meeting the objectives of poverty alleviation and of improving livelihoods in the Dry Areas. Horticulture, the production of vegetables, fruits and nuts, herbs, ornamental and medicinal plants, has an enormous potential in CWANA. Horticultural commodities not only improve diets, but their capacity to increase income and to generate employment largely exceeds that of most other agricultural systems. An additional benefit of horticulture is its potential to generate and attract agro-industrial activities that contribute significantly to economic development. Given all these potential benefits, what should be the role of ICARDA in horticulture? There have been already a number of research activities promoted and/or carried out by ICARDA. A detailed study, conducted by ICARDA, of the potential of fruits, vegetables, medicinal plants and even of wild species that can be cultivated, demonstrated the opportunities that exist in the region and rightly pointed out to the needs for market studies and for adaptive research in post-harvest technologies. Research on the production of date palms in Oman, and on introducing vegetable production in unheated, plastic greenhouses in Yemen and Afghanistan, are two recent examples that prove the interest of the NARS of CWANA in attracting ICARDA to this subject matter. Another important, recent initiative is the agreement between ICARDA and The World Vegetable Center, AVRDC, to develop a joint project in Central Asia, with two scientists being placed by AVRDC at ICARDA in Uzbekistan and also plans for joint appointments at Headquarters. Recent developments in the sustainable intensification of production in olive and other fruit and nut trees, have also generated substantial interest among the NARS of the Region, and the consequent calls for ICARDA to lead or to participate in new research efforts in this area. Given the opportunities and the demand, the temptation for ICARDA would be to step into the field of horticulture and engage in more research, in response to the challenge. However, this would put ICARDA at a comparative disadvantage, because the field of horticulture is vast and there are many alternative sources of supply that can advantageously compete with ICARDA in this area. On the other hand, ICARDA cannot ignore the huge potential that horticulture has for poverty alleviation in the Dry Areas. The Panel believes that the best bet at present is to design a strategy based on networking and on developing new partnerships, to facilitate the access of NARS and others to new horticultural knowledge that is relevant for the Dry Areas. There are some obvious opportunities at present that demand attention, such as the new systems of olive and almond production, but rather than engaging directly in research, ICARDA could be a focal point, linking advanced institutions effectively with those NARS in need of assistance. The Panel is of the opinion that additional investments by ICARDA along these lines should have substantial returns in achieving its mission. The Panel recommends the development of a strategy for research in horticulture by identifying the subject matter where the return on research investments would be highest in the various agroecologies of the Dry Areas. The Panel identified tree crops such as olive, almond and pistachio, as one of the most promising areas for horticultural research in the Dry Areas. The Panel believes that networking and partnering would be the most appropriate instruments for knowledge dissemination and problem-solving, with ICARDA linking the NARS with advanced institutions.

63

MegaProject 5: Poverty-Livelihoods analysis and Impact Assessment Background Poverty in the CWANA region is caused by many factors - physical, economic, social and political. MP5 addresses the economic, social and policy research elements of ICARDA’s approach. Most of the countries of CWANA are classified as low-to-middle income countries and some are amongst the least developed countries. The dependence of most of rural areas on rainfed agriculture makes them very insecure due to the variable climatic conditions. Poverty in natural resources, low level of public investment - especially in rural areas, technological backwardness, weak linkages to the global economy, strong public sector and administered economies are all factors, with others, which contribute to the growth of the number of poor people in the rural parts of the CWANA region (Annex 10 shows the extent of poverty in some countries of the CWANA Region according to data available in the period 2002-2004). The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) include the goal of reducing the number of poor people by half by the year of 2015. The MDGs provide the global framework for ICARDA’s research strategy. In ICARDA’s Medium-Term Plan for 1998-2000 there are two statements which guide the work of MP5:

“ICARDA’s research contributed to poverty alleviation through productivity improvements integrated with sustainable natural resources management, and the Center’s research outputs constitute international public goods”. “ICARDA’s mission is to improve the welfare of poor people through research and training in the dry areas of developing world, by increasing the production, productivity and nutritional quality of food, while preserving and enhancing the natural resource base”. Mega Project (5) assesses the socialeconomic factors affecting the livelihood of rural communities and better characterization of the poor through data compilation and analysis.
The research focus of Mega Project 5 had been reshaped according to the 4th EPMR recommendations (see Annex 11). Recommendation 6 recommended that ICARDA should “reduce its scope and concentrate on fewer issues, selected in close collaboration with the center’s physical and biological scientists and the natural programs - that are central to the operational mandate of the center.” Recommendation 10 of the same review notes “recognizing ICARDA conducted a wide-range of studies offering partial insight into poverty, the Panel recommends that ICARDA determine with its partners, the rural livelihood strategies of the poor in its region to clarify what research options, investments, policies and technologies are most likely to benefit them. Special emphasis should be given to highly vulnerable segments of the population.” Further, the CCER of Natural resource management and socio-economics (see Annex 9) recommended areas for new work for socio-economics. Their recommendation 3 is for “socioeconomics to develop and implement appropriate integrated impact assessment methods to correspond to the development of the integrated natural resources management approach. These [assessment methods] need to be consistent across different spatial scales, and coherently assimilate different styles of evaluation, ranging from the highly quantitative to the qualitative. ” Current Activities Socio-economics research in ICARDA has evolved scientifically from a farming system diagnosis approach to research looking at the poverty relevance of the research and the policy implications

64

and trade-offs of natural resource management. Accordingly, the research portfolio of MP5 has focused on a set of related issues: 1. Adoption and impact analysis, especially for germplasm. 2. Economics of natural resources including market and non-market valuation of natural resources used by rural communities and analysis of the impact of NRM research on rural livelihoods. 3. Analysis of the determinants of poverty, vulnerability and rural livelihood strategies including the dimensions of gender, nutrition, constraints and opportunities for poverty reduction through livelihood analysis. 4. Policies and Institutes: analysis of policy and institutional options concerning natural resource management, particularly water and rangelands, to extend livelihood options for rural poor and the returns to investments in the dry areas. In addition to its own research responsibility, the socio-economics group is also working closely with biophysical scientists in defining research problems, developing methodologies in the integrated rural resources, management research, participatory and community-based research methods and in identifying impact pathways and out-scaling approaches of technological innovation. The activities of MP5 are expected to be integrated with all other Mega-Projects and eco-regional programs and contribute directly to the implementation of socio-economic and policy research aspects of those programs. Achievements Several valuable achievements have been made by MegaProject 5. Firstly, has been the establishment of a better-focused socio-economic research agenda, which has been more successfully integrated with other MegaProjects, regional programs and NARS – such as the analysis of participatory research on water management in Egypt. This achievement contributes to the reputation of ICARDA and its continuing relevance in a changing regional and international environment. MegaProject 5 has: • • • introduced new methodologies for characterization of rural households in dry areas using the sustainable livelihoods framework and resource-related poverty mapping using GIS in Syria. developed methodologies for assessing on-farm water use efficiency and methodology for NRM research impact assessment. introduced methodologies through means which contribute to capacity building of NARS in areas of adoption and impact assessment, poverty and livelihoods analysis, impact of natural NRM research and participatory and community-based approaches. conducted several impact studies including two global impact studies on barley and lentil germplasm technology, and others relating to child nutrition, gender, and non-farm activities.

•

The last (CCER) of natural resource management and socioeconomics noted (Annex 9) the limited publication of social science research outputs in refereed journals. Although, there is evidence for progress made in this respect, more effort and time must be also allocated to reach a satisfactory level.

65

Assessment and future challenges Overall, the current EPMR Panel appreciates the increasing professional capacity and the focus of socio-economics-related research at ICARDA since the last EPMR. The research agenda of MP5 has been focused and further temptations to extend this agenda must be resisted. At present, there are 5 professional staff in MP5, including the director. Socioeconomic disciplines covered by the present team of professionals in MP5 are: poverty analysis, adoption and impact, natural resource economics, gender and social capital and agricultural marketing. One additional P-level position is currently advertised (an agricultural economist in production and risk analysis) and is to be recruited shortly. In addition, there are 3 professionals of different levels serving other MegaProjects (in the seed unit under MP2, adoption and development (MP6) and joint appointment between CIRAD and ICARDA in MP3. As reported in Chapter 4, there are long standing attempts with IFPRI to increase further the socio-economics research capacity applied to regional needs which, however, are still to come to fruition. Strong emphasis is placed by MP5 to deepen understanding of the nature, causes, intensity and effects of poverty at the community and household levels and promoting technical, institutional and policy options that can respond to the needs of the poor. In this respect, studies on microcredits, employment in off-farm activities, women empowerment and livestock activities need to be correctly weighted in ICARDA’s approaches to poverty alleviation in rural areas. The stability of food supply from domestic sources in the CWANA region is affected by the large variability in rainfall, quantities and timing. In relation to poverty-related research, attention must be paid to dovetailing knowledge of the biophysical constraints with socio-economic and policy research to smooth and stabilize the food supply due to inter- and intra-seasonal variation. Given that socioeconomic conditions are highly related to locations, an effort must be devoted to encourage social scientists in NARS to participate in and continue such studies. Training workshops may be required on subjects which include poverty and policy analysis. Some countries of the region have been undergoing a process of economic reform and others are transforming from highly controlled economies by the state to a market economy (e.g. in the countries of the CAC). Analysis of these policy questions, their impacts on agriculture and on the work and mission of ICARDA is of great importance. Therefore, further support to MP5 in human and financial resources is strongly recommended to ensure directing more research efforts to policy and institutions, marketing and competitiveness. The current discussions between ICARDA and IFPRI on a joint appointment for a senior scientist is strongly encouraged and seen by the Panel as an appropriate arrangement for efficient use of resources and expertise in both Centers. If the current discussions do not come to a positive conclusion, ICARDA has to look for alternatives to fill the need for policy analysis. Most of the countries of CWANA are members or observers in the WTO. The international economy is globalized and international markets have been liberalized to different extents. Lately several multilateral, regional and bilateral economic and trade agreements for these countries have been put in place, altering comparative advantages in such areas such as information technology, communication and transportation. Maximizing the benefits for countries of the region from the international market - or minimizing their losses due to such integration – will inevitably play an important part in the socio-economic development of the region. MP5 has to study the dynamics of the international markets and its relation to the local markets of CWANA region in order to estimate effects on the agricultural sector and to guide germplasm research

66

(crops & varieties) and diversification (MP4). Study of the impacts to local economies of importing virtual water (in which IWMI has some experience) is also of high importance. The present declared public policy of the CWANA countries limits the participation of the public sector in production and trade activities. These activities are transferred to the NGOs and the private sector. The area of market organization (structure, conduct and performance) deserves a separate study to identify means, systems and policies to encourage the private sector and NGOs to engage in a partnership with ICARDA. The study should identify where such partners perform some functions more efficiently than does ICARDA, and the required means and incentives to encourage their participation more actively in the agricultural and agriculturerelated activities in the CWANA region. The Panel acknowledges the good progress that has been made by MP5 in developing frameworks and methods on NRM for integrated crops/ livestock production system in collaboration with SPIA, and recommends that extra support should be extended to socioeconomic research at the Center for such methods to be fully developed and implemented at different scales. The development of appropriate valuation methods for NRM benefits and environmental attributes will in turn impact on the quality and rigor of impact assessment studies. Methods to measure the outcomes and impacts of NRM research are required both to guide future research (particularly on water) and to justify the expenditures of integrated NRM research at ICARDA. The specific agenda is still large considering the number of staff available. The current small number of professionals cannot perform efficiently their responsibilities given the increasing demand on social science research and policy analysis required by the Center. This group has to achieve a specific agenda (MegaProject 5) with its inherent challenges and has to contribute to other MegaProjects, and to participate in most of ICARDA’s other undertakings, and to contribute to capacity building of NARS. Therefore the Panel believes that a critical mass of social-economic researchers with required competence profiles (institutions, policy and gender among others) must be secured to allow timely delivery, continuity and high quality output. However, the allocation of some socio-economists outside MP5 does not support such efforts, and the Panel strongly suggests that all socio-economists be hosted under MP5. The Panel recommends that additional staff is hired to increase the capacity of the socioeconomics Program. MegaProject 6: Knowledge Management and Dissemination for Sustainable Development in Dry Areas Background Knowledge Management and Dissemination (KMD) is described by ICARDA as “an area of research that aims to capitalize on the experience gained by co-learning, sharing, networking and up scaling, and to bring out a change in culture and behavior in all partners to assure equity, transparency and flexibility in order to achieve maximum impact on the poor from ICARDA’s research”. A primary goal of the KMD is to ensure that the knowledge generated from research is efficiently packaged and made accessible to rural communities beyond the research pilot sites/communities, so contributing to the goals of food security, poverty reduction and the preservation of natural resources.

67

ICARDA explains that in order to be effective the KMD Program must produce NPGs (national public goods) and IPGs based on research results. Based on knowledge of the particular approaches used by scientists and technology transfer agents in the field, it is possible to work effectively with proxies for knowledge by identifying methodologies which appear to work across a range of situations and their commonalities. To establish this, the KMD Program at ICARDA proposes to analyze the “knowledge pathways” emerging from ICARDA’s ongoing research for development projects. This process of abstraction will enable ICARDA to develop a practical tool box of approaches and methodologies that can be considered IPG and NPGs. These methodologies include verified priority outputs (Technological, Institutional and Policy Options – TIPOs) TIPO packages, Best Bet Practices (winwin scenarios) and packaging of a range of skills and innovations for wide use. The KMD Program will also help to identify the kinds of policy and institutional frameworks that are needed to encourage knowledge production and its application. To this end the KMD program is establishing research programs exploring innovative methodologies and approaches for knowledge management. In meeting these challenges, the KMD program is adding value to the work of ICARDA and NARS scientists. It will also assist scientific and farming communities to take full advantage of the advances in Information and Communication Technologies. Current activities and achievements MP6 is a relatively new construct and the achievements of the contributing elements are given in italics: • Development of the Conceptual Framework and Model of KMD – Two achievements are i) the development and publication of the KMD model in a brochure (September 2005) and ii) the on-going internal and external consultations aiming to generate understanding and feedback on the KMD model. Combining Supply and Demand Driven Approaches to KMD - Current activities focus on exploring ways in which the human experience (knowledge) can be utilized in the development and dissemination of new technologies. With respect to dissemination in particular, methodological approaches include the use of community development communication, development journalism and village drama. Case Study Development - Four case studies have been completed: i) GEF Agrobiodiversity Project, ii) Barani Village Development Project, iii) Matrouh Resource Management Project, and iv) the Integrated Crop-livestock Production in Low Rainfall Areas. KMD Technical Publication Series - The first publication in the series “Lessons learned from ICARDA Applied Research Component of Barani Village Development Project Punjab, Pakistan was distributed in Dec 2005 for preliminary review by interested scientists. The second publication in the series “Lessons Learned form Matrouh Resources Management Project” is ready for distribution for preliminary review. Verification of Priority Outputs - Ground Truthing - Verification of the key knowledge elements (priority outputs, methodologies, best bet practices and innovation) will involve close collaboration with MP5. Developing KMD Packages for Different Stakeholders. International Assessment of Agriculture Science and Technology and Development - Over 40 AST experts have been brought together to assess past experience in the CWANA region and to consider potential developments in the next half century to 2050. Horticultural Program - The program identifies, shares and disseminates horticultural knowledge in collaboration with MP4
68

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

Focal Point for Natural Disaster, Conflict and Post-conflict Situations - KMD is tasked as a focal point for rehabilitation of agriculture for natural disasters, conflict and post conflict situations to better coordinate ICARDA’s ongoing activities in Afghanistan and future strategies elsewhere in the region – Iraq, Palestine and Sudan.

The activities of the Seed Unit have been placed under this MP. The overall objective of the SU is to strengthen seed systems in WANA with major emphasis on technology transfer. The Unit can process 200-400 MT of seed per year and provide 6,000-10,000 cleaned seed samples per year. It has provided support to the informal seed sector (through a village-based seed enterprise program – e.g. in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Eritrea and Yemen; for durum wheat in marginal areas of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, and in collaboration with a private company, a low-cost seed cleaning machine was developed which is now utilized by farming communities in 8 countries). Support to the formal seed industry has been through policy advice (Afghanistan, Iran), holding regional workshops on seed policy, evaluation of the robustness of formal and informal seed systems, training (677 NARS staff from the CWANA region attended 35 seed technology courses) and promotion of private sector links through an International Seed Conference in collaboration with the Turkish Seed Industry Association. The SU has been instrumental in contributing to the distribution of imported and locally produced wheat seed in Afghanistan and the rehabilitation of research stations in that country. Future directions MP6 has identified two main directions: 1. Exploring the background and analyzing the key knowledge elements generated from ICARDA research programs, and, 2. Mainstreaming and out scaling research outputs, which planned to include:

i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii)

Translation of ICARDA targeted research results in the dry areas into national and international public goods. Exploring the background and analysis of knowledge pathways emerging from ICARDA’s ongoing research for development projects. Development of practical tool box of methodologies, verified priority outputs and packaging them for wide use. Establishment of research programs to explore innovative methodologies and approaches for knowledge management. Establishment of effective learning and sharing systems, decision support tools that facilitate innovation and receptiveness. Identifying the kinds of policy and institutional frameworks that are needed to encourage knowledge and its application. Out scaling the knowledge to a large number of end–users.

Assessment and future challenges MegaProject 6 has been established to deal with the management of the knowledge developed in the research activities in ICARDA and with its dissemination. The Panel acknowledges that effective dissemination of research results is essential to achieve impact and believes that research on KMD is an important subject, preferably focused on the Center’s requirement to develop IPGs. However, given the focus and dimensions of ICARDA, original research in this area is not of

69

sufficient priority to warrant a program of the dimensions of one of six MP as designed in the recent re-structuring of research in ICARDA. Accordingly, the Panel believes that dissemination of research is best if placed directly under the research programs for efficiency and management considerations. The subject matter specialists in the research programs are more capable of assessing the practical value of outputs and (with support) packaging their research. Also, in assessing the current activities and future direction of the KMD program, the Panel failed to identify sufficient research themes, or where research was identified, it would overlap with that to be carried out under MP5. The workplan of MP6 and the services provided by CODIS also overlap (see below). The very wide and diverse range of activities now under MP6 could be realigned in a more efficient fashion, as discussed below. The Seed Unit is critical to the ongoing success of ICARDA and is currently placed under MP6. Previous reports (e.g. the CCER on integrated gene management) have suggested moving the Seed Unit to MP2 (in relation to the germplasm improvement research). In most institutions, this is where the Seed Unit or its seed activities would be aligned. ICARDA has responded that the Seed Unit is a critical aspect of knowledge transfer, hence retained the Seed Unit in MP6 with the understanding that there are considerable interactions among all of the MPs. The correct alignment of the Seed Unit should be revisited with respect to what is its primary function. If the primary function is to process seed of ICARDA developed germplasm for distribution, then the Panel believes it should be in MP2. The Seed Unit could also be aligned with other MP projects that address value added industries and policies (MP5) or forages (MP4) if the primary responsibility was to help with value added industries and policies or – a particular need - forage seed as part of managed ecosystems. However, the recommendation of the Panel is to consider moving the Seed Unit to MP2 or to another MP where the facilitation of seed production is directly related to the activity of the MP. The Panel recommends that MP6 activities on knowledge management should be integrated within the other research programs and MP6 should not be a separate research program, given the priorities and dimensions of ICARDA. The Seed Unit, now in MP6, should move to MP2, while other parts of MP6 fit better in MP5 or in horizontal units. Having previously noted the critical need for the Seed Unit in ICARDA, there is a concern as to what is its proper role and mandate, especially as it relates to helping areas in conflict such as Afghanistan. A conventional approach is that helping recreate the seed industry (a key need for successful agriculture) in Afghanistan was beyond the traditional research goals of ICARDA. The alternative view is that ICARDA was uniquely positioned to rapidly aid in the rebuilding of Afghanistani agriculture because it had the Seed Unit, and ICARDA had the adapted germplasm and knowledge of the region, so that the technology that could be readily transferred to the public or private sector. It is suggested that ICARDA worked with commercial and development agencies in this project as part of the research to development continuum, without affecting its research, although no opportunity costing of this type has been carried out by the Panel. The debate on research or development mandates for ICARDA are appropriate for future efforts (and see discussion in Chapter 1).It is expected that any future assistance efforts will present a new set of unique circumstances that will require a similar, flexible analysis and approach as was done in Afghanistan.

70

Science Quality: Indicators and Assessment The quality of the science conducted in an institution is directly related to the quality of the work performed by its staff. The evaluation of the quality of scientific staff working in applied sciences, such as Agriculture, is often the subject of debate. On the one hand, science administrators and others demand the use of quantitative or even numerical criteria for comparative purposes. On the other, there is a long tradition of peer-review by scientists who are reluctant to use scores for the simple reason that quality is, by definition, qualitative and thus extremely difficult to quantify in absolute terms. The reluctance in using quantitative indicators is exemplified by the uncertain meaning of the Impact Factor (IF) of the journals listed in the ISI database, as one example. In some specific areas of agriculture (e.g. horticulture), leading journals may have an IF of less than 1.0, while in other areas (e.g. plant biotechnology), the same IF represents a journal well below average. In assessing the quality of staff, the Panel has used a number of criteria, starting with the number and relevance of publications in refereed, international journals (ISI database); number of citations corrected by the estimated size of the specific scientific community, as an indication of influence in his/her field of expertise; science awards, honors, and invited talks; membership of editorial Boards; reviewer of international journals; and number of graduate students supervised during the period in question. All this information was consolidated and shaped into a subjective judgment of each individual by the Panel and subsequently integrated for all the scientists in each MegaProject. Overall scientific production of the Center It is customary to assess the scientific quality of a research institution by examining its publication record in refereed, international journals. It should be pointed out at the outset that ICARDA scientists, as in other CGIAR Centers, are subjected to many and diverse demands that severely limit the time they can allocate to produce papers in international journals. In addition, publishing is not valued as highly as in advanced institutions (ARI).Thus, their productivity by this indicator is likely to be less than what would be expected if they were working at ARI’s and focusing mostly on conducting research. Production of publications in refereed, international journals (ISI) by ICARDA scientists was extremely variable for the period 2000-2005; one scientist published 18 papers, while 28% of the scientists (17) did not publish in international journals during that period. About 50% published more than one paper during the period, and 30% published more than five papers for the period. Over 13 % of the scientists published more than 10 publications during the period. Note that the ISI database does not cover all relevant publications in the social sciences and that many other types of publications were produced during the period, but most original research results in agricultural sciences are usually first published in refereed international journals of the ISI database. If ICARDA aims at being a leading scientific institution in the Dry Areas, an enhancement of its publication record in international journals should be pursued by the Center scientists and its management. An outstanding publication record is an excellent advertisement for the scientists and for the Center to attract new staff of high quality at all levels. The causes for the ample differences in publication outputs among scientists should be investigated, and particular attention should be devoted to cases where output has been consistently low over a long time period.

71

MP1. This MP has very good scientific productivity. The MP leader has had a very productive period over the last five years and an excellent international reputation among his peers, being frequently invited to deliver speeches at some of the most important meetings in his field. Publications of the rest of the staff are good but limited in number. Because the research conducted within this MP is of very high quality, the other staff members should be encouraged to devote more of their time to this activity. MP2. The scientific productivity of this MP is very good. The current leader has a worldwide reputation and his publications have influenced the research community significantly (although most were published before he joined ICARDA). The lentil program has an outstanding publication record and is extremely influential in its field. The barley scientists are among the most productive of ICARDA’s scientists and are recognized internationally as an authority in participatory plant breeding. The chickpea program leader has also a very good record of publication and is well recognized by peers. The plant protection programs have many scientists with very high production rates that are very well respected in their scientific communities. The biotechnology program has an adequate publication record for its field which is expected to grow as additional grants are obtained and the current research is completed. The durum wheat program has a good record of publications. The GRU has a reasonable publication record based on its curation responsibilities, however, the quality of the research is excellent and time appears to limit their ability to publish. MP3. The average scientific productivity of MP3 scientists may be rated between adequate and somewhat less than adequate. Much of the research in this MP is long-term and therefore does not produce as many publications as would similar research efforts in other fields of science. However, every scientist should have a publication strategy to ensure that high quality publishable research is possible. MP4. The average number and relevance of the publications in this MP is insufficient. This MP also deals with long-term research and has a very strong outreach program, thus expectations cannot be as high as in MP2, for example. Nevertheless, as the MP focuses on fewer themes, the scientists should give high priority to publish their original results to increase the scientific output of this MP as mentioned above in MP3. MP5. Scientists in MP5 were encouraged to increase their publication output in previous recommendations by the EPMR and by the CCER and they have been keen at following the recommendation. It is hoped that the positive trend detected by this Panel continues, and that interdisciplinary research currently under way is published in international journals or in widely read and cited publications, such as books and book chapters. MP6. The scientific output of this MP is as diverse as its content. The average is considered less than adequate and some scientists should be encouraged to identify important researchable topics within ICARDA’s research portfolio that will lead to publications in international journals. In summary, the overall scientific productivity of MPs 1 and 2 is very good and that of MP5 is improving. The lower productivity of the approximately 40% of senior scientific staff not covered by these programs should be subject to evaluation. Therefore, in cases where outputs in refereed, international journals were less than adequate, the Panel recommends an assessment of the causes for the low productivity.

72

Research Support Units All Research Support Units are cross-cutting in nature and provide services to all of ICARDA’s MegaProjects. Human Resource and Development Unit (HRDU)/Training Background The HRDU is primarily involved with training and should consider renaming itself to better reflect its NARS human capacity building activities. Training at ICARDA is mainly demanddriven and has always been given high priority. It has also been successful as determined by the number of individuals trained and the numerous favorable comments received by the EPMR Panel during its visits to the regional programs or while interviewing stakeholders (NARS and NGO representatives). Current activities and achievements ICARDA has placed emphasis on training future scientists from the region. Annexes 12 and 13 show the efforts of ICARDA in group training by themes. Training in the area of seeds attracts the highest number of participants and is the largest in terms of training days, while these numbers are the lowest in social science and livestock training. ICARDA’s Graduate Research Training Program (GRTP) was established in 1986. The program is involved primarily in assisting Master of Science candidates from regional and international universities. Men and women selected for the program have the opportunity to conduct all or part of their thesis research work at ICARDA research sites. A limited number of ICARDA-GRTP awards are available each year to support scholars. Under the terms of an ICARDA-GRTP award, the research scholar or fellow receives financial support to cover direct costs for a maximum of 18 months (M.Sc) or 24 months (Ph. D), which he may spread over a two-year period for M.Sc and over a four-year period for Ph.D. The total number of theses completed at ICARDA during 1998 to 2005 was 202 (86 M.Sc and 116 PhDs). The establishment of ICARDA-GRTP at the center has to seek more resources to encourage high quality graduates to be nominated. In addition to group and individual training, ICARDA organizes seminars and workshops dealing with advanced areas of science. These activities are mainly organized with advanced research institutes. For instance, the seminar on “Advanced Seminar on "Drought Mitigation Methodologies, Tools and Management Options” was being held in Aleppo, during the main phase of the EPMR in June 2006 and was jointly organized by FAO, ICARDA and the International Center for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM) through its Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Zaragoza (IAMZ). The three institutions are leaders for the Near East, Mediterranean and Central Asia (NEMEDCA) Drought Network. This year, 24 participants will be attending from 14 countries mostly resource managers, policy makers and scientists involved in drought management in the water and agriculture sectors. Future directions Training activities carried out by ICARDA remain of vital importance for the advancement of regional NARS and contribute to the standing of the Center in the region. The Panel commends ICARDA’s efforts in this area and urges that ICARDA seek to employ modern methods for advancing different types of training (including distance learning) and that it complements traditional bio-physical science disciplines with more attention to the social sciences.

73

Assessment and future challenges There are three major challenges that the HRDU will face in the future. First, with the development of the Norman Borlaug-Robert Havener Center for Wheat Improvement in CWANA based at ICARDA, there is a need to guard against the possibility that training might focus preponderently on wheat at the expense of other ICARDA mandated crops. (See comments made in MP2). The second challenge is that with the continued improvement in the NARS scientific quality and capacity, there will be increased opportunities for training to be done at NARS (e.g. more NARS to NARS training) which could potentially reduce exposure of NARS trainees to ICARDA staff. In addition to the direct benefits gained by training, a secondary advantage, according to stakeholders in regional programs, is the scientist to scientist interaction. While ICARDA fully recognizes the training needs of its stakeholder community (mainly NARS) and implements its “train the trainers” philosophy, the third challenge would be to develop a professional development plan for its own employees bearing in mind that science is rapidly evolving and the advance of its scientific staff is critical to the quality of research and reputation of ICARDA. Communication, Documentation and Information Services (CODIS) CODIS is responsible for information exchange between ICARDA and its wide array of partners. It is involved in producing ICARDA publications (“Caravan”, “The Week at ICARDA” and “Ties that Bind”, a series addressed to donors) as well as providing training to NARS in the area of information management and scientific writing. Major achievements of CODIS involve promotion of ICARDA’s activities in regional and international media through documentary films and success stories. CODIS is also responsible for administering ICARDA’s website, ICARDA’s virtual library and the CGIAR e-learning project. For the latter, CODIS already uploaded five ICARDA training modules into the CGIAR learning management system. The Panel commends the good work done by CODIS as echoed by comments received from the stakeholder survey and encourages the unit to actively participate in regional networks such as AARINENA, GFAR and FAO while resuming its focus on interactive self learning training modules. The knowledge management aspects of MP6 and CODIS have overlapping goals mainly “to ensure that the knowledge generated from research is efficiently packaged and made accessible to rural communities beyond the research pilot sites/communities, so contributing to the goals of food security, poverty reduction and the preservation of natural resources”. As discussed previously, the benefits of having MP6 as a stand alone program are unclear. Computer and Biometrics Services Unit (CBSU) Among the major achievements of CBSU is the installation of a new speed LAN with wireless network facilities at HQ, the development of databases for seed information management, water benchmarking, meteorological and soil information and development of NRM modelling. CBSU has also developed biometric methodologies and training sessions on statistical analyses for evaluation of improved lines of wheat, barley and legumes. The Panel encourages CBSU to continue developing activities in the biometrics and bioinformatics field such as exploitation of genotype x environment interactions, modeling crop response to (supplemental) irrigation and time-trend in long term wheat rotations.

74

Geographic Information Systems Unit (GISU) GISU major activities include remote sensing, mapping land degradation, development of and Agro-Climate Tool and a spatial database on land resources in CWANA. GISU has been more specifically involved in selection of suitable sites for water harvesting techniques, assessment of land degradation and the introduction of new methodologies for characterization of rural households in dry areas. The Panel strongly supports activities undertaken by GISU and encourages the Unit to continue developing the system to meet research demands at ICARDA. GIS would be essential in mapping yield gaps throughout CWANA’s agro-ecological zones with the development of models for data on soil and water, as recommended in Chapter 3 in relation to MP4. The Panel recommends that additional investments are made in the GISU unit by providing it with sufficient scientific staff to tackle the challenges of the new Water and Land Program (Recommendation 3). It is further recommended that ICARDA should map, with the help of modeling and available data on actual yields over several years, the difference between actual yields of crops and the yields expected if the crops were limited only by water and not by disease or management. Infrastructure The infrastructure of ICARDA was assessed in the following areas: access to reliable electrical power, IT, laboratory equipment, building facilities, field facilities and field equipment. The two greatest problems that ICARDA is facing are unreliable electrical supply - which prematurely ages all of their equipment that runs on electricity - and capital improvements. In the capital area, a recent CGIAR-wide policy that all equipment at CGIAR centers that would be gifted to the host nation, should the center be closed, cannot be depreciated to purchase new equipment has severely reduced the depreciation budget. As with other Centers, the renewal of capital items by ICARDA has been adversely affected by this policy. Electrical Supply: ICARDA tried to ameliorate the electrical problem by allowing a power substation to be built on ICARDA lands in hopes that it may give a more reliable electrical supply with fewer power fluctuations. Unfortunately, this strategy had minimal effects on the power interruptions but did decrease power fluctuations. For key research units, such as GRU, generators have already been purchased to ensure key research and materials are not lost. The purchase of others is being considered. Capital Improvements: The two greatest competitors for ICARDA capital investment are the needs for better IT and laboratory equipment. In both areas, the equipment (and for IT, the software) is changing rapidly and it is hard to maintain a high quality research environment. For example, although 35% of PCs (total 474 PCs) are three-years old or less, some of the PCs are 8 years old due to having to stretch out purchasing new computers. In addition, video conferencing between the regional programs and headquarters is needed to reduce travel time among ICARDA staff that are separated in space. Travel transactions costs are high when working closely with NARS. As for the laboratory equipment, one of the roles that CGIAR Centers have is to help NARS determine what technology is appropriate for their research needs. Of course, they have their own mandate for carrying out appropriate high quality research. As such, it is important that the laboratories are as near to state of the art as possible. In addition to the more traditional

75

“laboratory” equipment, a need for better growth chambers was identified. Currently, ICARDA has done a good job of trying to reach this goal, but it is becoming more difficult and the pressure for both IT and laboratory equipment will increase. Clearly in both areas, additional capital investment is needed. It should be highlighted that the recent capital infusion for the GRU was well spent and their facilities are very good. Also, the CGIAR center wide initiatives for electronic libraries, etc. have been very effective in providing access to the global scientific literature and reducing individual center costs. One area where ICARDA had previously invested heavily was in the vehicle fleet, which now appears excessive. The average age of the fleet is about 9 years old and the maintenance costs are becoming high enough (not to mention the difficulty in getting spare parts) that reduction in size and replacement with newer vehicles is being discussed. The Panel supports the need for a review of the vehicle fleet. As for building facilities, the major concern was the air conditioning system which needs improvement and perhaps, with modern technology considerable energy savings could be made (reducing the environmental footprint of ICARDA). The dry environment reduces the wear and tear on facilities experienced by some Centers, however, the normal aging process is occurring with major renovations being needed at some time in the future. ICARDA is fortunate that it currently has sufficient space for it staff (office and laboratory), its training mission, and its field research. The greenhouses are mainly plastic houses and hence require small investments for upgrading. Similarly, the irrigation system will need incremental improvements. The field/farm equipment currently allows first rate field research (which is given a high priority), but as field equipment evolves, the age of the ICARDA’s field equipment is reducing their ability to stay at the cutting edge of field research and demonstration. Summary: Electrical power remains a concern for the Center for which there are few good answers. IT and laboratory equipment upgrades and replacements (including growth chambers) are viewed as critical needs and are correctly given highest priority. The size and age of the vehicle fleet needs review. Building (with the exception of the air conditioning), greenhouse, and field facilities and equipment are adequate, but will need upgrading in the future.

76

4

REGIONAL PROGRAMS, PARTNERSHIPS AND LINKAGES

The Regional Programs ICARDA’s Regional Programs provide the Center’s means for outreach and for the conduct of collaborative research and technology transfer programs amongst NARS in sub-regions of similar agro-ecology. The regional programs also enhance opportunities for integration of program elements around applied issues. Currently ICARDA operates seven regional or ecoregional programs: • • • • • • • Arabian Peninsula Regional Program (APRP) Central Asia and the Caucasus Regional Program (CACRP) Nile Valley and Red Sea Regional Program (NVRSRP) North Africa Regional Program (NARP) West Asia Regional Program (WARP) Highland Research Regional Network (HRN) Latin America Regional Program (LARP)

Each of these programs is discussed in more detail below. Most regional Programs are headed by a Regional Coordinator (a senior P-level scientist), and one or two other scientific staff. The CACRP is a special case since ICARDA leads a multi-Center initiative and the coordination unit comprises 4 scientists and several MSc–level staff. The Regional Coordinators develop and manage regional (restricted core) projects of various durations. Research is largely conducted by national partners, project management and/or backstopping is provided by the regional coordinators, with additional scientific inputs obtained from HQ staff according to availability. The sub-regional project priorities arise largely from Regional Coordination Meetings with NARS (with demand-led projects developed within the mandate and general boundaries of the ICARDA plans and reporting under the MP structure). Therefore, since the adoption of the six MegaProjects (with more thematic orientations - all MP Directors are resident at HQ) there has been a de facto matrix for the management of ICARDA’s research portfolio with thematic and regional dimensions. Major strategic direction is vested in the ADG-Research and MP Directors at HQ. Arab Peninsula Regional Program (APRP) The regional office of the APRP is located in Dubai, meeting research and training needs of seven countries; Bahrain, Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In 1998 ICARDA started the regional program to address the problems of agricultural production and natural resource management in the harsh environment of this sub-region. The intent is to conduct research of relevance to the poorer countries of the sub-region, strengthening national institutions, and enhancing human resource capacity to conduct agricultural research more generally. There are two senior staff based in Dubai with the date palm specialist based in Muscat. In Oman, ICARDA utilizes research laboratories and greenhouses belonging to the Ministry of Agriculture to undertake this mission. Achievements of ICARDA in APRP ICARDA’s research outputs and activities during the review period focused on Water Resources Management, Forage/Range Management, Protected Agriculture, and Agro-ecological characterization. Under water resources management, ICARDA developed soil-less crop

77

production systems to increase water productivity. In Forage/Range Management, ICARDA’s program has identified grass species in rangelands and forages of interest to most countries of the Arabian Peninsula, as the utilization of adapted, indigenous species as alternative forages was the main objective over the Review period. Buffel grass has been identified as forage which offers high quality feed and high water use efficiency – it can be harvested ten times per year with an average dry yield matter of up to 20 t/ha. One constraint of using these indigenous forages is seed availability (addressed in Bahrain, Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Yemen). Emirates have made significant steps in seed production which allowed forage demonstrations on farmers’ fields. Similarly, in Oman, adequate seed supplies were produced to enable reseeding of rangelands in the interior region. For protected agriculture, the extensive use of chemicals in greenhouses resulted in complex problems of insect resistance to chemicals, as well as health concerns and environment hazards. Integrated Production and Protection Management (IPPM) measures were subsequently implemented in all the Arabian Peninsula Countries with the help of APRP by both research stations and private growers thereby reducing the use of hazardous chemicals. Two major review publications have been developed, one on valuable indigenous plant species of the sub-region, and the other on date palm. The latter represents ICARDA’s response to a regional need for supporting a technically sound research program for date palms in the GCC countries which is an emerging opportunity for diversification. Despite ICARDA having little prior experience in date palm, the sub-region saw ICARDA’s advantage as a facilitator and a provider of state of the art knowledge on the subject. Assessment of ICARDA programs in the APRP The major achievements in the program, assessed in a visit of a Panel Member to APRP, so far are primarily in the area of capacity building for NARS of the Arabian Peninsula and in creating a strong network among researchers. This latter receives praise from researchers and government officials. In addition, the program has been able to develop useful technology packages in the areas of forage/water and protected agriculture/water, which had not been transferred during the Review period. The next phase will need to concentrate on transferring this technology to resource poor farmers in the region. NARS scientists and government officials appreciate ICARDA’s scientific expertise, and administrative support in the development of region-wide networks, projects and training courses (using existing NARS laboratories and greenhouses). Without ICARDA, the networks, projects, and the training would not have occurred. Additionally, ICARDA’s credibility is the fundamental catalyst to accessing research funding for its wider ambitions of assisting the resource poor farmers throughout the Arabian Peninsula and to strengthen the capabilities of the NARS. Central Asia and the Caucasus Regional Program (CACRP) The regional office of ICARDA’s Central Asia and the Caucasus Regional Program (CAC) is located in Tashkent and operates, as the lead center, within the CGIAR Program Facilitation Unit (PFU) there, which also comprises nine CGIAR Centers (CIMMYT, CIP, ICARDA, ICRISAT, IFPRI, ILRI, IPGRI, IRRI, IWMI), and three other institutions (AVRDC, ICBA and MSU). Since September 1998 it has served the eight National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

78

The region has undergone great economic and social shocks following the collapse of the USSR. Economies have shrunk, poverty has increased and agricultural production is still below that before independence. Agricultural research has been badly affected. It is ill-equipped to respond to changes in these emerging market economies, and beneficial changes are in some countries still sometimes impeded by government edicts on how farming should be pursued. Until the arrival of ICARDA in the region, the NARS had little contact with the international scientific community, had few young well-trained staff, had decaying infrastructure, and had lost links with farmers. Further the break up of the collectives into small farms has resulted in former laborers being turned into farmers or shepherds with no expertise in managing land or stock, and with little or no access to reliable information. Achievements of ICARDA in CAC ICARDA, as lead center at the PFU, has been addressing this range of common challenges. It has: • Improved infrastructure by rejuvenating and setting up several gene banks for conserving and augmenting existing collections, and by arranging for modern laboratory facilities to be installed in some institutes. Established close connections with government that has helped it and the NARS facilitate beneficial policy changes. Introduced new cultivars of several crops that perform better than those the farmers have been using. Most notable is the winter wheat variety Dostlik, which performs well in saline environments and is now being grown on several thousand hectares. Excelled at capacity building, having trained several thousand scientists through attendance at national, regional and international meetings, and has so far trained several hundred to speak English. Introduced new techniques of irrigation that substantially increased water productivity, including using alternative furrow irrigation in cotton, devising novel open plastic irrigation channels for use on farm, and novel techniques for making good use of drainage water. Introduced new equipment for conservation tillage and develop conservation tillage techniques that were substantially more profitable than farmers’ practice. Stimulated the breeding of better and more diverse livestock whose products are better targeted to local and international markets.

• •

•

•

• •

Assessment of the ICARDA programs in CAC The visiting Panel members were impressed with the extremely high regard in which ICARDA is held by both the national scientists and government officials with whom they met. The young local scientists could communicate well in English and were highly motivated. Several projects that they saw involved close collaboration with farmers, and were leading to substantial increases in productivity. A new project on “Bright Spots”, which involves collaboration with IWMI and ICBA looks very promising. It involves identifying groups of farmers who are doing exceptionally well in coping with salt-affected land, and working with them to establish why they are doing so well, and thence to develop new principles of management that can be applied more generally, including NARS to NARS collaborations. There is no doubt that ICARDA’s credibility and involvement has energized these agricultural research communities, has created strong networks amongst them, and has connected them to the outside world. The increase in capacity has been remarkable, especially in relation to ability to speak English, which enables their access to the international literature. The quality of some of

79

the research being done by national institutions is not outstanding. Many mistakes are being made, and much outside help from ICARDA scientists and others is still needed. But improvement over what was happening before is palpable. ICARDA’s role is crucially important in capacity building, the main challenge in this region and its continued presence is essential to further progress. Particular mention should be made of the role of the PFU and of its current director. Since its inception, the PFU has made significant progress in providing a platform for research activities of many CGIAR Centers in collaboration with the national partners. The Panel sees the PFU as an excellent mechanism to facilitate inter-center collaboration and as a very important focal point for knowledge acquisition and dissemination among all countries in the Region. Furthermore, the PFU has served as a platform for the association of the NARS of the Region that, for the first time, meet regularly and have positive exchanges. Also, the PFU has been instrumental in attracting additional partners to R&D activities, such as the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center to the Region. Nile Valley and the Red Sea Regional Program (NVRSRP) The Nile Valley and Red Sea regional Program was ICARDA’s first outreach program initiated in 1979 as the Nile Valley Project (NVP) with Egypt and Sudan; it now also includes Ethiopia, Yemen and Eritrea. Gross National Product (GNP) is the lowest in the WANA region ranging from US$ 140 in Ethiopia to US$ 740 in Egypt. The main goal of the program is to increase the income of small farmers and to improve food security and livelihoods of rural and urban low income sectors of the population through improving the productivity and sustainability of the highly diverse agricultural production systems. The main research thrusts are in two areas: biotic and abiotic stress affecting legume and cereal yields, and farm water management, including control of soil degradation. The NVRSRP had been funded by restricted projects from IFAD, EC, WB, IDRC, Danida and CIDA. Research on crop protection in wheat focuses on leaf rust, yellow rust, stem rust, aphids; and on reducing salinity, drought, and heat stress. For faba beans, research is addressing aphid transmitted viruses, foliar diseases, parasitic weed (Orobanche spp.) and water stress. NVRSRP established problem-solving regional networks on these topics, such as the Cereal Rust Network (critically important with the new stem rust race (UG99) expected to rapidly spread throughout the region), wilt, root rot and other diseases of Cool-Season Food Legumes Network and the drought tolerance in the Cereal and Legume Crops Network. Achievements of ICARDA in the NVRSRP Countries participating in NVRSRP also host ICARDA benchmark sites that offer opportunities for interaction among ICARDA’s MPs, NARS scientists, regional coordinators, and other stakeholders. A Panel Member visited the benchmark site at Serew, in the far North-East of Egypt, (see Box 4).

80

Box 4: Research at the Serew benchmark site At this site, there is an ICARDA-Egyptian project for community-based optimization of the management of scarce water resources in agriculture This site represents irrigated environments and has two satellite sites in Sudan and Iraq. The objective is to increase water-use efficiency by implementing a participatory process that introduces water efficient technologies at the household, farm, and community levels, and to develop policy recommendations. On farm experiments have shown that farmers can reduce applied irrigation water down to 70% of the farmers’ use without affecting crop yields. Indirect incentives for improved practices come from reduction in pumping costs. The conclusion is that deficit irrigation may double present water productivity values, achieving similar yields and saving substantial amounts of water that can be used elsewhere in the water-scarce region. If energy subsidies will be lowered, adoption and impact of deficit irrigation will become much more important. Policy issues need to be explored further in this theme. Assessment of ICARDA in the NVRSRP The role of ICARDA was discussed with NARS staff who valued their association with ICARDA highly. NARS involved in this RP appreciate the linkages with ICARDA particularly in relation to: a) receiving new germplasm for breeding; b) networking as a method for exchange of information and lessons among scientists of the region, c) capacity building which includes: training, workshops, documents, access to new equipment, etc., d) introduction of new methodologies, especially the participatory approach and farmer field schools, and, e) the financial contributions of ICARDA to the overall research operational costs. The human resource capabilities of NARS have been strengthened through training and scientific visits. Regional interactions and productivity have been enhanced through joint research planning and implementation, formal research networks, traveling workshops and regional coordination meetings. Research areas suggested by NARS in their priority-setting exercises during the coordination meetings to enhance and strengthen inter-regional cooperation include utilization of marginal water, IPM, cereal production improvement under saline soils, croprange-livestock integration and on-farm water management, the majority of areas in which ICARDA still maintains a comparative advantage for international research. North African Regional Project (NARP) The regional office of ICARDA’s North Africa Regional Program (NARP) is located in Tunis, and it meets the research and training needs of Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia. In these countries agricultural production occurs within a diversified and fragile environment characterized by low and highly variable rainfall, extremes of temperature, short cropping seasons, shallow and depleted soils, steep slopes, and poor infrastructure, and inadequate policy support. Morocco joined the CGIAR in 2003, and there is funding and other forms of support from donors like the USDA-FAS, Canada, and the African Bank for Development, which has enabled ICARDA to forge linkages for stronger partnership in research and human resource capacity building with NARS in the NARP region. ICARDA has implemented 65 projects in North Africa which include: development of technology and management options for the marginal areas, people-centered research and development, diversification of income options, investment in science and technology, and building regional and international partnerships.

81

Achievements of ICARDA in the NARP ICARDA is uniquely positioned to provide the following to NARS and NGOs in NARP: early and advanced generation germplasm suitable for selection for variety release in its globally and regionally mandated crops, assistance in livestock based enterprises, tailoring and transferring research in cooperation with NARS to the specific needs of NARS sites, pertinent scientific expertise and administration, development of regional networks and coordination of activities within the region to provide the best available technology without duplication (NARS to NARS cooperation e.g. Hessian fly screening in Morocco), supporting research by small grants and expeditious ability to purchase supplies, human capacity development through various forms of training, enhancing scientific professionalism through meetings and workshops on communications, and providing the needed models for research to be implemented by development groups (e.g. the PRODESUD effort where ICARDA specialists helped extensively with the development of two rural areas to train the development team, then worked cooperatively on the next two rural development areas, before “backstopping” the development on the next 23 rural developments). This effort has assisted the implementation of ICARDA research without ICARDA doing the development effort. The vision of ICARDA is that they work so cooperatively with the NARS that the NARS view themselves as being part of ICARDA. “ICARDA is the NARS” and “Without the NARS there would be no ICARDA”. The synergism greatly multiplies and enhances both the ICARDA and NARS efforts. Assessment of ICARDA in the NARP A Panel Member met with numerous scientists, administrators, and development officers from the Ministries of Agriculture and of Science and Technology from Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco (summarized in Annex II). Meetings also included members of rural communities who were directly impacted by ICARDA research. All of these groups were highly supportive of ICARDA. In addition, the impressive list of donors and the recent addition of Morocco to the CGIAR confirms the importance of ICARDA’s NARP. The role of ICARDA is very important in the region and, without its presence, clearly scientific cooperation, productivity, and professionalism among the NARS would decrease. These linkages and capacity building ensure that the critical reservoir of prior knowledge is not lost. In addition, ICARDA now provides critical administrative functions and credibility to jointly sponsored grants, thus increasing efficiency of use of research grants. Weaker NARS particularly gain from accessing successful research and capacity development models (e.g. including NARS to NARS linkages). West Asia Regional Program The West Asia Regional Program (Cyprus, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria and Southern Turkey) was established in 1989 in Amman with the aim to contribute to agricultural development and integrated natural resources management. WARP has offices in Aman and Tehran (together 7 support staff and 2 consultants) but can expect more back-up from Syrian HQ because of proximity. Achievements of ICARDA in the WARP More than 27 bilateral and regional projects were implemented during the last five years including the ‘Dryland Agrobiodiversity’, ‘Mashreq & Maghreb II’, ‘Badia Benchmark’ and ‘Dryland Initiative’ projects. These projects include germplasm exchange and variety release; enhancing and rebuilding germplasm collections (in situ and ex situ) and creation of NARS gene banks; seed and technology exchange contributing to the rebuilding of seed industries; IPM to

82

reduce pesticides; water harvesting technology; livestock technology; helping to implement value added streams for products; policies to enhance the maintenance of biodiversity at community levels, and capacity building. These programs have been recognized as being highly cooperative with NARS, NGOs, and ARIs. Assessment of ICARDA in the WARP Future plans include: the provision of germplasm, training and technical backstopping, and strengthening of partnerships and regional integration among NARSs and other key stakeholders in the West Asia region. Introduction of new research approaches for improving the livelihoods of local communities, sustainable use of resources, and the use of new science tools to improve the efficiency of agricultural research. Research on water harvesting will be consolidated within the Badia Benchmark site. Sourcing of additional funding to continue activities on the conservation of dryland agro-biodiversity, and the rehabilitation of agricultural research in Iraq and Palestine would be attempted. Clearly a major focus of the work in WARP relates to maintaining and saving agro-biodiversity in situ and ex situ. The program has been highly successful. In addition, the improvements in livestock systems and value streams, as well as the release of new varieties are testaments to ICARDA’s continued importance. Finally, much of WARP is severely affected by low water supplies; hence the water harvesting technologies take on a greater relevance than in some other parts of CWANA. The relations with NARS and NGOs are extensive and very good. Highland Research Regional Network (HRN) From its early days and until mid 2004, ICARDA managed its regional highland activities through the Highland Regional Program, that included countries of North Africa,West Asia, and CAC where major highland areas of CWANA are located. Because those countries fall within the geographic mandate of other ICARDA Regional Programs, it was decided to address the problems of highland agriculture within the framework of a Highland Research Regional Network (HRN). The goal of HRN is to contribute to the improvement of the welfare of rural populations in the highlands of CWANA through the identification and adoption of strategies and technologies that ensure a sustainable improvement of agricultural productivity in those areas. ICARDA project staff are located in Iran and Afghanistan, while work in Turkey is handled from the headquarters. Afghanistan ICARDA formally started its outreach program in Afghanistan during 2002 and since then it has significantly contributed towards the rebuilding of agriculture, as a lead agency of the Future Harvest Consortium to Rebuild Agriculture in Afghanistan (FHCRAA). Agricultural production capacity and food security in Afghanistan were greatly damaged by more than three decade of civil strife and extended drought. Given that more than 80% of Afghan families depend upon agriculture for their livelihoods, reestablishing viable livelihoods for the people of Afghanistan is a high priority. Although the Panel met with the Regional Coordinator, the Panel did not visit this RP and describes the achievements of this RP using sources from ICARDA. Achievements The achievements of the seed unit in Afghanistan are listed in relation to MP6 in Chapter 3.

83

•

• •

•

•

•

• •

To jump-start seed production in the spring of 2002, about 3500 MT of high quality wheat seed was distributed to farmers for seed production. More than 5000 MT of wheat seed produced (in-country) and fertilizer were distributed for 2002 fall planting. Additionally, foundation seed of different crops (bread and durum wheat, barley, lentil, chickpea and vetch) were shipped from ICARDA’s Headquarters to Afghanistan for on-station evaluation and pre-release multiplication. Seed of improved potato varieties was imported from India and Pakistan for multiplication. The Ministry of Agriculture was helped in developing a Seed Law and National Seed Policy and with the rehabilitation of seed testing laboratories in 5 areas. Several research stations (Kabul, Baghlan, Kunduz, Taghar, and Jalalabad) and sub stations were rehabilitated and farm equipment and meteorological stations provided. More than 120 Afghan researchers were trained at Aleppo and over 1,500 researchers, extension workers and farmers were trained in-country. The Afghanistan Ministry of Agriculture Communications Office for Radio was re-equipped, staff were trained and more than 50 radio programs were produced and broadcast. ICARDA established 718 demonstration trials on improved varieties of wheat, rice, cotton, peanuts, mung bean, potato, tomato, onions, and okra, ICARDA demonstrated the potential for yield improvement by combining new varieties with appropriate agronomy in five target provinces. Improved varieties and crop management practices resulted in 30 - 70 % higher yields than the farmers’ traditional management practices. An adoption rate survey is in progress to assess the diffusion of project’s activity. ICARDA established 21 Village Based Seed Enterprises (VBSEs). Each VBSE consisted of 1020 progressive farmers who pooled their land, and/or rented lands to grow seed.ICARDA trained VBSE members in seed production, processing and marketing in a profitable manner; and in developing and executing their respective business plans. These VBSEs collectively produced 100MT of quality seed of wheat and some other crops; and sold the seed earning more than 200-300 % profit over the grain. ICARDA introduced Protected Agriculture (PA) technology and a Protected Agriculture Center was established by the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Food (MAAHF). The PA project installed 42 greenhouses for profitable production of vegetables. ICARDA collaborated with CIP on healthy potato seed production, multiplication and marketing. The 3-year RALF program was launched in January 2004 (see discussion under MP4 Chapter 3).

Assessment ICARDA-Afghanistan has six projects currently, several of which are ending or being reappraised. The Panel was impressed by the large number, dimensions and range of activities carried out by ICARDA under very difficult circumstances and would like to commend the Center for taking a leading role in the reconstruction of agricultural capacity in Afghanistan. As quoted from the testimony of one donor to the Panel: ‘It was the connection with ICARDA that allowed Afghanistan to rebuild its agriculture’. However, there is a very small component of research in these activities. As such reconstruction efforts advance, the Panel believes that ICARDA should concentrate on conducting the strategic research component of the future R&D efforts needed for enhancing agricultural production in Afghanistan. If ICARDA were to continue uncritically to support development assistance projects here and elsewhere there would be a high opportunity cost for the development of its strategic research agenda for the wider CWANA region.

84

Iran A significant part of the highlands of the CWANA region is in Iran. An ICARDA office was established in Tehran in 1994 to develop, in collaboration with Iranian institutions, technological packages and approaches for agricultural development and integrated natural resources management. The technologies developed in Iran will be relevant to other regions with similar climatic conditions and agricultural constraints. Achievements • ICARDA continued its efforts in strengthening the Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI). More than 23 promising lines of wheat, barley, food legumes and oil seed crops have been presented for release. Cold tolerant chickpea varieties and Vicia species accessions were identified for the first time. As part of the collaboration with the Seed and Plant Improvement Institute (SPII), wheat and barley germplasm were supplied for irrigated conditions in different environments. ICARDA has also helped the Seed and Plant Certification Research Institute in strengthening the formal seed production. The rapid adoption of the released varieties and of improved agricultural packages is partially responsible for the wheat self-sufficiency enjoyed by Iran since 2004. Sunn pest populations were monitored and the effectiveness of entomo-pathogenic fungi control method was tested in pilot sites. ICARDA has introduced, in collaboration with the University of Tehran, spineless cactus technology in Iran. During the last two years, ICARDA has strengthened significantly the capacity building in Iran with the involvement of a national NGO (CENESTA). ICARDA and the NARS have two projects within the Water & Food Challenge Program for the Karkheh River Basin. These projects will develop new integrated natural resource management approaches to address water productivity improvements. A regional program is launched in Dezful on Irrigated Spring Wheat Improvement for Lowlands focusing on the development of wheat germplasm enhancement and the introduction of raised bed planting techniques.

•

• • • •

•

Assessment The Panel believes that ICARDA should collaborate with Iran in support of their regional initiatives in breeding for cold areas and irrigated conditions, as they will add momentum to the agricultural development in similar areas of the CWANA region. ICARDA plans to consolidate its relations with various institutions based on the workplan developed for the 2006-2010 period. Talks have been initiated between ICARDA, CIMMYT and SPII to develop a regional program for Winter/Facultative Wheat Improvement for irrigated areas. The Panel views positively the cooperative research that will be conducted in Iran on water use efficiency, conservation tillage, watershed management, and rangeland rehabilitation and that can spill over to other countries in CWANA through ICARDA. Turkey Highlands cover a large proportion of the cultivated area in Turkey. To improve agricultural production and livelihoods of the farmers in the highlands, Turkey’s Ministry of Agriculture, CIMMYT, and ICARDA joined forces to conduct research on winter wheat through the

85

International Winter Wheat Improvement Program (IWWIP). ICARDA's research programs are also collaborating with various national research institutions and agricultural universities in conducting research, technology transfer and training for sustainable development in the dry highlands of Turkey. Achievements • Turkey’s crop improvement programs in cereals and legumes were strengthened, and a multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional approach to research was progressively adopted. A number of improved cultivars of wheat, barley, lentil, chickpea and vetch were released with yield improvements of 10-25%. Several varieties derived from ICARDA germplasm were adopted by farmers in the GAP project, ICARDA provided technical backstopping to establish a seed technology center at Decle University. Integrated Pest Management options using host-plant resistance, parasitoids and entomopathogenic fungi were introduced to replace the use of insecticides to control Sunn pest. Options to reduce rangeland degradation and conserve the environment were introduced. ICARDA provided technical backstopping for assessing rangeland biodiversity, supplied 2000 fodder shrub seedlings for rangeland reseeding and seeds of vetch for hay production. The use of supplemental irrigation to increase agricultural productivity in water-scarce environment was demonstrated in the Central Anatolian cool highlands agro ecology.

•

•

•

Assessment The Panel is of the opinion that the collaboration between Turkey and ICARDA, which was formerly more active, had been strong and beneficial to the entire CWANA region. Furthermore, given the similarities in physical and cultural features of Turkey with many countries in the CAC Region, this cooperation should develop further, especially in areas of germplasm enhancement, natural resource management, and capacity building, with the strategic aim of extending some of the results to the CAC region (ICARDA and NARS to NARS). Also, collaborative activities within the framework of the joint Turkey/CIMMYT/ICARDA Winter Wheat Improvement Program will constitute a key element of this partnership. Latin America Regional Program (LARP) ICARDA started a small program in LAC in 1984 (specifically in barley breeding) because many of the LAC regions are similar to the arid lands of CWANA, with similar problems and potential solutions. Currently, ICARDA’s programs for all of its globally mandated crops, and for forage and livestock systems, are considered integral components of LAC dryland agriculture and poverty alleviation. From 1999 to 2002 ICARDA posted a full time Regional Coordinator at CIP in Peru. ICARDA’s present projects in LAC are highly cooperative with other CGIAR Centers, NARS, and NGOs. For example, the barley breeder is part of a joint ICARDA-CIMMYT cooperative project. Barley research is currently carried out in collaboration with Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Uruguay: partnerships for small ruminant research exist in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela. Achievements LARP was not visited by a member of the EPMR Panel and so this appraisal rests on discussions with staff in this program and ICARDA materials. ICARDA has a small program in this region, so its programs must be evaluated relative to ICARDA’s commitment. The barley improvement

86

project has released a number of lines having unique disease resistance, though the level of their market penetration is unclear. A previous CCER for MP2 recommended increasing the barley efforts in malting barley and the Center has embraced this recommendation as malting barley has clear market opportunity. ICARDA is fostering cooperation while focusing its resources in those areas of highest need that are often overlooked by the NARS (e.g. the poorest stakeholders). The livestock systems research based on diversification (e.g. the milk and animal value chains) is directly applicable to large areas of LAC and to additional small ruminants (e.g. llamas and alpacas). Assessment The Panel feels that although LAC is clearly a small part of ICARDA’s research portfolio, the programs there have significant value for establishing the needed credibility of being a research center for the dry areas. The release of an improved faba bean in Mexico and improved lentils and an improved chickpea in Australia, highlights that germplasm can be shipped to similar regions and still have impact. ICARDA also has played an important role in highlighting the need for poverty alleviation and has led to some NARS in the region to add more resources to this goal. Obviously, partnering with other CGIAR centers in the Region should be the preferred approach to maintain and enhance the research activities in this region. Overall Assessment of the Regional Programs ICARDA has been very effective in developing a most extensive set of regional programs which constitute the backbone of its outreach efforts. Throughout the description above, innumerable cases of partnering and networking have been described. The Panel draws attention to the continuing need for ICARDA to find the balance between the activities of the the regional programs in relation to the matrix management of the globally relevant MPs. The Panel encourages ICARDA to ensure that syntheses of the regional experiences (trends, achievements, lessons learned, planning of new science) takes place in such a way as to inform the Center’s overall strategy and the implementation of thematic research. Longer term regional strategies cannot be taken up just at the Regional Program level and require whole institute involvement. ICARDA in the CGIAR: Inter-Center relations The aim of this section is to describe the current context of ICARDA– CGIAR Center interactions and indicate in key cases the future perspectives for such collaboration at ICARDA. After a period of rapid change in the CGIAR, a common understanding has emerged among CGIAR Centers that many of the most important and intractable problems in research for poverty alleviation are best tackled through collaborative research. This has led to increasing bi-lateral and multilateral arrangements for collaborative research and approaches with in the CGIAR, and ICARDA contributes to several of these. Multilateral cooperation among Centers The forms of multilateral cooperation among CGIAR Centers are via: • • • • Systemwide Programs and Eco-regional Programs (SWP/ERP) Challenge Programs (CP) Other consortia Communities of practice

87

Systemwide and Ecoregional Programs In the CGIAR there is currently a total of twelve active Systemwide Programs (SWP) (Annex 14) and six active Eco-regional Programs (ERP) (Annex 15). ICARDA participates in the seven Systemwide Programs: Systemwide Genetic Resources Research Program (SGRP); Systemwide Livestock Program (SLP); Systemwide Program on Integrated Pest Management (SP-IPM); Systemwide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi); Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA); Systemwide Soil, Water and Nutrient Management Program (SWNM); and Systemwide Initiative on Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management (SWIM 2). ICARDA is the convening Center for the Eco-regional Program: Collaborative Research Program for Sustainable Agricultural Development in Central Asia and the Caucasus (CAC). Through an ICARDA initiative, the ERP for CAC was established in 1998 by a consortium of nine CGIAR Centers (CIMMYT, CIP, ICARDA, ICRISAT, IFPRI, ILRI, IPGRI, the former ISNAR, and IWMI). The activities and achievements of the CAC ERP were considered in the section on regional programs earlier in this chapter. In addition to the Desert Margins Program, ICARDA was co-convener with ICRISAT of a Challenge Program pre-proposal on Desertification, Poverty and Drought in Agriculture (DDPA). This has been reformulated as an Inter-Center proposal (“Oasis”) which is not yet operational. Participation in Challenge Programs Challenge Programs are time bound partnership arrangements, of Centers and other partners, designed to tackle major challenges to developing country agriculture in a cooperative fashion. ICARDA is participating in three of the pilot Challenge Programs of the CGIAR: • CP Water and Food: ICARDA has approval for four projects in this CP through the competitive grants program and received funding for three of these: two in the Karkeh River Basin, Iran and one in Eritrea within the Nile River Basin. HarvestPlus: ICARDA is responsible for two projects on the Phase II crops - barley and lentil - to identify germplasm with high concentration of ß-carotene, iron and zinc. Generation: ICARDA is a full member of the CP and is involved in a series of research activities targeted to exploiting new aspects of biotechnology to improve drought tolerance in mandate crops in both competitive and commissioned grant formats. Sub-Saharan Africa: The pilot learning sites for Year 1 of this CP are in eco-regions outside the non-tropical dry areas so ICARDA, despite being involved in the planning, is currently not active in this CP.

• •

•

Other consortia Other CGIAR Consortia (additional to CPs and SWP/ERPs) and Communities of Practice are listed in Annex 16. These Other CGIAR Consortia can be further sub-divided into those that ICARDA leads/co-leads and those in which it is a partner. ICARDA leads the Future Harvest Consortium to Rebuild Agriculture in Afghanistan (FHCRAA) involving CIMMYT, CIP, ICRISAT, IFPRI, ILRI, IPGRI, and IWMI; and has formed a similar Consortium to Rebuild Agriculture in Iraq.

88

ICARDA is an active partner in the CGIAR Consortium for Spatial Information (CSI) and CGIAR Consortium for Southern Sudan. CIAT, ICARDA, ICRISAT and IITA are similar CGIAR Centers with non-overlapping (complementary) ecological mandates. As such, all are members of the Eco-regional Alliance (ERA), a grouping of eco-regional CGIAR Centers, which aims to exploit the commonality in methodology and comparative advantage emanating from natural resource management and commodity mandates of the eco-regional Centers. The ERA tried unsuccessfully to launch a CP on legume improvement. Communities of practice ICARDA is an active partner in several communities of practice within the CGIAR such as the Integrated Natural Resource Management Task Force; the International Crop Information System (ICIS) group; the Inter-Center Training Group (INTG); Knowledge Management Information Technology Initiative (IT-KM); Gender and Diversity Program (G&D); and the Marketing Group. The term community of practice is used loosely to describe groupings based on thematic interest irrespective of their reporting lines (CDC; FHAO etc). Additional Bilateral Cooperation among Centers Bilateral (Center to Center) cooperation additional to the multilateral arrangements listed is via: • • • Joint positions Joint special projects Co-location/Shared facilities and platforms

Joint positions The Center had joint appointments (and see below) with IFPRI and in 2004 ICARDA recruited two joint appointments – one with IWMI on marginal quality water and the other with ILRI on small ruminant health and marketing. The joint ICARDA-CIMMYT Wheat Improvement Program in CWANA hosted at ICARDA is run by a jointly appointed Director. Earlier ICARDA also had joint research programs and senior scientists at ICARDA on chickpea improvement with ICRISAT. The ICRISAT positions were withdrawn because of core funding shortfalls. Possible new arrangements will be forged where opportunities and funding exist, e.g. with ICRAF on agro-forestry possibilities for Dry Areas. ICARDA will also look to meet the diversification of its research agenda by secondment of scientists with complementary disciplines from other organizations e.g. currently with CIRAD on Policy and Property Rights and another from JIRCAS, Japan (plus a post-doctoral fellow) on cereal drought tolerance/pre-breeding. This modus operandi is expected to increase, for example, seeking additional expertise in horticulture and value-added opportunities from such partners as the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, Taiwan, CIRAD, France and the University of California (Davis), USA. Joint special projects Joint special projects strengthen cooperation between Centers and often lay the foundation for Inter–Center joint appointments. For example, the IFAD-funded small ruminant health project for NENA with ILRI supports the new ILRI/ICARDA appointment. ICARDA coordinated the implementation of a regional collaborative project on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Dryland Agrobiodiversity with the NARS of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority funded by GEF/UNDP, which increased interaction with both IPGRI and the ACSAD (Arab Center for Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands).
89

With the diminishing availability of core funding, joint special projects with other research institutes (inside and outside the CGIAR) will become increasingly important to ICARDA as a mechanism to support Inter-Center linkages on a needs basis (in addition to the Systemwide and Challenge Programs). Co-location and shared facilities/platforms ICARDA HQ in Syria houses the IPGRI Office for WANA. By virtue of joint scientific positions ICARDA Tel Hadya is also the eco-regional platform for CIMMYT, ILRI, IWMI and IFPRI; while CIMMYT serves as a platform for the ICARDA/CIMMYT Latin America barley program. Several of ICARDA’s sub-regional and national program offices house other Centers’ offices: For example, the ICARDA CAC regional office houses the CGIAR Program Facilitation Unit for CAC in Tashkent, where there is staff from IWMI, IPGRI, CIP and soon CIMMYT. A scientist from GM-UNCCD is also posted in the ICARDA Regional Office in Tashkent and three post-doctoral fellows from the IPM CRSP will join soon. Additionally the PFU houses the regional forum – CACAARI. The ICARDA Office in Kabul houses staff from CIP and formerly staff from IPGRI. In Ankara, Turkey ICARDA shares an office with CIMMYT. Key Bilateral links with other CGIAR Centers CIMMYT: CIMMYT has a global mandate for research on wheat improvement while ICARDA has a regional mandate for wheat research for Central and West Asia and North Africa. From 1996 to 2003 there was a joint CIMMYT/ICARDA wheat improvement program for WANA (later expanded to CWANA - excepting Kazakhstan) based at ICARDA with breeders of spring bread wheat and durum wheat posted by CIMMYT to ICARDA Aleppo and with a program on facultative and winter wheat in Turkey (also with major Turkish cooperation). The CIMMYT wheat breeders at ICARDA Aleppo were unilaterally withdrawn in 2003 and subsequently rehired by ICARDA for spring bread wheat and durum improvement in CWANA. From 2003 to 2005 the cooperation with CIMMYT on wheat improvement was confined to the facultative and winter wheat program in/with Turkey. Ultimately, as described in discussion of MP2 in Chapter 3, in December 2005 ICARDA signed a MoU with CIMMYT for a joint ICARDA-CIMMYT Wheat Improvement Program in CWANA hosted at ICARDA and run by a jointly appointed Director. ICARDA has a global mandate for research on the improvement of barley and CIMMYT researches barley for Latin America. ICARDA has a barley breeder posted at CIMMYT Mexico who runs the ICARDA/CIMMYT barley improvement program for Latin America within the framework of ICARDA’s global barley program. CIMMYT is an active member of both the CAC and Afghan Consortia. IWMI: Research on water is a key feature of the Missions of both the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and ICARDA. ICARDA has responsibility for on-farm water use efficiency in Dry Areas and IWMI’s comparative advantage is at higher scales such as the basin, regional and global levels. ICARDA now links closely with IWMI using specific bilateral arrangements (joint position and co-location in outreach office - see above), and also multilateral arrangements - Systemwide Programs (e.g. the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture); and other Consortia (e.g. the Challenge Program on Water for Food).

90

Assessment The Panel believes that collaborative efforts by both Centers are essential for improving the productivity of water in agricultural systems and recommends the closest possible coordination of activities at all levels. ICRISAT: The International Crops Research Institute for Semi-arid Tropics (ICRISAT) has both an eco-regional mandate and a crop mandate. The eco-regional mandate of ICRISAT is for the semiarid tropics which is largely complementary to ICARDA’s eco-regional mandate for non-tropical dry areas. The DDPA co-convened by ICARDA and ICRISAT has been discussed earlier. The Panel notes that some of ICARDA’s work fits within the global framework provided by the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and associated institutions. ICARDA is the CGIAR focal point for relations with the Convention, and represents the CGIAR centers on the Facilitation Committee of the Global Mechanism (GM) (set up to help mobilize information and funding for activities aimed at controlling desertification). ICARDA has also joined the Strategic Partnership Agreement for implementation of the UNCCD in the Central Asian Republics, is a member of the ADB taskforce, and hosts a regional environment management officer for the GM in CAC. ICRISAT has a global mandate for chickpea research whereas ICARDA has a regional mandate for large-seeded kabuli-type chickpea improvement. In the early years the Centers ran a joint improvement program focused on kabuli chickpea based on the placement of ICRISAT senior scientists (pathologist and breeder) at ICARDA. ICRISAT's support to the chickpea program terminated in 1996. Although ICARDA and ICRISAT won the CGIAR King Baudouin Award in 2002”, since 2000 the cooperation has been irregular primarily because of ICRISAT’s reduced overall effort in chickpea improvement. The scope for further joint research in this commodity exists and the Centers have joint activities on genetic characterization of a chickpea core collection within the ‘Generation’ Challenge Program. Similarly the Centers recently submitted a joint project on diversification through legumes in South Asia to IFAD with ICRISAT and AVRDC through APAARI under the Cereals and Legumes Asia Network (CLAN) umbrella. ICRISAT is an active member of the CAC Consortium and the Afghan Consortium (FHCRAA). ICARDA recently joined a Consortium led by ICRISAT to rehabilitate agriculture in southern Sudan. ILRI: ILRI (the International Livestock Research Center) has a global mandate within the CGIAR for research on livestock, attempting to focus on issues and regions (mostly in the tropics) where there are no alternative sources of supply. ICARDA has a regionally restricted mandate focused largely on small ruminants, forages and pastoral systems. There are important issues that have been tackled cooperatively by both Centers, such as the marketing/health issue with a joint ICARDA-ILRI appointment, which has started well. There is also a common interest in improving the conservation of indigenous breeds of livestock. ICARDA participates in the Systemwide Livestock Program (SLP) primarily on issues related to animal feed. Assessment The Panel’s perspective is that there are, however, strategic differences in this relationship: technological research conducted in other countries with dry land agriculture such as Australia, the western USA, and the northern Mediterranean countries has provided a lot of useful

91

information on many if not most of the issues. In this case it should not be the role of a CGIAR center to carry out the adaptive research needed to use the information already developed in those countries, but for the NARS to do it facilitated by ICARDA. In relation to rangelands, there are doubts whether range improvement research by introducing new species on marginal lands would be sustainable, when the biological capacity for production of these systems is close to its potential. As noted in Chapter 3 (see discussion of MP3) it is probable that research on the policy and social issues would be of more strategic value than in developing new technologies. For this topic, ICARDA should shift from a role of conducting research, to one of networking between advanced institutions and NARS, being the broker and the source for information needed to answer NARS needs. IFPRI: Within the framework of a regional project on “The development of integrated crop/livestock production systems in low rainfall areas of the WANA region – Mashreq/Maghreb project” ICARDA and IFPRI (the International Food Policy Research Institute) were successful in having two joint post doctoral/research fellows in policy and institutional research. They were subsequently promoted to international scientist positions. The most recently departing scientist (August 2005) had been based at IFPRI with the prime responsibility of writing a book on property rights in the region on data gathered from the restricted project. The Panel notes that more recently, ICARDA proposed to IFPRI a joint P-level position based at ICARDA, Syria to meet the increased demand in the ICARDA research portfolio for policy research in areas of common interest (ICARDA has secured the 50% share of the funding required for the senior position from continued restricted funding). IFPRI prefers that the joint position be developed at the post-doctoral level linked to specific restricted project grants (possibly in the CAC region). If these arrangements do not fit into the long term interests of ICARDA, ICARDA has to look for other alternatives in order to meet its obligations with respect to policy analysis and capacity building for NARS in these areas (see discussion of MP5, Chapter 3). IFPRI may participate with ICARDA in this research process. ICARDA participates in the Systemwide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi) and the Challenge Program (HarvestPlus) led by IFPRI. IRRI: the Rice Center, is a member of the CAC Consortium. ICARDA works with IRRI on the development of the International Crops Information System (ICIS). IPGRI: ICARDA shares a common interest with IPGRI (the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute) in the conservation and use of the genetic resources of CWANA. Additional to multilateral cooperation with IPGRI (SGRP), ICARDA has cooperation on genetic resources in CWANA through special projects and co-location of staff (see 3.1 & 3.3). ICARDA is seeking cooperation under the Global Crop Diversity Trust. CIP: with its mandate for potato and sweet potato research is an active member of both the CAC Consortium and the Afghan Consortium (FHCRAA). CIP convenes the Systemwide Program – Integrated Pest Management (SP-IPM) in which ICARDA is an active member. CIAT: ICARDA has multilateral cooperation with CIAT through the Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA); the CGIAR Consortium for Spatial Information (CSI) and the Challenge Program – HarvestPlus. The Centers are bilateral partners in the Karkeh River Basin projects of the CP – Water for Food.

92

Summary of Panel perspectives on ICARDA’s inter-Center and collaborative arrangements The Panel in general applauds ICARDA’s approaches to collaborative and collective action as a way to improve effectiveness and efficiency in serving its mandate for the Dry Areas eco-region. Collective action has several benefits such as: • • • • • Enhanced knowledge sharing among partners. Improved ability to tackle complex problems. Broader dissemination of global public goods. Development of role of ICARDA as a regional knowledge platform. Avoidance of repetition and use of available resources more efficiently based on each Center’s comparative advantage.

Regarding co-location and shared facilities/platforms: the Panel expects this form of sharing to increase, aiming for ICARDA to be a platform for complementary research organizations from both inside and outside the CGIAR for the eco-region. However, some care will be required in entering into such arrangements to ensure that ICARDA’s research needs are met in the most practical and cost-effective manner concordant with maintaining good working relations. The Panel acknowledges that it requires time and resources to make and maintain effective collaborative arrangements. The Panel cautions against increasing the number of partnership arrangements which are not central to the research mandate of the Center. Particularly, the Panel cautions against seeking out further post-conflict rehabilitation projects which are by nature country-specific and with low research content. The inputs of Centers into such areas should be strategic and brief and not repetitive or drawn out. Similarly, it is unreasonable to raise Challenge Program proposals (e.g. for desertification) when the subject matter (at least as proposed to the Panel) is adequately undertaken by existing bilateral methods and proposes little innovative research. The Center must distinguish between its legitimate provision of scientific input and facilitation supporting an international Convention and competing for research funds more appropriately detailed for NARS obligations. NARS and other stakeholders ICARDA has around 450 stakeholders in both developed and developing countries. More than half of its partners represent the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) in the countries of the CWANA region and Latin America including universities and the public sector such as Ministries of Agriculture and governmental institutions. Agricultural Research Institutions (ARIs) from the North represent 31% of ICARDA’s collaborators mostly universities of the North and UN agencies. The rest of the share goes to NGOs and civil societies comprising women development associations, environmental protection and natural resources management agencies, farmers’ unions and cooperatives and rural development institutions. The private sector, mostly represented by seed companies from the region and the North, is still a less tapped category in terms of number. The Panel conducted a stakeholder survey consisting of 10 questions related to how the partners view the role of ICARDA in being the center of excellence for research in dry areas. The list of stakeholders was provided by ICARDA. The survey questions were sent in Arabic, English and French. Of the around 450 survey questionnaires dispatched, around one hundred were returned because they could not reach their destination (incorrect email and fax numbers), a fact which suggests that ICARDA should update its list of stakeholders’ addresses.

93

The Panel received feedback from 59 respondents: 29 (49%) from CWANA NARS including government departments and universities of the south; 23 (39%) from Agricultural Research Institutes, universities of the North and UN agencies. The rest of the feedback came from donor organizations (3), the private sector (3) and an NGO (1). Almost 80% of the respondents (47 in number) viewed the performance of ICARDA as being good to excellent in the area of integrated gene management (MP2); Around 58% viewed it as good to excellent in the three following areas: management of scarce water resources (MP1), diversification and improvement of crop and livestock production systems (MP4) and knowledge management dissemination (MP6). 41 respondents considered the quality of research at ICARDA to be very good, but 25 of them had no opinion on its range of influence on policy makers. In the area of desertification management (MP3), 19 stakeholders had no opinion on ICARDA’s performance and reputation, while 22 thought it was doing a good job. Interestingly though, 35 respondents had no opinion on ICARDA’s role in Central Asia and the Caucasus through its Ecoregional program which may be due to the regional specificity of the program. 50% of the stakeholders did not contribute to ICARDA’s priority setting exercise at the Center, program or regional level. The three donor organizations which have responded claim they had contributed adequately to ICARDA’s priority setting at both the Center and program level, but not at the regional level, whereas NARS had not adequately or sometimes not contributed at all to priority setting at the three levels. ICARDA is mostly viewed as complementing the role of its stakeholders (87%) in breeding programs for durum wheat, barley and pulse crops and also in conservation of plant genetic resources, sustainable resource management and creating alternatives for the poor in dry areas. One comment was raised concerning ICARDA delving in areas already explored by FAO such as rangeland rehabilitation and water harvesting in low rainfall areas. It has also suggested that the Mashreq/Maghreb Project repeats the concept of customary use of land and community based rangeland management and technologies such as feed blocks which have been already discussed by both FAO and UNDP. Around 75% of the stakeholders consider that ICARDA should be giving a high priority in research, outreach and development activities, whereas it should be giving slightly less priority in socioeconomics and advocating policies. The results of the survey show that ICARDA has proven major scientific contributions in water harvesting and management, research on supplemental irrigation, crop rotations and rangeland management. In the area of integrated gene management, ICARDA is commended for its work in breeding of mandate crops, conservation of agrobiodiversity and taking leadership in the participatory plant breeding approach. It also plays an important role in socioeconomic research and knowledge management particularly in publishing useful articles in its semestrial magazine “Caravan”. Training and capacity building at ICARDA is viewed as being excellent by 45% of the stakeholders, but still under funded and requires additional human and financial resources. It was suggested to better involve the national capacity by arranging on-the-job training in national agriculture research centers. As far as the germplasm program is concerned, 74% of the stakeholders thought it was very relevant to their own activities especially through exchange of germplasm adapted to semi-arid climates. ICARDA was also praised for being the leader Center in legume and cereal collections especially for breeding programs in Australia.

94

According to its partners, ICARDA provides a network of research stations and excellent SouthSouth exchange among farmers and practitioners. The comments received suggested that ICARDA should attract a larger number of Post Doctoral Fellows to enhance sound scientific exchange with the international scientific community. Donors Major donors were contacted by members of the Panel to seek their opinions and assessment of how ICARDA was pursuing its goals. Some donors were also represented in the responses received to the stakeholder survey. The top ten donors contribute 64%, US$ 18.5M; USAID and UK DFID contributing 25% of the total budget (see Annex 17 and Chapter 5). The majority of donors were very complimentary of the way that ICARDA has submitted grant applications, reported and delivered on the projects, and hosted staff from their agencies. The donors have widely varying criteria for funding, based on their own selection processes with regard to regional focus, research priorities and development impact objectives. Individual donors give core funding because they want ICARDA to pursue their scientific goals within the SC priorities without influence. Others seek more immediate development impacts. The projects on rehabilitation of agricultural systems in conflict situations were seen as a major contributor to “development” but donors appreciated the need for the Center to contribute within the context of a master strategy. Inevitably CGIAR and SC strategies will influence donors’ willingness to fund individual Centers. In general, there is an increasing trend to restricted funding which allows donors to monitor more closely exactly how their money was spent and with what effect by funding only incremental expenditure and explicit research. One donor explained that their agency had only formerly funded direct project costs but were now moving towards allowing a more reasonable overhead contribution to the grant. It is, therefore, important for the Center to define overhead costs such as salaries for support staff as well as the scientists, costs of maintaining the library, the computer unit and other services. Donors are, in general, willing to consider explicit transparent associated expenditure if shown to have a direct link to the success of the funding support. The Panel noted that donors have very different perceptions about the nature of the research that should be carried out by ICARDA. Some clearly favored development-type activities while others insisted on the need to conduct strategic research. In the Panel’s view, this heterogeneity of views and means through which donors fund ICARDA re-emphasizes the need for ICARDA’s governing body to develop a strategy to align the diverse donor perspectives with ICARDA’s overall goals to help ensure security of long term funding. ICARDA’s networks are valued and ICARDA was judged to be an extremely important partner in the whole region “all the way through to Pakistan”. One donor described all their “investments” having a notion of high returns, good value for money in terms of the specific objectives of research and capacity building e.g. the Nile Valley project – as an example of how an international agriculture research center can work with a national program through the continuum down to community based organizations with farmers through truly participatory work that led (in this case) to faba bean improvement. Another donor emphasized the key strength of the CGIAR system as being the relationships between Centers. The recent agreement between ICARDA and CIMMYT is noted as an important step. The linkage to NARS to strengthen their capabilities was seen as an important factor in project selection. ICARDA is considered as one of the first CGIAR Centers that clearly demonstrated that it is useful to partner with national programs.
95

In conclusion the overall impression was that the donors contacted were satisfied with ICARDA’s performance in responding to donor requirements and were looking forward to the impact of the new Director General. The Panel suggests that ICARDA management give a mandate to the Project Office to analyze donor priorities and to increase the depth and breadth of sources of funding.

96

5

REVIEW OF ICARDA GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE 2000-2005

ICARDA is established as an autonomous, non-profit international institute under Article lll of the Syria/ICARDA Agreement. The Board of Trustees is the legal governing body. The Board works within the broader CGIAR System and this requires a delicate balance between providing leadership in its unique environment and responding to the dynamics and components of the System. The dependence on donor funding with its annual cycle and associated short term focus adds a further challenge to the Board’s role. It was evident that the Trustees of ICARDA have a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities within the CGIAR System and have a strong commitment and loyalty to ICARDA. The comments below are directed to enhancing corporate governance disciplines and the Board’s leadership of ICARDA. Governance Model Trustees suggested that ICARDA governance has evolved in response to these added dimensions resulting in a form different from the corporate governance model in a commercial environment. The Panel believes however, that with the increasing donor scrutiny strong corporate governance disciplines of transparency, accountability and fairness focusing on strategic direction, risk management and resourcing remain paramount to achieving the Center’s programmatic goals. Review process Panel members met with Board members, reviewed minutes and Board papers and attended Audit Committee and the May 2006 Board meeting. Frequency of Board meetings and Committee meetings The full Board meets only once a year in April or May. There are three standing committees: Program Committee, Audit Committee and Nominations Committee which meet immediately prior to the annual Board meeting. In addition, the Executive Committee meets once a year. Extraordinary meetings are held from time to time; for example, in 2005 for interview and selection of the new DG. The preference of the incoming Chair and new DG is to hold a second full Board meeting every year. The Panel endorses this view. The Panel also suggests at least one video conference full Board meeting be scheduled each year. Such a meeting should have a short focused Agenda and last a maximum of an hour or two. This would allow Trustees to contribute more effectively in their governance role without incurring the costs of extensive travel and accommodation. The Panel acknowledges the financial implications of holding more than one annual Board meeting, but suggests that the increased costs would be offset by enhanced Board effectiveness, direction and leadership and, in time, improved outcomes for ICARDA. Board size and composition In 1975 the number of Trustees was set at fifteen. In 1978 the number of Trustees was increased to eighteen which is specified as the maximum in the 1998 Trustees Handbook and the June 1998 Charter of ICARDA. In 2004 and 2005 there were fifteen trustees. The incoming 2006 Board was reduced to thirteen trustees, including the incoming Director-General ex officio. Seven Trustees are from developing countries and six from developed countries. (See Board Member Profiles as at 7 May 2006, Annex 19). One more director is under consideration from the Arab Peninsular region.

97

Concern is expressed by Trustees that if numbers are further diminished it will be difficult to cover the range of governance, financial and scientific expertise required as well the breadth of geographical coverage within the Board. Three of the fifteen members on the outgoing Board were women and three of the thirteen members of the incoming Board are women. Clearly a smaller Board is easier to manage and is cost effective, but factors other than the total number are more crucial in determining a Board’s effectiveness, e.g. competence of Chairperson, expertise on the Board and the role of Board committees. The Stripe Review recommended nine members. If the ICARDA Board moved to nine members the representation of host country members would need reviewing. The range of stakeholders is increasing with more outreach centers, more donors, increasing capability in NARS and diversity of scientific goals. The benefits of reducing the number of Board members to nine might be outweighed by the diversity of expertise and representation achieved by retaining the current size. A reduced size could limit the governing body’s ability to access donor funding and provide strategic oversight in both research and financial management. Financial and Scientific Expertise There is no Trustee on the incoming Board with professional finance qualifications. Most Trustees state they have a good understanding of financial maters from their own work experience in management positions. Given the increased emphasis donors place on financial reporting, the Panel considered it would be prudent to have one Board member with professional finance or accounting qualifications. Financial management expertise on the Board is particularly relevant considering the risk related to managing foreign exchange currency fluctuations, grants from donor countries and levels of reserves. The question of how high reserves should be to cover potential risk in the future compared with allocating resources to enhance research today is a key strategic decision. Compliance with the CGIAR accounting standards and the relationship of these standards to International Financial Reporting Standards will become increasingly important to donors. The Stripe Review of March 2006 recommended a minimum of two persons with adequate, financial, business and accounting knowledge and experience. The Stripe Review also recommended at least three members with a science background. On the incoming ICARDA Board, twelve Trustees have a social and physical science background. The Panel did not assess alternative strategies for providing scientific oversight such as an external science advisory committee. The Panel suggests that rather than focusing on the total number of Board members the focus should switch to the competence, diversity of expertise and contribution of the Board members and the frequency of meetings. Board Fees and Expenses Including in-transit travel expenses, per diems, and Chair expenses, total Board costs constitute approx 1% of the total ICARDA budget, ranging from US$ 200,000 per year to US$ 275,000 per year depending on the number of meetings and their location. The honorarium was set at US$ 250 per day; in 2003 it was revised to US$ 350 per day for uniformity across the Centers. The Panel was impressed by each Trustee and believes that increasing the honorarium would not necessarily attract higher caliber members. It was seen as a privilege to serve and Trustees have a strong commitment to public good.

98

Term of appointment and Board evaluation Board members are appointed initially for a term of three years with the option of a second three year term. There has been one occasion when an ICARDA Board member was asked to stand down prior to the end of the first term. There was a suggestion to increase the term to four years. During the Review period, self-evaluation of the Board was on an informal basis led by the Chair. At the Board’s May 2006 meeting more formal Board evaluation procedures were agreed. The process of evaluation is important; completing an evaluation form is only a catalyst to a focused team discussion on enhancing the effectiveness of Board performance and the contribution of members. The Panel endorses retaining the appointment term of three years with an option of a second term, assuming at least two full Board meetings a year, but each member remaining on the Board only if performance is acceptable following the annual Board evaluation process. The role of the Board The ICARDA Board members seem to be well aware of their role and responsibilities. There was sound financial reporting and positive attention to the new risk management framework. The Board must now focus on setting clear direction on the key strategic issues and provide guidelines to management regarding science priorities and donor funding strategies. Strategic direction ICARDA’s work program has been based on the 1998 strategic plan agreed eight years ago. The Board commenced a strategic planning process two years ago but given the impending departure of the DG, agreed to delay completing the plan until the arrival of the new DG. The pressure on time with only one annual meeting seems to result in a disproportionate amount of time spent on monitoring past performance, on process and exploring ideas rather than on strategic targets. This emphasis should change with more than one Board meeting a year and an updated Plan. The strategic direction is guided by high level parameters established by CGIAR and the SC as in all other centers but within these parameters the Board must determine its own priorities and provide scientific and financial leadership to ICARDA. Funding strategy ICARDA is experiencing a decreasing proportion of unrestricted funding versus restricted project funding, as are several other centers. The approaches to donors over the last few years have been very pragmatic, relying on personal contacts of Board members and the DG. There have been over sixty donors over the last five years of which half have donated annually (see Annexes 17 and 18). The Board and management need to develop a funding strategy to increase the spread of long term donor funding Inter-Center alliances Considerable time has been taken by the ICARDA Board, with management to review the intercenter relationships with IFPRI, CIMMYT, ILRI and IWMI with a view to optimizing these relations and “harnessing maximum synergy for the system”. There are currently four joint appointments with other CGIAR centers and three that have completed their tasks. With CIMMYT (Mexico), ICARDA has recently developed joint offices, joint fund raising and joint reporting (see discussions of this arrangement and other inter-Center partnerships in Chapters 2 and 4).

99

Communication to staff The Panel were given the impression that many staff were unaware of the major contribution made by the Board. The Panel suggests the Board consider two strategies to improve interaction with staff: firstly to invite senior management to sit in on relevant items. The Finance Director has been attending Board meetings but other members of management should also attend; secondly to invite the DG in his Board report to propose resolutions for the Board for every Agenda item. This assists the Chairman and the minutes secretary and allows rapid feedback, where appropriate, of Board resolutions to senior staff. Appointment of the DG The ICARDA Board appointed a new DG after a rigorous selection process, involving the full Board and a special Board meeting. There were over 40 applications and a good short list of high caliber candidates. Performance monitoring Over the Review period, performance appraisal of the DG was an informal process led by the Chair. The DG’s performance was assessed in a closed session of the Board. Feedback was provided to the DG by the whole Board with sensitive issues reported back by the Chair in private. The Board agreed at their May 2006 meeting to implement a more formal process for performance monitoring and to set clear targets and timeframes in advance with the incoming DG. The Panel suggests that the new Board consider a sub committee for monitoring the DG’s performance. Risk management The Audit Committee oversaw the development of the risk management policy. A broad spectrum of risks was analyzed in terms of ICARDA’s objectives. Physical security in work and travel raises increasing concerns so there was a strong focus on assessing the security risk of regional locations. Two other significant risks facing the Board are, firstly, the need for a Board policy on succession planning in senior management and secondly, to consider alternative ways of securing the much needed software upgrade for the Oracle system (see further section on Finance). Succession planning A key function of the Board is to identify new Trustees, a task for the Nominations Committee, and plan for future succession of key officers. Boards vary in the extent to which they become involved in second tier appointments but all Boards must have a policy for succession planning for key staff. With the international recruitment process, it takes six months to recruit high level staff to Aleppo. For example, in both Finance Department and Corporate Services the Directors are of high caliber but are not supported by potential successors. ICARDA is very vulnerable in terms of financial reporting and personnel management. Furthermore, planning succession would ensure more senior and experienced deputies so the directors could shift their focus to strategic financial management and organizational performance rather than financial reporting, selection and recruitment. Work place culture The Scientific Personnel Survey indicated discomfort with the corporate culture. There was particular mention of the selection and appointment processes in ICARDA. The Grievance Committee’s role needs to be strengthened to allow airing of grievances in a confidential trusting environment.
100

The Board may wish to consider a formal “whistle blower” policy. This would provide protection to staff in sensitive situations who wished to disclose inappropriate use of funds or other behavior that puts staff members or ICARDA at risk. The Board should communicate a policy to all staff. A CCER could advise further in this area. Board procedures The Board processes gave the appearance of being very sound. A new Board secretary is due to be appointed. The Board secretary reports to the Chair. Independence from management is important. The minutes were impressive and clearly record the wide ranging discussions but need to have clear resolutions for each item and action points identifying the person responsible and time frame for reporting back. Email policy With increasing communication and resolutions ratified by email between Board meetings, distribution guidelines, safe email addresses and a Board protocol are important given the legal consequences of misuse of information conveyed by email. Letter of appointment The Panel suggests a more formal appointment letter would set expectations of high standards of corporate governance for each new Trustee explaining duration of appointment, role of the Trust Board, the honorarium, reimbursement of expenses, committee involvement, Board evaluation processes, declarations of interests for the Interests Register, etc. Interests register At the time of the Review there was no record of Trustees’ interests. It is accepted and acknowledged that Trustees may have business and research interests other than those of ICARDA which might lead to a conflict of interest. Trustees must declare their interests for recording in the Register on joining the Board and at every Board meeting up- date the Register. Directors insurance The Board agreed to reassess the need for Directors and Officers Liability Insurance in two years time concluding that the cost of the policy was not warranted by the level of perceived risk at that time. The Annual Report Reference to governance procedures is increasingly included in annual reports. Number of meetings held, attendance at Board meetings and committee meetings, payments to Board members and Trustees’ interests outside the organization are all useful information for key stakeholders. Board training The majority of Board members had attended the CGIAR training sessions and other corporate governance courses. Those new to the System have particularly appreciated the CGIAR Board orientation program. There was a request that new members attend an induction course prior to attending their first ICARDA Board meeting. Only one outgoing Board member had not attended any courses.

101

The Board of Trustees Handbook Practice has evolved since the Handbook was published in 1998. This information provided in a Trustees Folder would allow regular updating and be especially useful for new Trustees. Board Committees There are three committees: Audit, Nominations and Program in addition to the Executive Committee. The members of the current Board committees are nominated by the Nominations Committee after consultation with the Chair. With the need to attract and retain high caliber scientists it is suggested a Human Resources Board committee be established to strengthen the strategic direction of personnel recruitment and development. The Program Committee All Board members except the Chair sit on the Program Committee. It is seen as an excellent opportunity for new Board members to be introduced into the strategic scientific research issues. The Audit Committee The annual accounts are verified by Audit Committee and implementation of the recommendations in the External Auditors’ management letter are monitored by the Audit Committee. External Auditor CGIAR’s policy requires a change of external auditors every five to seven years. ICARDA changed from Ernst and Young in Bahrain to PriceWaterhouseCoopers Cyprus to complete the audit for 2006. The Panel met with the new external auditors who presented a satisfactory approach to the audit function and the audit plan for 2006. The external auditors have consistently provided unqualified opinions and management letters which have guided the Board and management to improve the finance management function. Internal Auditor Internal Audits have been carried out by the Director of the CGIAR Internal Auditing Unit since 2004, which has proved to be very satisfactory for ICARDA. Long term, however, it is preferable to have a full time internal auditor in-house reporting directly to Audit Committee. Interviews of short listed candidates were underway at the time of writing. Chair and DG Expenses ICARDA has delegated authorities for expenditure although some lines of approval were not clear. For example, the Chairman’s expenses and the DG’s expenses were reimbursed by finance officers without any formal authorization. One good practice is for the Chair of Audit to approve the Board Chairman’s expenses and the Chairman to approve the DG’s expenses and that these expenses then be endorsed by the Audit Committee. In this way both the Chair and DG are protected from any accusations of abuse of privilege. Other Boards choose to have all expense reports presented to the Board for endorsement. The Nominations Committee The caliber of the individual Board members reflects well on the Nominations Committee. The Committee reports and processes appeared sound. Clear criteria have been identified. The Committee recognized the difficulty in identifying Trustees with governance expertise combined with the appropriate science experience, donor relationships, financial expertise and geographical location balanced with the need for continuity and rotation.
102

Conclusions of the Panel in relation to Governance In the light of the foregoing, the Panel recommends: • • • • That the Board oversee the development of a succinct strategic plan by Center management to provide clear direction to ICARDA. That the Board and management develop a donor strategy designed to increase the spread of long term grants. Monitoring of the performance of the DG and Board based on the strategic goals to ensure timely implementation of the strategic plan. A Board policy be developed on succession planning to ensure senior staff in key positions have a potential successor in place and that this requirement is included in the performance targets for the DG, ADGs and Directors of Finance and HR. Adopting a formal Board policy with a clear process for reporting inappropriate behavior, which is communicated clearly to all staff. Adopting a Board policy that the Chair of Audit Committee approves the Chair’s expenses, and the Chair approves the Director General’s expenses or such policy that ensures protection for the Chair, DG and finance officers. More frequent full Board meetings including video conferencing.

• •

•

In addition, in relation to the above the Panel suggests that the ICARDA Board should: • • • • Establish a Register of Interests. Increase communication to staff of Board deliberations and decisions. Adopt a Board protocol for ratifying decisions by email. Update all sections of the Board of Trustees Handbook to match current practice.

Management and finance review 2000–2005 Staffing In June 2006 ICARDA employed 555 staff on one year contracts and some 450 casual, daily contracted employees, from forty eight countries (Annex 20). Scientific staff The Survey, in May 2006, showed that ICARDA had 70 scientists in the professional staff category all holding a PhD, including five Post Doctoral Fellows (PDF) and three Regional Research Scientists, (RS) six visiting scientists, Research fellows and six full time Research Consultants. The average age in the professional category was 52.6 years with seventeen staff 60 yrs and over, and three staff 65 and over; i.e. 24% of staff are at the retiring age for ICARDA. The average years spent at ICARDA since appointment was 9 years. 70% of the professional staff came from developing countries, 30% from Europe, Australia and USA. There were ten females, 14% of the Professional category, five from each of developing and developed countries. Allocation of time Results from the survey received from 70 professional staff members showed that 26% of the research staff allocated a percentage of their time to Mega Projects other than the one they were initially assigned to. Regional program coordinators, heads of Mega Projects, heads of research support units allocated 40-80% of their time for administrative purposes, while the rest of the

103

staff allocated 5-20%. There is at least one senior professional staff member based in each of the Regional Programs. Retirement policy ICARDA has a policy that employees retire at 60 years, and can only be extended up to 65 with the DG’s approval. There are at least 17 of 70 professionals who are 60 and over. Clearly some of these people have tremendous institutional knowledge and specialist expertise which is invaluable to new younger scientists. Contract duration All contract positions are for one year only, notice period is three months. The one-year contract however does not create an atmosphere of loyalty and commitment for long term research projects and needs to be reviewed. In the Scientific Personnel Survey, responses confirmed that ICARDA was a good place to work in terms of scientific challenges but the one-year contract created uncertainty and a negative working atmosphere. The Panel understands that contracts are always dependent on donor funding commitments, but recommends strongly that ICARDA commit to longer contracts to improve perceptions of job security and reduce uncertainty. Daily staff Some of the casual daily staff (total over 400) have been on daily rates for over eighteen months. The daily manpower is important to re-enforce the regular staff, especially during harvesting and sowing seasons, but also it is used to keep employment costs to an affordable level, and to trial potential employees. It is anticipated the new salary scale introduced in May 2006 for dailies will improve job satisfaction for the workers and improve their motivation and work performance. Remuneration The vast majority of respondents to the Scientific Personnel Survey indicated that the Center cannot attract the highest quality staff, with the most cited reason as the low salary scales and benefit packages offered. Staff salaries range from US$ 1,400 per annum for General Services staff to US$ 108,000 per annum at the top of the Principal scale. Salaries are benchmarked with other international agencies based in Syria and with the Syrian Public Service. The Panel was of the view that salaries were a crucial factor in attracting high caliber staff and recommends a survey be undertaken to ensure that salaries are competitive with other international agencies not only in Syria and but also outside Syria. Staff diversity The Panel recognized the constraint on increasing staff numbers with the increasing trend away from core funding to restricted funding. Increasing the number of post docs, doctoral students and young scientists, particularly women, would assist with spreading both the age range and the gender balance. Feedback from the Scientific Personnel Survey suggested ICARDA needs more young people with exposure to modern and advanced science and new ideas. ICARDA is well aware of the need to further implement its Board-approved strategy to enhance the gender balance. Performance management Systems are in place for performance measurement of all staff. Some respondents in the Scientific Personnel Survey considered that the systems were not yet fair, that in some instances staff were given bonuses which did not relate to their performance. An internal staff committee was formed

104

at the time of this Review to develop performance systems which are more transparent process for awarding salary increases and performance bonuses. Staff Survey Responses to the Staff Survey indicated that some appointments were made without full respect for due process, delays in receiving financial reports were time consuming for scientists with research priorities and deadlines to meet, the low salary level and competition for funding created a competitive rather than a collaborative culture. Management structure The outgoing Director-General had five direct reports, three ADGs, International Cooperation, Research and Government Liaison and the two directors of Finance and Corporate Services (ICARDA’s Organizational Chart is given in Annex 21). The ICARDA Executive Committee The Committee, comprised of five people, the DG, the ADG Research, the ADG International Cooperation and the two Directors of Finance and Corporate Services, usually met every three weeks but frequency depended on the travel program of the DG. The Management Committee comprised twenty five people including three ADGs, two directors, six Mega Project directors, directors of six outreach centers plus seven others from Geographic Information Unit, Genetic Resources Unit, Seed Unit, Computer & Biometrics, Documentation & Information Systems, Human Resources Development Unit (NARS development) and the Project Officer. The Regional Office heads were invited to add items to the Management Committee Agenda and received the minutes. They attended the meeting only if they were at Headquarters in Aleppo for other purposes. Video conferencing would provide the opportunity for them to participate in every meeting or as Agenda items required. Donor funding Although responsibility lies with the ADG – International Cooperation, all members of the ICARDA Management Committee and the Board members of ICARDA become involved with seeking potential donors, nurturing relationships and fundraising. ICARDA has increased and diversified its network of donors from 53 in 2000 to 69 in 2005 and this trend needs to continue. The challenge for the Board is to identify non-traditional sources of funding without the donors leading the research program in conflict with the agreed research priorities (see Annexes 17 and 18). ICARDA established a Project Office in 1998 to prepare proposals and research funding opportunities, currently staffed with one P level. The plan for ICARDA’s Project Office is to recruit a grants management officer at P level to take over daily tasks of grants management, monitoring agreements, developing the data base and liaising with the Finance Department on reporting. This will allow the current Projects Office to seek out new funding opportunities, to support scientists in proposal preparation and to fulfill the increasing demands of donor reporting. Legal advice Legal advice is crucial as agreements become more complicated and intellectual property is highlighted. Expertise was sought locally but there needs to be a secure and consistent source of advice. The advice in this area from the CGIAR Advisory Service (CAS) at IPGRI has proved useful.

105

Government relations The ADG – Government Liaison was responsible for maintaining good relations with the principal offices of the host government. He assists in promotion activities such as the preparation of brochures, press releases, contracts with the media etc in Syria, takes a leading role in the development of contracts with Syrian universities, supervises the liaison staff in obtaining government clearance for relevant items, and assists all programs/departments on government related matters on request. Research leadership The duties of the ADG - Research include guiding coordinating and supervising ICARDA’s resident and out-posted research program. Other responsibilities include providing leadership in the formulation and presentation to the DG of the research program and taking responsibility for its implementation, ensuring the availability of and efficient use of resource of the execution of these plans, to assist the DG identify senior staff for research posts, link with NARS co-operators and advanced research institutes in joint research cooperation. The six Mega project directors report to the ADG Research; the new structure was implemented on 1 January 2005. Financial management This function is carried out by three teams in the Finance Department: Operations, Treasury and Budget with a staff of 20 including 5 daily wage employees. The Director of Finance, who will retire in 2006, has been a very competent financial manager leading the Center to be first to submit its audited financials to CGIAR each year since 2002. The Center’s accounts and financial transactions are maintained using the Oracle Financial systems which were upgraded under the implementation of Oracle Financials version 11-i in 2005 as part of the Center’s Management Information System upgrades. The balances were verified and certified by Ernst & Young, the external auditors. All financial staff were trained to use the new system. With effective financial management and budget control, the Center was able to wipe out the deficit of US$ 1.2M in 1999 and generate a surplus of US$ 0.6M in 2005. They have also built up designated unrestricted net assets for replacement of equipment from US$ 7.5M in 1999 to US$ 8.0M in 2005. The Panel observed that the Finance Department understands and appreciates its critical role to the Center’s operations and financial sustainability. It appears to have managed ICARDA’s finances diligently. However, respondents in the Scientific Personnel Survey were very critical of the processes for approval of expenditure and stated that their financial reports were often hard to understand, inaccurate and delayed. They claimed delays in approving minor expenditure and the need to follow up all requests. Some felt that the current system was cumbersome and ineffective. A CCER could investigate further, in particular, processes for authority of expenditure, processes for approval of minor expenditure, the format for reporting project expenditures for effective control of budgets by principal investigators in a simple comprehensible summary. Resource mobilization and expenditures trends ICARDA’s annual revenues have grown from US$ 24.0M in 2000 to over US$ 29.8M in 2005. Unrestricted core funding has grown by 18% from US$ 9.33M in 2000 to US$ 10.97M in 2005

106

while restricted funding has grown by 29% from US$ 14.64M to US$ 18.85M in 2005, (Annex 22). Overall, the percentage of restricted funding has increased and averaged 62% during the 2000-05 period compared to the average of 35% for 1994-99. Though the proportion of unrestricted core : restricted funding has remained stable at around 38:62 over the last five years, the general shift by donors towards restricted funding has contributed to the pressures experienced by staff to devote more time to fundraising and donor reporting. Planning and budgeting The planning and budgeting process is currently within the Budget, Outreach, Donor Reporting section of the Finance Department. ICARDA’s planning and budgeting process is driven by the Medium-Term Plan on a three-year rolling cycle. The Finance Department monitors the budgets, reports monthly budget variances and provides commentary on current funding positions to management and project supervisors. The financial status of outreach Centers is reviewed and imprest funds are transferred on a quarterly basis. The department also monitors the school’s budgets and accounts on a monthly basis. Since 2000, ICARDA has largely operated within the overall approved annual budgets with annual surpluses of 0-3% of grant revenues mainly due to overhead recoveries allocated to projects and foreign exchange gains or losses. This is indicative of a well controlled budget process. Internal Audits The internal audits include operations (purchases, expenses, travel, etc.), financial reviews, occupational safety, cash checks, inventory reviews, payroll, CBSU review and occasional outreach visits to regional programs. The Panel noted that the outreach offices and sub-regional programs were not visited on a regular basis. The new Internal Auditor appointment is crucial to carry out the planned internal control reviews including visits to the outreach Centers. The independent Internal Auditor should report directly to the Board through the Audit Committee, with terms and conditions of employment negotiated with the DG. Finance and accounts ICARDA successfully upgraded to a new Oracle 11i financial system in 2005. Some reports are still being developed, including a travel module. In 2006 the system will be rolled out to the regional locations. There is a risk that due to the United States export embargo on certain types of software with potential military applications, ICARDA will be unable to import the next upgrade of Oracle. This places the whole financial management system, built up over 12 years, in jeopardy. The Board is focused on resolving this issue. The Finance department prepares monthly financial statements which are consistent with the annual audited format and submits them to the external auditor for comments. The Panel believes this is a good practice that consistently enables ICARDA to publish the annual audited financial statements on a timely basis. Financial health indicators ICARDA has consistently out performed the FHI benchmarks, introduced in 2003 by CGIAR, and has generally performed well according to other financial management performance indicators (ratios), (Annex 23), compared to other CGIAR Centers. This financial health indicator contributed in 2006 to ICARDA receiving an outstanding performance rating and as such is eligible for an additional contribution from the World Bank.

107

Risk management The Risk Management Policy was approved by the Board in April 2005, protecting ICARDA’s reputation, effectiveness, safety and security, financial integrity, legal and financial compliance and efficiency. The policy covers the generic approach and framework for risk management. However, ICARDA operates in an interrelated control environment with regular reviews for its internal control policies, procedures and activities. It conducts risk management reviews for Finance, Management Information Systems including CBS and Genetic Resources Units assessments. The Panel was told that the Center has undertaken a comprehensive review of the internal controls and risk assessments in most of the outreach and regional Centers through planned visits by Finance officers and the CGIAR internal auditor. It is planned for the new External auditors to visit the Regional Program offices. The Center is now participating in the Enterprise Security and business Continuity Project of the CGIAR ICT-KM program to plan to mitigate overall risk. Phase 1 is in IT and its will flow strategically to other operational RM needs. Foreign exchange management The Finance Director and DG monitor the major currency exchange rate movements on a monthly basis but there is no specific policy or guideline for foreign exchange (FX) risk mitigation. The FX risk is further aggravated by the unpredictable timing of donor funding. Proactive FX risk management requires highly experienced staff and sophisticated tools and may be expensive considering the unpredictable timing of the cash flows (donor funding) and the relative size of the amounts involved. There may be, however, simple, practical policies and guidelines that could be adapted by the Board and implemented by the department to minimize FX risks. A CCER could investigate these options. Financial reserves Treasury operations and cash management also impact on ICARDA’s financial risks. With high levels of unrestricted cash equivalents and bank deposits (US$ 13.4M as of 31 December 2005) and capital reserves of US$ 8.0M, ICARDA takes a very conservative approach to financial risk management. A US$ 400,000 bank overdraft facility has not been used. Corporate services The corporate services function which is headed by the Director, Corporate Services reporting to the Director General, covers 16 administrative and corporate services units including Personnel Services; Purchasing and Supplies; Physical Plant; Transport Services, Catering (Canteen); Security; Labor Office; ICARDA International School; Damascus and Beirut offices; Visitors (including Guest Houses at Aleppo and Damascus); Tele-Communications; Transport; Legal Affairs; Vehicle Workshops, Fabrication Workshops; and Medical Clinic. In the time available, the Panel was only able to visit Purchasing and Supplies, Property and Equipment Management and the ICARDA International School. However, the Panel gained the impression that the units were well administered with no issues. In general, the general services units provide staff and visitors with numerous services and benefits that were intended to promote fair working conditions. Property and equipment management The Physical Plant Unit (PPU) is staffed by experienced and competent engineers and technicians and the Center’s property, machinery and equipment are well maintained. The Panel was shown machinery and equipment including some older than 15 years but which, though fully depreciated, is still well maintained and in working condition. The Engineering Services also run its operations efficiently and is well equipped with a fabrication workshop. The PPU has a
108

prudent write-off policy where machinery and equipment that has completely used up its life and can’t be maintained is written off. Disposal is complicated by some local conditions. However, the written off machinery and equipment is recorded separately in the financial accounts, thereby not affecting the fixed assets and depreciation accounts. The Panel was alerted that the PPU may experience storage and workshop space pressures as written off equipment and machinery is not disposed of. Carpentry workshop ICARDA’s facilities, furniture and furnishings are well managed. The Carpentry Workshop was revamped and it continues to be self-financing. Purchasing, supplies and inventory management This Department is headed by the Assistant Director, Corporate Services. The purchasing and procurement function has been streamlined and improved in line with CGIAR’s guidelines. Inventory management has also improved and inventories have declined from US$ 417,000 in 1999 to US$ 324,000 in 2005. The Panel was told that the US economic embargo against Syria complicates ICARDA’s efforts to increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness in procurement and inventory management. The Center often has to seek waivers from the US authorities to procure necessary equipment, materials and supplies. The embargo effectively results in ICARDA procuring items at premium prices. Management Information System (MIS) ICARDA’s MIS, a corporate service, is managed by the Computer and Biometrics Services Unit (CBSU) which reports to the ADG (Research). CBSU main processes include network operation and support, desktop applications and support, hardware maintenance, MIS applications support and development, database development, biometrics and bioinformatics support, knowledge management and intranet and training. Since 2000, the unit has installed high speed LAN and wireless network facilities throughout the Center. They have improved the network security and migrated critical data from PCs to network file servers. They have also developed and implemented several databases for the science community, the financial management and administrative functions. CBSU has also supported the outreach IT facilities and requirements. They are currently implementing the Oracle Applications project with full deployment to outreach offices. They are fully integrating scientific computing with the implementation, deployment and maintenance of various databases to support the Biometrics and Bioinformatics for the mega projects. The Financial Management System (Oracle Financial) This system is also supported by CBSU as the data is housed on CBSU servers on the Oracle platform. They also provide user support as the Finance Department lacks finance systems analyst/program expertise. The Panel heard this approach doesn’t work as efficiently as expected and there is a need to have a dedicated staff with Accounting and/or financial background and Oracle software systems in the Finance department. The International School of Aleppo The school is an integral part of ICARDA, complementing the Center’s international recruitment. It is a non-profit coeducational day school that serves ICARDA’s staff members with pre-school (age 3) to Grade 12 children. The school providing a university-preparatory education for all students has enrolment of 264 students representing 32 countries. It was recently inspected and certified by the Syrian Ministry of Education as an International Baccalaureate program. It also
109

offers the IGCSE program in Grade 10. The Head of School, like the faculty, is internationally recruited and reports to the ICARDA Director of Corporate Services, the Chairman of the School Management Committee. The budget year runs from August through July with an annual budget of US$ 2.2M. It is operationally sustainable. Its accounts are incorporated in the upgraded Oracle financial system enabling its accounts and transactions to be properly represented in ICARDA’s financial statements. In conclusion, in relation to management and financial issues the Panel recommends: that ICARDA conduct a CCER on Management and Finance to investigate and provide best practice to ICARDA Management on: (i) The Finance Department’s role within the wider ICARDA body. (ii) The HR strategy to attract and retain the highest caliber staff with fair and transparent performance management systems. The latter may include: • A new strategy for attracting post-docs, doctoral students (for example, reduce or eliminate high fees) and young scientists. • A survey of salaries including Syrian public service, international agencies based in Syria and international agencies, outside of Syria, for comparative purposes. • Contracts for periods longer than one year to give security to staff and to enhance the potential for attracting the highest caliber staff to the Center. • Simpler processes for authority of expenditure and for approval of minor expenditures, and change the format for reporting project expenditures for effective control of budgets by principal investigators to a simple comprehensible summary. • ICARDA’s treasury operations and cash management with a view to develop and adapt more efficient and pro-active investment strategies, guidelines and practices. • Training or recruiting dedicated staff with accounting/financial management background and Oracle systems expertise. Given the dispersed nature of ICARDA’s research activities, the Panel also recommends that External audits should routinely include visits and reviews of the regional and outreach centers, at least on a random (selective) or rotational basis.

110

6

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The establishment of ICARDA as a research Center in Aleppo, Syria, reflected above all the need to find ways and means to improve the productivity of water in the agricultural systems of the Dry Areas. Such areas are characterized by unpredictable spatial and temporal variability in the supply of its most precious resource (water) creating inherent variations and uncertainties in food security. Initially, ICARDA focused its activities primarily on the West Asia and North Africa (WANA), the most water-scarce region of the world, but by the turn of the century, it had expanded its regional mandate to include the countries in Central Asia (CWANA). Most countries in CWANA have food deficits and high unemployment, while poverty is still a common feature, especially in rural areas. The challenges faced by the dry areas, given the increased water demands and the population pressure on the environment, are enormous. The Panel’s overall assessment is that over the last five years, ICARDA, through its research for development activities has made many contributions towards alleviating poverty and enhancing food security in the CWANA region. Of all activities of ICARDA, the Panel feels that the developments that have occurred in its regional programs are most successful. ICARDA, in collaboration with the NARS, has developed an excellent outreach effort through its regional programs and is now an important player in the development and dissemination of agricultural knowledge in the CWANA region. Ever since its creation in 1973, ICARDA has faced the dilemma of balancing its global mission as a Center for the Dry Areas with its mandate to work on a regional basis. Also, as for other CGIAR centers, ICARDA is subjected to demands asking it to tackle a whole host of problems, often not requiring specific, new research for their solution. The recent trend over the last five years, as observed by the Panel, is that ICARDA has had the tendency of getting too involved in its regional work at the expense of conducting more research on issues that are relevant to the dry areas globally. Similarly, ICARDA has sometimes been asked to participate in development and post-conflict reconstruction efforts that involve too little research, and that do not lead to the production of IPGs. Such efforts are more appropriately conducted by other agencies. In relation to the structure of scientific activities, the Center and the Board of Trustees recently designed, discussed and adopted a new project structure for the ICARDA research portfolio consolidating the 19-project portfolio into six integrated MegaProjects (MP) which came into force on 1 January 2005. The Panel notes that the MP structure was inaugurated without either a new strategic plan being developed or a detailed plan for implementation under the new structure. The Panel discusses in Chapter 2 that it is likely that the MP structure is not optimal to meet the needs of ICARDA and that further adjustments will be required. The Panel recommends that the current science structure consisting of six MegaProjects (MPs 16), that are really large programs, needs further realignment. This leads the Panel to recommend that ICARDA reconsider the readjustment of its thematic program structure as detailed in the following paragraphs. More specifically, there is a strategic issue to be addressed in relation to research on desertification, which is often concerned more with monitoring and analyzing land degradation than with devising better agricultural and grazing practices that both alleviate poverty and protect the land. The Panel’s view is that the expertise in MP3 that is involved in devising better practices, including policy options on land tenure in rangelands, would be more effective if incorporated into other approaches of natural resource management in relation to production in

111

MPs 1, 4, and 5, and that work simply on monitoring is not centrally important to ICARDA’s mandate. The Panel recommends that the two currently separate MPs focusing on natural resources, MP3 (on desertification) and MP1 (on water) should merge as a single Water and Land Program, while the MP3 activities on land tenure, rangelands and policy options should be integrated with work on diversification (currently MP4) and other work on socio-economics and policy be integrated in MP5. Similarly, the Panel’s view is that the research content of MP6 is minimal, and that most of its activities on knowledge management would be more effective if integrated within the other research programs and not be separate. This is not so say that knowledge management is not important, but rather that is so important that it should be integral to all projects, starting with their inception. It should also include an appreciation of local knowledge and policy, including possible impediments to introducing new technologies. Parts of MP6 which do involve research would be more effectively pursued in MP5, or in the case of the seed unit, transferred to MP2. The Panel is keenly aware that in suggesting growth in certain scientific areas, and that, if funding is not substantially increased, such changes will be at the expense of existing areas. To generate the needed resources, the Panel recommends a strategy of combining consolidation of some MPs (3 and 6), together with the consolidation of service units, and the replacement of retiring senior staff with junior scientists. These recommended realignments would take time, and to avoid further disruption, should only be done only after strategic and implementation plans are in place. Efforts on the development of a strategic plan started in 2005 and hopefully will be completed shortly under the leadership of the new DG and Board Chair. To avoid further disruptions to researchers, the Panel recommends that the recommendations made above are considered for implementation only after new strategic plans are in place. Overall assessment Quality of staff The quality of staff is judged to be generally good with variability across programs. There is a high commitment to meeting the challenges of dry land agriculture and awareness of poverty issues. Interactions with partners in national programs appear to be very good. The Panel conducted a detailed assessment on the quality of science at ICARDA. It recognized that the strict use of numerical indicators is not adequate, and it used many indicators to arrive at a qualitative assessment of each P-level scientist, relative to his or her peers, and averaged the individual results for each MegaProject. The Panel found that the science quality and outputs of MP1 and MP2 are very good, and that the quality of MP5 has improved substantially in recent years. The personal publication records of several key scientists are internationally very competitive but 28% of senior staff did not publish in peer reviewed, international journals during the Review period (Chapter 3). In cases where outputs in refereed, international journals were less than adequate, the Panel recommends an assessment of the causes for the low productivity. Although the production of other types of publications by ICARDA scientists has increased in the last five years, the general view of the Panel is that ICARDA should place greater emphasis on getting the results of its research published in international peer-reviewed journals to enhance the global

112

scientific image of the Center and to attract new staff and collaborators. Many of the regional coordinators play very important catalytic functions in the sub-regions they serve. However several of the Program Directors and Regional coordinators are of retirement age and a second tier of younger scientists bringing new ideas and methods needs to be planned for and developed. ICARDA staff are very active in capacity development through program-associated and formal training courses. For instance, 54 graduate students were being supervised at ICARDA in 2005. Quality of the infrastructure and facilities Infrastructure and facilities of the ICARDA HQ site are generally attractive and adequate but replacement (of such items as the Oracle system, vehicle parts and specialist scientific equipment) may become an issue beyond the influence of the Center because of embargoes placed on the host country. IT capacity has been steadily updated and is currently effective. Quality of science management The Center has conducted four CCERs during the review period. The CCERs of ICARDA’s Outreach and Integrated Gene Management were authoritative and provided excellent material for the Center and the EPMR. The CCER of Natural Resources Management and Socio-economics was effective in relation to NRM and in its ultimate recommendations on socio-economics at ICARDA (but the Panel found its analysis lacked depth). The CCER of capacity building was conducted but the report remains unavailable. ICARDA has processes in place for the ex ante assessment of project plans and an important (but understaffed) projects office. Both core and unrestricted funding have increased in absolute terms during the period covered by the Review. ICARDA holds internal planning meetings and review meetings with NARS. In line with a recommendation of previous CCERs, the Panel urges ICARDA to make these more forward-looking. Longer term planning in relation to ICARDA’s portfolio of projects may help restore the overall balance bringing into line imperatives for strategic global research with applied research arising at the sub-regional level. ICARDA has staff performance appraisal processes in place but, at the time of the review, few staff perceived that there was a relationship between performance and rewards contributing to problems of morale. The Center has a comprehensive set of policies covering Intellectual property rights (including statements on ownership in the Personnel Policy Manual), a Research Information Sharing and Use Policy (which covers data storage and access), a Risk Management Policy (which also refers to IP risks), IT Policies and Procedures, a recently implemented Ethics Policy, and Publication Policy. The Center uses the CGIAR Material Transfer Agreement available on its website. Governance and finance The governance of the Center is exercised by the ICARDA Board of Trustees which, at the time of the Review, only met in face to face session once a year. The Panel believes that more effective oversight could be established through an additional meeting and use of video conferencing. The major challenges the Board faces are to oversee the development of a new Center strategic plan, succession planning to support the ageing staff profile without loss of scientific expertise, and the development of an overall coherent funding strategy to avoid fragmentation of the program. Part of the succession planning will require ways and means to attract new, internationally competitive scientists to ICARDA and a review of staff terms and conditions. To tackle the requirements for financial and personnel management, the makeup of the Board might profitably

113

be adjusted away from the preponderance of senior professionals in scientific disciplines to those required for a more complete corporate governance of the Center. Several recommendations are made to ensure the efficiency and transparency of the Board and management practice and their interrelationship. ICARDA has standard processes in place for many aspects of its operation, but there are differences in perception of the efficiency of implementation of such processes on a day to day basis. Noting that the Center has carried out CCERs on scientific and capacity-building aspects of the Center’s activities, the Panel recommends that the Board commission a CCER on management and finance, with an emphasis on the recommendation to the new management of best practices to be followed in the future. The Panel provides advice for the focusing of such a CCER. Scientific outputs The Panel has commented on the number and distribution of Peer-reviewed publications over the period of the review. ICARDA has produced a large number of other publications (including in Arabic) on the basis of its project outputs which are appreciated in a region where electronic access to journals is not widespread. Several of these are of high quality and cover a range of important issues for the region (e.g. an inventory of barley genetic resources, characterization of small ruminant genetic resources in West Asia and North Africa, synthesis volumes on information for olive and date palm, requirements for the development and harmonization of biosafety regulations in the WANA region, amongst others). The development of the socioeconomics capacity at ICARDA has augmented the Center’s overall approaches to impact analysis methods, an important published example being “Adoption and Impact Assessment of Improved Technologies in Crop and Livestock Production Systems in the WANA region”. ICARDA has an excellent reputation with its NARS partners for the provision of improved germplasm in its mandate crop species and work of the Gene Bank is highly regarded. Whilst participatory plant breeding has a role at the local and informal seed system level, it is unlikely however that it will meet the needs of a global program. Impacts The Panel found many cases where ICARDA activities have had significant impact on improving agricultural productivity in a sustainable way, on improving livelihoods, and on the NARS. Examples include the breeding of new chickpea and lentil cultivars and of barley varieties in a participatory fashion, the successful introduction of supplemental irrigation in wheat production, the progress made in developing integrative packages in the Khanasser Valley and in the Mashreq-Maghreb project, and the Afghanistan program aimed at assisting the reconstruction of agriculture in that country. Many of the achieved impacts derive from the success of the Regional Programs in reaching out to the many different partners in the Region, as in the successful case of Inter-Center collaboration in Central Asia and Caucasus. The future challenge The most critical problem of the Dry Areas is water scarcity. Increasing the productivity of water in agricultural systems should be a major thrust in the research portfolio of ICARDA. There is strong evidence that crop yields attained by farmers are well below what would be expected if the yields were limited only by water, and that therefore water productivity is currently low, both in rainfed and in irrigated agriculture. ICARDA has the opportunity to elaborate on this evidence strategically, to determine where the gaps between actual and water-limited potential yields are greatest, and to target those areas for further research.

114

In addition to improving farming systems, such research may uncover hitherto unrecognized constraints in the soil, such as cryptic root diseases, which may be limiting the ability of ICARDA’s new crop cultivars to fully express their potential in water-limited environments. In this context, the Panel thinks that the use of the ill-defined idea of drought resistance, which often relates to surviving severe water deficits rather than to production, should give way to the quantifiable idea of water productivity. In addition to low water productivity, traditional practices rely heavily on frequent tillage, which worsens land degradation. ICARDA has the challenge of devising conservation practices that are acceptable to farmers, that increase diversity through the incorporation of grain and forage legumes and oilseeds into rotations, and that enable a closer and more productive integration of livestock into arable systems. The Panel believes that ICARDA should develop a renewed emphasis on research in agronomy, supporting this with GIS and modelling tools to characterize yield gaps. Such research has great potential to improve water productivity in the Dry areas, and is an opportunity to return ICARDA to the internationally prominent position it once enjoyed in this area of research. The opportunities that diversification has for improving livelihoods in the Dry areas are immense. In addition to ICARDA’s work on introducing new arable crops in rotations within the context of conservation agriculture, and increasing strategic research on integrating cropping systems with livestock where appropriate, horticulture provides many opportunities to improve livelihoods and to alleviate poverty in the Dry Areas. ICARDA has done some research in horticulture and is developing an agreement with the AVRDC in the CAC region. The Panel acknowledges the need for ICARDA to contribute to research in horticulture but recommends that a strategy be developed to identify the subject matter where the return on research investments would be highest in the various agroecologies of the Dry Areas. In many cases, the Panel believes that networking and partnering would be the most appropriate instruments for knowledge dissemination and problem-solving, by ICARDA linking NARS with advanced institutions. Among the various forms of horticulture, the Panel feels that the most promising opportunities at this time are on researching the sustainable intensification of traditional Mediterranean tree crops, such as olive, almond, and pistachio. The Panel visited four of the seven regions where ICARDA has regional programs (RP). The many achievements and impacts discussed under Chapter 4 led the Panel to unanimously view ICARDA RPs as an extremely successful effort. All RP’s have created strong networks and numerous partnerships, and were effectively using alliances of more than one country to assist those with the most need, as in the case of working in Mauritania with Moroccan partners. Everywhere NARS scientists and government officials expressed appreciation of ICARDA’s scientific expertise, and administrative support in the development of region-wide networks, projects and in training, using existing NARS facilities. In particular, ICARDA partners appreciated receiving new germplasm for breeding, the new methodologies introduced, the capacity building efforts, and the networking that allows fruitful contacts among scientists of the region. ICARDA has also strengthened its partnerships with other CGIAR centers during the period, in particular, the Panel viewed very positively the development of an ICARDA-CIMMYT

115

agreement on wheat breeding that should pave the way to fruitful cooperation between the two Centers. Conclusion The Panel views the future of ICARDA with optimism because it perceives that there is a unique opportunity for the Center to grow and develop into a world class research center for the Dry Areas. The new leadership, with the appointment of a new DG and a new Board Chair, should renovate areas in need and give a new impulse to conducting research of high quality by the Center. The substantial efforts devoted to the development of the Regional Programs in recent years should now shift towards developing stronger global research activities. The outputs from such efforts would be easily capitalized on by ICARDA to ensure impacts using the current Regional Programs and networks that the Center has already developed. The Panel strongly recommends that donors should respond to these renewed activities and further support ICARDA’s programs and efforts in the future.

116

ANNEXES ANNEX I PANEL COMPOSITION AND BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
CHAIR: Elias FERERES School of Agricultural and Forestry Engineering, University of Cordoba, Spain Tel: +34 957499229 Email: ag1fecae@uco.es MEMBERS: Ahmed GOUELI Faculty of Agriculture Cairo University, Egypt Tel: +(00202)5755045 Fax: (00202)5754090 Email: caeu@Idsc.net.eg John PASSIOURA CSIRO Plant Industry Canberra, Australia Tel:+ 61-2-62465087 Email: john.passioura@csiro.au

Stephen BAENZIGER University of Nebraska Nebraska, USA Tel: +402 472 1538 Email: pbaenziger1@unl.edu

Juliet McKEE Corporate Governance Advisor, New Zealand Tel: +64 4 476 2900 Fax: +64 4 476 2901 Mob: +64 274 449 488 Email: juliet@mckee.co.nz Frederick KALEMA-MUSOKE Independent consultant, Uganda/USA Tel: (240) 505-6406 Email: FKalema-musoke@msn.com

CONSULTANTS: Camilla TOULMIN International Institute for Environment and Development, London UK Tel: 0131 624 7041/0171 388 2117 Email: Camilla.toulmin@iied.org RESOURCE PERSONS: Peter Gardiner (Panel Secretary) SC Secretariat Senior Agricultural Research Officer Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations SDDC, Room C624 Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, Italy Tel.: (39 06) 570 52458 Fax.:(39 06) 570 53298 E-mail: Peter.gardiner@fao.org

Manuel LANTIN CGIAR Secretariat Science Adviser, CGIAR The World Bank 1818 H Street NW MSN G 6-601 Washington D.C. 20433, USA Tel.: (1 202) 473 8912 Fax.: (1 202) 473 8110 E-mail: m.lantin@cgiar.org m.lantin@worldbank.org

117

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION Name: FERERES, Elias (Spain) Position: Professor of Agronomy Expertise: Water science and engineering, management and conservation of water in agricultural and natural ecosystems. Education: B.Sc. and Ph.D. in Agricultural Engineering (Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, 1969 and 1977); M.Sc. in Irrigation (1974) and Ph.D. in Ecology (1976), University of California, Davis. Experience: 1976-82: Irrigation Specialist and Lecturer, Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California, Davis. 1983-1989: Several positions in science management in the National Research Commission of Spain (CAICYT). 1991-1992: President of Spain’s High Council of Scientific Research (CSIC). 1992-1994: Secretary of State for Universities and Research for the Government of Spain. 1995-2000: Director, Institute of Sustainable Agriculture (CSIC), Cordoba. President of the Spanish Academy of Engineering (1995-2003) and President of the European Society for Agronomy (ESA) (2000-2002). Member of the Academia Europae. Former TAC member (19982003). Has consulted for many national and international organizations, including FAO, EU, and USAID on various aspects of water and agriculture. Author of over 150 refereed, international publications and book chapters on crop responses to water deficits, adaptation to drought, farm irrigation management, soil and water conservation, and management of dryland farming systems. Name: BAENZIGER, Stephen (USA) Position: Eugene W. Price Distinguished Professor, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska. Expertise: Plant breeding Education: MS and PhD, Plant Breeding and Genetics, Purdue University (1975); BA (magna cum laude), Biochemical Sciences, Harvard University (1972) Experience: 1993-1996: Interim-Head, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska; 19911993: Professor, University of Nebraska; 1986-1991: Associate Professor, University of Nebraska; 19831986: Research Manager, Monsanto Agricultural Products Company, St. Louis, Missouri; 1976-1983: Research Geneticist, United States Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland. Released or coreleased 24 wheat cultivars, 4 barley cultivars, and 4 triticale cultivars. Honors and awards include Distinguished Agriculture Alumnus Award, Purdue University; Crop Science Research Award, Crop Science Society of America; Agronomic Achievement Award-Crops, American Society of Agronomy. Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Society of Agronomy and the Crop Science Society of America. Author or of 143 refereed articles, 26 proceedings and symposia, 9 book chapters, and one book edited.

Name:

GOUELI, Ahmed (EGYPT)

Position: Secretary General of the Council of the Arab Economic Unity, Cairo and Professor of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University Expertise: Agricultural economics Education: Ph.D. Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley, USA (1964); M.A.
Statistics, University of California Berkeley (1964); M. Sc. University of California, Berkeley (1962); B.Sc. Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Alexandria University, Egypt (1957) Experience: 2000-2001: Chairman of the Board of Directors and CEO of Kingdom Agricultural Development Company. 1996-1999: Minister of Trade and Supply, Egypt. 1994-1996: Minister of Supply and Home Trade, Egypt. Previous to 1994: Governor of Egypt’s governorates, Damietta and Ismailia. Has held government positions as advisor to the Minister of Agriculture and Land reclamation. Has provided consultancies to FAO, AOAD, USAID, Ford Foundation. Member of

118

several high level national and international committees. Author of over 50 pieces of research published in Egyptian and international journals. Member of ICARDA EPMR (1983). Name: MCKEE, Juliet (NEW ZEALAND) Position: Corporate Governance Adviser Expertise: Management and strategy development with a special focus on corporate governance Education: BA, (Economics) Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand (1970). Experience: Director on twenty Boards over the last fifteen years. Currently a director on four Boards, including a publicly listed company, a not-for-profit, a private company and a local government Board. Focus is on advice to governments on corporate governance policy and legislation, providing training to Boards, and building the capacity of directors’ institutes, working in the Pacific, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Previously served three years with the Commonwealth Secretariat in London, three years with the United Nations in Geneva (UNCTAD), three years with Shell in Gabon, West Africa and then with the Middle East Economic Digest, based in Tunisia, North Africa. Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Directors and past member of the National Council, New Zealand Institute of Directors Study Award to the United Kingdom in 1996. Awarded the Commonwealth Medal in 1990 and the Queen’s Service Order, QSO, in 1996. An Honorary Fellow of the Victoria University, School of Government in Wellington, New Zealand. Name: PASSIOURA, John (AUSTRALIA) Position: Honorary Research Fellow, Division of Plant Industry, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Expertise: Crop physiology and soils, drought Education: PhD, University of Melbourne (1963).Topic: The Availability of Manganese in Neutral to Alkaline Soils.BS, Agricultural Science, University of Melbourne (1958) Experience: From 1966 to date, held different positions at CSIRO, first in the Division of Land Research (Research Scientist, Senior Research Scientist, Principal Research Scientist) and then in the Division of Plant Industry (Principal Research Scientist, Senior Principal Research Scientist, Chief Research Scientist). During the same period, he has been a Visiting Fellow/Professor at different Universities: the Botany School of the University of Cambridge, the University of Guelph in Canada and the University of Bayreuth in Germany. Previously he has been a Research Fellow at the University of Wageningen, The Netherlands. In 1994 he has been elected Fellow of the Australian Academy of Sciences. Consultant for FAO on Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified Crops and on Water Use by Crops. Author of more than 100 papers published in refereed journals. Name: KALEMA-MUSOKE, Frederick (UGANDA) Position: Independent consultant Expertise: Financial management and analysis, project analysis Education: MBA, Finance and Investments (1990), M.S Social and Economic Statistics (1979), George Washington University; BSc (Hon), Statistics and Economics (1975), Makerere University, Uganda. Experience: 2002-present: Independent consultant for The World Bank Group as Financial Management Specialist, Planning and Budget Specialist and for Five Talents International (a microenterprise development NGO) as Member of the Program Review Committee and of the Board. In the period 1982-2002 held different positions at the World Bank Group/International Finance Corporation: Portfolio Investment Officer and Planning and Budgeting Officer in the Sub-Saharan Africa Department; Financial Operations Officer in the Treasury and Financial Policy Department; Planning and Budget Analyst in the Planning and Budget Department; Research Analyst/Consultant in the East Asia and Pacific Department. He has been the Staff Representative to World Bank Workers’ Compensation Administrative Review Panel. He is currently Director of the National Association of Investors Corporation (NAIC).

119

Name: TOULMIN, Camilla (UK) Position: Director of the International Institute for Environment & Development (IIED), London Expertise: Land rights and tenure; pastoral resources and the commons; building participatory policy processes and institutions; participatory soils management; poverty and livelihoods; desertification. Education: DPhil, Economics, University of Oxford (1986); MSc, Economics, University of London, SOAS (1976); BA, Economics, University of Cambridge.(1975). Experience: Present position since 2004. 1987- 2003: Director of the Drylands Program, IIED. 19861987: Research Officer at the Overseas Development Institute; 1983-1985: Work with the Livestock Policy Unit, International Livestock Center for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 1980-1982: Researcher with the International Livestock Center for Africa (ILCA) in Mali. Two years field research into livestock and crop production systems in a group of Bambara farming villages in central Mali ; 19771979: Lecturer in economics at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria. Previous appointments include: Board of Trustees, International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) based in the Hague; Council of the Royal African Society, London; Scientific Advisory Board, Center for Ecology and Hydrology. UK; Scientific Committee, Conference of Ministers of Agriculture of West and Central Africa, Dakar, Senegal; Advisory Committee, Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) Scotland. She was a member of the International Expert Panel supporting the preparation of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and has worked with a large number of development agencies.

120

ANNEX II SCHEDULE OF THE REVIEW
Schedule of the Review: 22-28 April 2006 28th April 29 April – 6 May 2006 6th – 11th June Initial phase (ICARDA HQ) Visit to Khanasser Valley, Syria ICARDA Board Meeting (ICARDA HQ) Visits to regional programs conducted: APRP, Dubai and Oman: CAC-ERP,Uzbekistan: NARP, Tunisia: NVRSP, Egypt: Main Phase (ICARDA HQ)

10-22 June 2006

1) Summary of Schedule of the First Phase of the 5th EPMR of ICARDA All Panel Members stay at Chabha Cham Hotel: All Meetings at ICARDA Tel Hadya Friday 21/4 Saturday 22/4 Travel (Arrival of ES, JP, JMcK, FK-M, PRG; JN by road) Internal Panel Briefing and Panel Chair meets with DG (Arrival of SB late pm) Program Presentations DG, ADG-R and MegaProject Directors (Arrival of AG pm) (Arrival of CT early am – team complete) Program Presentations by ADG (IC) and Regional Coordinators Visit to research and field facilities (Tel Hadya) by Panel in pairs Program discussions with scientists of MPs 1-6 Discussions with staff of support units (CBSU, CODIS and HRDU). SB visits MP2 staff and tours experimental plots. Individual and group meetings (e.g. with group of Regional Coordinators). Panel works on identification of outline and agrees responsibilities (AG and SB leave in the evening) Internal Panel discussions, identification of additional materials, agreement on survey forms and requirements, EF continues one on one interactions. JMcK and FK-M have discussions with Admin. and Finance officers etc. CT visits Khanasser Integrated Research Site. (JN leaves) Evening Panel round up. (CT leaves) Report writing and discussions. Incoming DG arrives and meets with ES. FK-M continues meeting with Finance staff.

Sunday 23/4

Monday 24/4

Tuesday 25/4 Wednesday 26/4

Thursday 27/4

Friday 28/4

Saturday 29/4

121

Sunday 30/4

(JP leaves) ES meets with current Board Chair, Current DG, Incoming DG. JMcK and FK-M meets with Regional Staff Committee, Regional Coordinator NARP, Audit Committee Chair, Gender and Diversity Committee. EF, JMcK, FK-M and PRG observe PC Meeting of the Board. EF and JMcK meet with incoming Board Chair. Confirmation of outreach sites to be visited. (EF leaves) JMcK and FK-M meet ADG(IC), Current and Incoming External Auditors am and attend BOT AC and NC Meetings pm. (FK-M leaves). (PRG leaves) JMcK attends BOT PC Meeting JMcK attends BOT Meeting JMcK attends BOT Meeting JMcK attends BOT Meeting (JMcK leaves)

Monday 1/5

Tuesday 2/5

Wednesday 3/5 Thursday 4/5 Friday 5/5 Saturday 6/5 Sunday 7/5

2) Summary of Schedule of the Second Phase of the 5th EPMR of ICARDA – including Panel visits to selected office and field sites of ICARDA’s Regional Programs The second phase of the Review was conducted between the 11th to the 22nd of June at ICARDA’s Tel Hadya HQ. Prior to the Panel convening in Syria, Panel members visited four of the regional sites as described below.

Visit of Dr Ahmed Goueli to NVRSRP, Cairo
The visit to NVRSRP was covered in two days (30 and 31 May 2006), where a field visit was organized the first day and a meeting with major collaborators took place the second day. Dr Goueli visited Al-Serew Station, the base of the Irrigation Benchmark Site (IBS) project which has five field locations. He was accompanied by the Director of MP1, Dr Oweis and by Drs El-Kousi and E. Abou El-Enein. On the second day, Dr Goueli, accompanied by Dr Makouk, Director of NVRSRP, met with scientists at the regional program who presented their work on wheat, legumes, barley, water modelling and winter season cropping.

Visit of Drs Elias Fereres and John Passioura to CAC Ecoregional Program, Tashkent
During 4 days (7-9 June 2006), Drs Fereres and Passioura visited offices of CGIAR Centers in Tashkent and met with ICARDA scientists. They also visited a number of research sites such as the Research Institute of Cotton Growing (UzRICG), research plots on conservation tillage, the Research Institute of Plant Industry (UzRIPI), the Germplasm Enhancement Program, the Uzbek Genebank and Quarantine Area, the Karakul Sheep Breeding Institute and two benchmark sites in Boykozon and Kushmanota dealing with water management activities. The Panel, accompanied by Raj Paroda, Director of CAC, met with Dr Amir Amanov, Advisor in President’s Office and Dr Abdushukur Khanazarov, Deputy Minister of Agriculture.

122

Visit of Dr Stephen Baenziger to NARP, Tunis
During his 4-day visit (7-10 June 2006), Dr Baenziger, accompanied by Dr Mohamed El Mourid, Director of NARP, met with scientists and representatives of NARS (INAT, INRAT) from Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria. He also met with Prof. A. Daaloul, Secretary of State at the Ministry of Agriculture in Charge of Fisheries. Dr Baenziger visited the Arid Zones Institute (IRA), managed by the Ministry of Scientific Research; PRODESUD, an IFAD Development Project on Rangeland in South Tunisia; GDA an NGO on Agricultural Development Grouping; and the Mashreq and Maghreb Phase III Project, coordinated by ICARDA and implemented in eight countries (four in North Africa: Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, and four in West Asia: Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria). The latter is funded by IFAD and AFESD (Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development).

Visit of Dr Juliet McKee to APRP, Dubai and Oman (Muscat)
Ms Juliet McKee visited APRP based in Dubai and Muscat on the 6th and 7th of June 2006. APRP has been financially supported by the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (AFESD), OPEC Fund for International Development and IFAD. Ms. McKee met with Khalfan Saleh Mohammed AlNaabi, Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and APRP scientists.

123

ANNEX III TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE 5th EPMR of ICARDA
The Terms of Reference for an EPMR are made up of both general requirements common to the Reviews of all Centers, and of strategic issues specific to the Center under Review. Both are given here for the review of ICARDA. General Terms of Reference for an EPMR Objectives and scope EPMRs seek to inform CGIAR members that their investment is sound, or recommend measures to make it so. Members of the CGIAR and other stakeholders can be informed whether the Center is doing work effectively and efficiently. EPMRs are both retrospective and prospective; and help ensure the Center’s excellence, relevance and continued viability, and the CGIAR System’s coherence. Each review is expected to be strategic in orientation and as comprehensive as the situation warrants. The broad objectives of EPMRs are to: a) provide members with an independent and rigorous assessment of the institutional health and contribution of a Center that they are supporting; and b) to provide the Center and its collaborators with assessment information that complements or validates their own evaluation efforts, including the CCERs. The EPMR Panel is specifically charged to assess the following: a) The Center’s mission, strategy and priorities in the context of the CGIAR’s priorities and strategies. b) The quality and relevance of the science undertaken, including the effectiveness and potential impact of the Center’s completed and ongoing research. c) The effectiveness and efficiency of management including the mechanisms and processes for ensuring quality. d) The accomplishments and impact of the Center’s research and related activities.

Topics to be covered:
Mission, Strategy and Priorities The continuing appropriateness of the Center’s mission in light of important changes in the Center and its external environment since the previous external review. The policies, strategies, and priorities of the Center, their coherence with the CGIAR’s goals (of poverty alleviation, natural resources management, and sustainable food security), and relevance to beneficiaries, especially rural women. The appropriateness of the roles of relevant partners in the formulation and implementation of the Center’s strategy and priorities, considering alternative sources of supply and the benefits of partnerships with others. Quality and Relevance The quality and relevance of the science practised at the Center. The effectiveness of the Center’s processes for planning, priority setting, quality management (e.g. CCERs, peer reviews and other quality and relevance assurance mechanisms), and impact assessment.

124

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Management The performance of the Center’s Board in governing the Center, the effectiveness of leadership throughout the Center, and the suitability of the organization’s culture to its mission. The adequacy of the Center’s organizational structure and the mechanisms in place to manage, coordinate and ensure the excellence of the research programs and related activities. The adequacy of resources (financial, human, physical and information) available and the effectiveness and efficiency of their management. The effectiveness of the Center’s relationships with relevant research partners and other stakeholders of the CGIAR system. Accomplishments and Impact Recent achievements of the Center in research and other areas. The effectiveness of the Center’s programs in terms of their impact and contribution to the achievement of the mission and goals of the CGIAR.

Strategic Issues For ICARDA’s 5th EPMR 1. Is the Center extending too far towards development activities compared to research? Are national institutions now stronger because of ICARDA’s capacity strengthening and should ICARDA pull back from research and development aimed at achieving national goals? 2. Is ICARDA already taking steps to devolve research responsibilities (including breeding) to NARS? Do these assist or have the effect of crowding out the development of NARS capacity? 3. Does ICARDA’s work on seed systems at the national level contribute to regional public goods (RPG)? The Panel is invited to comment on “What are the requirements for a CGIAR systems approach to seed systems research (development, multiplication and distribution) that could lead to international public goods (IPG) in seed systems?”. 4. What is the role and comparative advantage of ICARDA versus international development agencies such as FAO and IFAD in the region? 5. How good is the science at ICARDA, and is it sufficient to meet the programmatic challenges that have been set? 6. What is the real state of the program linkages with CIMMYT? Are there tangible synergies in place? Why do the Centers have different offices in different countries in the region? What are the key elements for a joint ICARDA/ CIMMYT program for the region and what are the measurable drivers for that synergy? 7. Is there appropriate collaboration and division of responsibilities between ICARDA and ILRI in livestock research? How will the two Centers organize to address the new CGIAR System Priority on the Conservation of indigenous livestock, for instance? 8. Concerning desertification, and the large program led by ICRISAT, what is the added value of ICARDA’s work over what has already been described in the literature about desertification/land degradation? 9. What strategic changes, if any, should ICARDA make to respond to the new CGIAR Priorities for Research? What trade offs are to be made, what “real-time” activities will ICARDA forego (including funds) or handover in order to respond to the new priorities? 10. Are the recent CCERs of a sufficient quality to contribute to the new Monitoring and Evaluation process, particularly a more streamlined EPMR? If not, what does the Center need to do to make CCERs relevant to the new Monitoring and Evaluation processes?

125

11. What is the state of the collaborative agricultural program for Central Asia and the Caucasus and what is the research that is required in the future? 12. Judge the appropriateness and scope of ICARDA’s plans for work on high value crops and horticulture including related marketing and financial services. Are there clear and relevant criteria for making choices about the commodities which will form the basis of this new endeavor?

126

ANNEX IV STAKEHOLDER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH VERSION) IN MONKEY SURVEY FORMAT
QUESTIONS IN SURVEY MONKEY Respondent information Type of your organization: National agricultural research institute [ ] University (North) [ ] University (South) [ ] NGO [ ] Private sector [ ] Government department or institute [ ] Donor organization [ ] Other [ ] Explain…………………. Name of your organization (optional) Country (required) 1. Are you familiar with the International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA)? ..................................................................... 2. What is your assessment of ICARDA’s performance and reputation in the 9 areas listed below? Please tick one option for each area. excellent Management of scarce water resources and mitigation of drought in dry areas Integrated gene management: conservation, improvement and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity in dry areas Diversification and sustainable improvement of crop and livestock production systems in dry areas Improved land management to combat desertification Knowledge management and dissemination for sustainable development in dry areas Poverty and livelihood analysis and impact assessment in dry areas good quite good

fair

quite poor

no opinion

127

Ecoregional program; Collaborative research program for sustainable agricultural development in Central Asia and the Caucasus (CAC) Influence on policy makers Quality of research 3. Please assess ICARDA’s role in relation with that of your organization. Is ICARDA competing, repeating or complementing the work of your organization?

…………………………………………………………… 4. Have you or your organization been able to contribute to ICARDA’s priority setting at Center, program and regional levels? Please tick the appropriate option for each level. Adequately Center level Program level Regional level 5. Regarding the balance of ICARDA’s work, how much priority should ICARDA give to the types of activity listed below? Please tick the appropriate option for each activity. high priority Research activities in all relevant areas Outreach and development activities Socio economic analysis Advocating policies medium priority low priority or not at all Not adequately Not at all

6.

How do you assess the role ICARDA is playing in training and capacity building? average poor

excellent

Explain: ……………………………………………........... 7. Is ICARDA’s germplasm conservation program relevant or not relevant in enhancing your own germplasm conservation/ improvement activities? .........................................................................................

128

8. In your view, what has been ICARDA’s major contribution in scientific research? ……… (Please indicate at least one major contribution in each of the six research areas listed below).

Research Areas Management of scarce water resources and mitigation of drought in dry areas Integrated gene management: conservation, improvement and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity in dry areas Improved land desertification management to combat

ICARDA’s major contribution (s)

Diversification and sustainable improvement of crop and livestock production systems on dry areas Poverty and livelihood analysis and impact assessment in dry areas Knowledge management and dissemination for sustainable development in dry areas

9.

What other comments would you like to make about ICARDA and its programs?

129

ANNEX V ICARDA PERSONNEL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Do you think new job opportunities in ICARDA may attract the highest quality staff? Please explain why or why not. 2. Rank the effectiveness of the purchasing/administrative services when requested items are included in the budget and timely requests are submitted. 3. Do staff receive timely reports on project income and expenditure, to allow effective control of budgets? Explain why or why not. 4. Is the appropriate trained support provided to enable meaningful and timely research to be completed? Please explain why or why not. 5. How do you assess the overall work atmosphere in ICARDA in relation to infrastructure, computer access, social life, salary scales, terms and conditions, contract duration, cultural environment... 6. Do you have a personal career plan? Explain. 7. Are you satisfied with staff training opportunities? Please explain why or why not. 8. Is your job description up to date and relevant to your daily work? Please explain why or why not. 9. Are you satisfied with the performance management process and do you get enough supervision to allow you to perform to your best? Please explain why or why not. 10. Please write briefly any additional comment you would like to make.

130

ANNEX VI INFORMATION REQUESTED IN RELATION TO THE SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT SURVEY
STAFF SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT CV FORM Name: Date of birth: Gender: Nationality at birth: Home MegaProject (s)/ Unit: Posted in Regional Program: Time allocation between MegaProjects/ Program/Unit: Title: Disciplinary area: Date (month/year) when joined the Center: Highest degree: Year of completing highest degree: Current status (tick one of the following) International Research Scientist [ ] Research Fellow/Visiting Scientist [ ] Post Doctoral Fellow [] Regional Research Scientist [ ] Full time Research Consultant [ ] Time spent now on administration: [] % Data for 5 years: 2001-2005, irrespective of employer Publications a Refereed journals Peer-reviewed books/book chapters Other peer-reviewed Conference/workshop papers published Conference/workshop posters Other publications MS and PhD students supervised (that have earned their degrees during 20012005) Editorial Board memberships b Regular reviewer to a journal b Honors and prizes c Key-note lecture invitations b Professional Panel and committee memberships outside ICARDA b Successful grant applications (as lead investigator at ICARDA)
a

Number

Provide list categorized as above in attachment. Include only published publications. Provide list in attachment c Significant ones (exclude scholarships and travel grants)
b

131

Employment record including the two previous employments prior to joining the Center: Name of Employer Dates

132

ANNEX VII CENTER COMMISSIONED EXTERNAL REVIEW ON ICARDA’S OUTREACH ACTIVITIES - MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AS APPROVED BY ICARDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES IN ITS 38TH MEETING HELD AT ICARDA IN APRIL 2004
1. Introduction In its 2002 meeting the Board of Trustees of ICARDA decided to undertake a Center Commissioned External Review (CCER) of ICARDA’s Outreach Activities in partial response to one of the recommendations of the 2000 EPMR, and in reaction to the interest expressed on a number of occasions by the Program Committee for an in depth analysis of the Center’s outreach activities. Terms of reference were developed and a Panel was appointed consisting of Dr Lukas Brader, former Director General of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (Chair); Dr Abderrazak Daaloul, Director General for Agricultural Production, Ministry of Agriculture, Tunisia; and Dr Mohammad H. Roozitalab, Deputy Head International Scientific and Research Cooperation, Agricultural Research and Education Organization, Iran. Dr Mohamed S. Zehni served, in his capacity as Member of the ICARDA Board of Trustees, as observer to the team. The CCER Panel made several recommendations for further enhancing the effectiveness of the ICARDA research continuum and for greater impact in the region the Center is mandated to serve. These recommendations, and the response of the management on each of them, are given below. 2. CCER Panel Recommendations and Management Response Recommendation No. 1: The Panel recommends that the annual planning meeting be organized in such a manner that it becomes the main joint research planning exercise during the year. All scientists need to be fully involved; projects should be discussed in project working groups and the outcome of the discussions presented to plenary. It should become a planning week where all professional staff members interact with each other and contribute to the updating of the projects and the development of the research agenda. Response: The Center has already started implementing this recommendation. The planning weeks in 2003 and 2004 were attended by most of the staff members including those from the outreach. The week in 2004 devoted considerable time to discussion on developing new program strategy and part of this was done in working groups which reported back to plenary. Recommendation No. 2: Given the poor state of development in most highland regions and the high degree of poverty, considering the special interest of certain donors in supporting research activities for mountain areas, and noting also the research activities carried out by ICARDA over time in highland areas, the Panel recommends that ICARDA establishes a highlands research network for the CWANA region to develop and implement a pragmatic agricultural research program for the highland agroecologies. Response: Recognizing that the rest of the regional programs of the Center are organized based on geographic sub-regions, and that the highland agroecological conditions are present across the CWANA region, the management agrees with this recommendation. Efforts have been initiated to establish a Highland Research Network. Dr Habib Ketata, Project Coordinator for Iran/ICARDA Project has been designated as the Network Coordinator. He is also linking this network with the Global Mountain Initiative coordinated by CIAT. Recommendation No. 3: Outsourcing is a popular principle within the CGIAR System, but so far little effort has been made to carefully analyze the costs and benefits of it. The Panel recommends that Management reviews the available information related to outsourcing to decide if ICARDA should spend more efforts on outsourcing. It is important to first analyze the current experiences in order to determine under which

133

conditions outsourcing will be beneficial to the Center. Such an analysis should also address the positive effects on the relationships with NARS. Response: The recommendation is accepted. A status paper has already been commissioned through input by the Regional Coordinators. Recommendation No. 4: The Panel recommends that ICARDA prepare a status report on the flow of information from field to headquarters, and vice versa, of results obtained under special projects, as well as on the current practices of updating the MTP projects, and to use the information collected for the preparation of a set of best practices. Response: The management welcomes the recommendation. A status paper would be prepared. While updating the MTP, the management, with the help of the Project Officer and the Research Project Managers under the overall coordination and supervision by the Assistant Director General (Research), ensures that all the information from the special projects is captured and incorporated. Meanwhile, access to “Intranet” (ICARDA’s database) is now being provided to the outreach staff through “Extranet”. Recommendation No. 5: The Panel considers that there should be no double messages to ICARDA partners and staff, and that all research activities and related matters in the field should fall under research and be reported as such. The Panel recommends that the Board of Trustees examine the current management structure with the purpose to develop new arrangements where there is one clear line of reporting for all research matters. Response: The current management structure is such that the Regional Coordinators are responsible to the Assistant Director General of Research for all research matters and to the Director of International Cooperation (currently under recruitment) for administrative matters. All the scientific staff in the outreach are a member of one of the Research Programs and are thus under technical supervision of the Directors of the respective Research Programs. Recommendation No. 6: Given the overall developments in agricultural research planning and implementation, and considering the increasing importance of interdisciplinary special projects in ICARDA’s research agenda, the Panel recommends that ICARDA undertakes a detailed review of the current breakdown of its research agenda, with the purpose to re-formulate the 19 MTP projects into a smaller number of inter-disciplinary projects that can effectively address the research needs of the major production systems in the dry areas. Response: The Center has already embarked upon this exercise as a part of the strategic planning, and there is a document tabled for consideration of the Program Committee of the Board. Recommendation No. 7: During the country visits the Panel was made aware that funds for research are available in a number of countries under rural development projects. However, in many cases these funds do not seem to be used for the strengthening of research activities in the countries concerned. The Panel recommends that ICARDA explore with the national partners the opportunities for strengthening linkages with rural development and related projects as a means to increase the financial contributions to agricultural research. Response: The management is fully aware of this opportunity and has made all out efforts to work with the national partners in developing research and technology transfer components linked to rural development and investment projects. IFAD and World Bank supported investment projects provided such linkages in Pakistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria, and Yemen. We are currently exploring this further in Afghanistan, Central Asia (Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, and Yemen. The newly appointed Senior Consultant for Research for Development – Dr Adel Aboul Naga - is providing help in this regard. The new job description for the recently advertised position of the Director of International Cooperation includes this responsibility.

134

Recommendation No. 8: Countries desire the involvement of ICARDA in activities outside its traditional mandate, because of its extensive experience and reputation as an International Center, and its capacity to appraise and ensure the quality of the research undertaken. Such efforts can be undertaken at limited costs and are essential to address problems of major concern. The Panel recommends that ICARDA reviews the possibilities of expanding its role as an honest broker in triangular arrangements involving the Center, specialized research institutes and countries in CWANA, for the promotion of research activities on problems outside its traditional mandate. Response: The Center has already embarked on development of this kind of tripartite linkages for crop diversification and enhancing income generation of the communities in the CWANA region. Efforts in this regard have already been underway in Afghanistan, Arabian Peninsula, CAC region, and Iran. Recommendation No. 9: Given the interest expressed by the scientists to make better use of students to strengthen their research activities, the Panel recommends that in the light of the new funding realities leading to more limited permanent staff resources, the Center revises its current training policy to facilitate the employment of students. Response: A comprehensive review has already been planned of the policy and procedures manual of the training activities at the Center. In the meanwhile efforts are being made to include positions of pre- and post-doctoral fellows in the special projects being developed. A number of new postdoctoral appointments have recently occurred. Also, an internship program has been attracting good applications. Contacts with donors and the Third World Academy of Sciences are underway to get additional support. Recommendation No. 10: In Latin America there is considerable potential for the effective use of ICARDA inputs and technologies. Faba bean and barley are important crops in certain areas; natural resource management is a major concern in virtually the whole continent. The Panel recommends that the Board of Trustees review the costs and benefits of maintaining an active ICARDA Regional Program in Latin America, as a basis for a decision to be taken on the development of further plans for the involvement of the Center in this region. Response: As per our current Strategic Plan, the dry areas in Latin America are within our ecoregional mandate, where the farming system is based on the crops on which ICARDA has major improvement mandate (barley, lentils, Kabuli chickpea, vetches; and under irrigated or higher rainfall conditions faba bean). The Center has strategically used this Regional Program to continue having this international dimension of its activities with only limited resources invested. While efforts in the past to augment resources for special projects had not been very successful, lately there has been new development, whereby an IFAD-supported project is being implemented in dry areas of Brazil and Mexico. Continuing the Latin America Regional Program would ensure that there is adequate visibility for the Center to mobilize additional resources for serving the dry areas there and also meet its global crop mandate. Hence, the management would suggest that it would be a good strategy to retain this Regional Program and to put some more seed money from core to increase the momentum.

135

ANNEX VIII ICARDA’S RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CCER ON INTEGRATED GENE MANAGEMENT (IGM)
ICARDA’s Board of Trustees (BoT) commissioned a review of Integrated Gene Management which took place from 9 to 18 June 2004 at ICARDA Aleppo. The review Panel comprised Professor Cal Qualset (UoCalifornia, Davis) as Chair; and as other Members: Professor Mahmud Duwayri (UoJordan, formerly FAO); Professor Ivan Buddenhagen (Consultant - formerly UoCalifornia, Davis); and Dr Mogens Lemonius (Private Consultant formerly FAO). The Recommendations together with ICARDA’s responses are given below. Preamble ICARDA is undertaking a strategic visioning exercise, as part of which our research was revised and consolidated in January 2005 from a total of 19 Medium-Tem Plan projects into six, more integrated MegaProjects focused to produce outputs on the key issues of the dry areas. This CCER on Integrated Gene Management is one of a series of reviews (CCERs) commissioned by ICARDA’s BoT to span the entire spectrum of our research activities. The new MegaProject structure lays out ICARDA’s overall research portfolio. Recommendations made by this CCER review should be addressed as part of a balance in resourcing for the overall research agenda. General Program Recommendation 1. a) ICARDA has taken leadership in defining the Integrated Gene Management concept and we recommend that IGM be adopted as a MegaProject in its new operational plan. b) The IGM unit is recommended to include the GP (Germplasm Program), IPM (Integrated Pest Management), GRU (Genetic Resources Unit), BL (Biotechnology Laboratory), and SU (Seed Unit). The addition of the Crop Quality Laboratory would also be logical addition to IGM, but the Panel did not review the impact of that action. Response: a) ICARDA incorporated a MegaProject on Integrated Gene Management (MP2) in its Medium-Term Plan 2005-2007 submitted to the SC. b) In early 2005 ICARDA research was organized into six MegaProjects (MPs). The IGM MegaProject (MP2) comprises all plant breeding activities, GRU (Genetic Resources Unit), BL (Biotechnology Laboratory), and the Crop Quality Laboratory. Strong cooperation/links with research in all the other MegaProjects is occurring in the new research structure. The IPM (Integrated Pest Management) research was housed in MegaProject 4. In view of the need for very close cooperation with plant breeders and IPM scientists and based on the CCER recommendations, this unit is now transferred to MP2. MegaProject 6: ‘Knowledge Management and Dissemination’ houses ICARDA’s delivery system to end-users. The Seed Unit is in MegaProject 6 because seed is a key vehicle of dissemination to NARS and end-users. However aspects of the inhouse production of foundation seed of the mandate crops are in MP2 - IGM. As cooperation between scientists housed in different MegaProjects is encouraged and is the norm at ICARDA, moving the entire Seed Unit to MP2 is, therefore, not necessary. Recommendation 2: a) With respect to the crop improvement [breeding] programs, the Panel recommends that two projects be established for crop improvement: one for food and forage legumes and one for barley, bread wheat, and durum wheat with a Director for IGM and appropriate leadership for each of the component units of IGM. b) We also recommend that representation from two additional program activities be part-time adjuncts to IGM, that is, (1) an animal nutrition specialist with respect to breeding for improved forage quality and (2) a socio-economic specialist for risk assessment and impacts analysis related to adoption of ICARDA’ discoveries. Response: a) Within MP2, operationally we have separate improvement programs on each

136

of barley, durum, spring bread wheat (SBW) and facultative and winter wheat (FW/WW) among cereals (FWW and SBW breeding are to be merged in 2006: see Rec. 3 below) and on lentil, kabuli chickpea, faba bean and forage legumes among the legumes. Each breeding program is managed by a breeder. The insertion of an intermediate level of management between the MegaProject level and the commodity level comprising the grouping into improvement projects for cereals and for legumes will not add to our efficiency or effectiveness. b) Following the re-organization of ICARDA’s research in 2005 there is strong interaction among MegaProjects. The improvement and exploitation of feed/forage legumes is jointly executed by a breeder based in MP2 (IGM) with the animal scientist and the forage utilization scientist assigned to the Crop/Livestock team within MegaProject 4. This interaction is very positive. Regarding impact assessment this is an increasing focus of the Center. It is a joint undertaking of socioeconomists in MP5 – Poverty/Livelihoods and Impact Assessment and IGM scientists. Recommendation 3: The Panel recommends that the spring and winter bread wheat programs be merged for coordination of activities, sharing of genetic resources to share technical support, efficiency in field and greenhouse operations, and for more efficient in-country collaboration with NARS. Response: Beginning in 2006, ICARDA will merge SBW and W/F Bread Wheat into a single unit. This joint breeding activity in 2006 would be headed by a P-level staff assisted by a Senior Visiting Scientist. The joint program would allow SBW x WW crossing program, which is highly desirable for new recombinations, and increase cost-effectiveness in bread wheat improvement efforts. Recommendation 4: The Panel recommends that the funding for IGM should be increased, from the 2004 percentage of about 35% of the center’s budget because of the need for increased support for host plant resistance research in plant pathology and entomology and for increased investment in NARS collaboration, impact and adoption analysis, and policy studies. Response: ICARDA agrees with the Panel’s assessment that, although IGM research at ICARDA is successful, additional funding is required. However as mentioned in the Preamble a balanced institution is appropriate. So this will be approached by seeking incremental special project funding, and not at the expense of other current priority ICARDA research beyond the IGM theme. The increased emphasis on impact and adoption that the Center is putting will be within the MegaProject of Poverty/Livelihoods Analysis and Impact Assessment (MP5), which works closely with the IGM MegaProject. Recommendation 5. The Panel recommends that conventional breeding should continue to be the basic approach and biotechnology an integral tool for crop improvement. Response: ICARDA agrees with the Panel that conventional breeding will continue to be the basic approach with biotechnology exploited as a key tool for crop improvement. Recommendation 6: a) The Panel recommends that, when possible, the farmer-developed varieties developed with ICARDA’s assistance retain genetic variability within the released varieties, as is found in typical landrace varieties, as a means to buffer against annual climatic or biotic stress variances. b) That IGM should extend participatory plant breeding (PPB) approach to include more crops within the communities’ cropping systems as well as to consider the broader issues associated with adopting a PPB approach. Farmers should play a major role in the formulation of the research agenda, management, and evaluation of the trials. c) The decentralized and farmer PPB approach at ICARDA has high reputation globally. This approach may be expanded to additional NARS, however, the Panel recommends greater attention be given to choice of parents (including landraces), mating schemes for population development, and central preliminary screening to reduce susceptibilities to pests and diseases before the materials are presented to farmers for selection. Consideration for seed multiplication and distribution of farmer-selected varieties needs clarification to the farmers from the outset to avoid confusion about farmer ownership and commercialization rights.

137

Response: a) Center breeders are very conscious of the importance of genetic variability within varieties to buffer against biotic and abiotic stresses. This use of genetic variability is already in place and described in Chapter 5 of the Report. However legislation for variety registration, release, and commercialization differs over countries regarding the allowable level of intra-varietal heterogeneity. The target for genetic variability within a variety has to be framed within existing national regulations. b) ICARDA accepts the recommendation for its mandate crops. However we recently initiated a MegaProject on Diversification, which is establishing its research priorities. We will consider broadening of the basket of crops considered for PPB beyond mandate crops, only once the priorities are clear and as part of this expanding crop diversification activity. Farmers already play a major role in PPB at ICARDA in the management and evaluation of the trials. c) Landraces and wild relatives comprise backbone of the PPB program in barley. Preliminary screening for major diseases is and will continue to be conducted before lines are shared with farmers. The issue of farmers ownership and commercialization rights are the core of the IDRC supported initiative in which workshops are organized (in 4 countries) to clarify the IPR aspect of PPB. (See also Response to Recommendation 8) Recommendation 7: Recommended that ICARDA should consider the establishment of a permanent training unit on participatory plant breeding. Response: ICARDA manages Human Resource Development centrally in a HRD Unit. So we will not set up a permanent training unit specifically for PPB. However, we organized a training course on PPB in 2005 with EU-support in cooperation with CIHEAM Zaragoza and will seek further special project funding to extend this initiative. Policy Issues Recommendation 8: The Panel recommends that, if not already in place, a “white paper” study group be assembled to recommend acceptable policy that can be adopted by NARS for release of farmer-developed varieties that is consistent with ownership and benefit-sharing as described in the International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Response: The Center has already initiated a number of activities on this topic: 1. Meetings and traveling workshops to PPB sites were organized for the members of the variety release committee and representatives from the General Organization for Seed Multiplication (GOSM), Syria to start a dialogue on the development of a policy for the release of farmer-developed varieties. 2. An IDRC-funded workshop on “Whose varieties are they?” to clarify questions of recognition, access, and benefit sharing related to the development of new varieties through participatory plant breeding was held at ICARDA in March 2005. 3. The project “Recognition, access, and benefit sharing in participatory plant breeding programs in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Eritrea”, funded by IDRC will develop a system(s) by which the ownerships of the PPB varieties is assessed in order to assure proper recognition and equitable sharing of benefits. To achieve this objective we are holding a workshop in each country with the participation of farmers, breeders, directors of research, extension, and seed production, and members of variety release committee. The first workshop was held in Jordan in August 2005. Collaboration Recommendation 9: The Panel strongly recommends that ICARDA and CIMMYT continue their discussions and forge an alliance to clarify their respective complementing responsibilities for wheat improvement in the dry areas. ICARDA has additional intercenter collaborations, viz. ICRISAT and ILRI, for which updated memoranda of collaboration could be addressed in relation to IGM.

138

Response: Recently ICARDA and CIMMYT agreed to jointly implement an ICARDA/CIMMYT wheat improvement program in CWANA managed by a jointly appointed Director based at ICARDA, Aleppo. This will greatly strengthen and focus wheat research in the region exploiting the synergies of the Centers for the benefit of regional NARS. We have a joint senior scientist appointment with ILRI and cooperative research with ICRISAT on chickpea improvement. Recommendation 10: a) The Panel is concerned about how ICARDA can carry out sufficient research programs with its limited human and financial resources and at the same time enhances national research and development. The IGM Panel recommends that, as appropriate, its partnerships target direct NARS involvement with joint funding and NARS scientists dedicated to specific components of locally and regionally relevant research and development projects, whereby the national programs can receive funds for expanding staff that can be seconded to ICARDA for specific topics, either at Aleppo, regional sites, or at the NARS research centers. b) Collaboration with NARS was not examined in detail during the review because the review was completed at ICARDA headquarters without visits to NARS sites. Of course, enhanced collaborative activities are recommended with respect to more direct involvement of NARS scientists in breeding and other programs, even to the extent of preparing a roster of key collaborators as research partners. Response: a) ICARDA regards such partnerships as the cornerstones of our research outside ICARDA Tel Hadya. Three such jointly funded projects are now under development: 1. AREO/ICARDA (Iran) on irrigated spring wheat 2. INRA/ICARDA (Morocco) on dryland wheat 3. Uzbekistan/ICARDA on winter wheat for CWANA b) ICARDA concurs with the importance of the direct involvement of NARS scientists with ICARDA’s IGM research and will seek to further expand this. Personnel Recommendation 11: There was ample evidence that ICARDA is a productive Center with generally high quality scientists; however, budget reductions have taken a toll on several of the programs. For example, several of the collections in the GRU suffered for lack of scientific leadership for several years and the faba bean improvement program is guided by a temporary employee. Permanent positions are recommended to stabilize these programs. During the review the Panel was apprised of limitations to the programs because of lack of scientific staff in several areas. The following summarizes recommended positions. The individual sections provide background for these recommendations. _ Plant pathology: 1 assigned to plant improvement programs _ Entomology: 1 assigned to plant improvement programs _ Economist 1 in seed policy and evaluation _ Social scientist 1 in adoption, impact, and biosafety analysis _ Plant breeder 1 for forage legume and faba bean _ Agronomist/Weed Scientist 1 for IPM _ Crop Physiologist 1 for stress tolerance physiology, genetics, and breeding Limitations in support staff were noted and should be reviewed throughout the IGM units. Response: ICARDA concurs with the importance of a stable staffing situation. Regarding the various listed additional positions, ICARDA has hired a senior Seed Economist, and is hiring a post-doctoral scientist in Legume Pathology. Adoption and Impact analysis is done by and with socio-economists in MegaProject 5 on ‘Poverty/Livelihoods Analysis and Impact Assessment’; and agronomy/weed science is handled in MegaProject 4 on ‘Diversification and Sustainable Improvement of Crop and Livestock Production Systems in Dry Areas’. We intend to retain a full-time equivalent position in faba bean breeding because of our global mandate for the crop. ICARDA agrees with the importance of stress physiology and in this connection a new post-doctoral fellow from JIRCAS is now in place.

139

Consideration of additional positions will be within the context mentioned in the Preamble of the need for a balanced institution and hence through incremental special project funding. Facilities Recommendation 12: For more effective management of seed stocks, it is recommended that the SU construct a seed store building for secure storage and inventory of seed stocks. IGM should prepare a prioritized annual inventory of needs for new and replacement instrumentation and renovation of facilities to Management for action. Response: An ad hoc committee has been constituted under the Chairmanship of the ADG(R) to examine broadly seed storage needs at ICARDA. The mandate of the committee is to look at seed storage facilities ranging from cold storage for GRU and Breeder Seed samples, crop breeding programs and storage of larger quantities of quality seed. Plans for an upgrade of our seed storage facilities will follow. Specific Needs for Crop Breeding Programs Barley Recommendation 13: With respect to specific improvements in barley, increased effort is recommended to expand production of barley with value-added end-use quality traits, including malting barley, food uses, and nutritional quality (e.g. iron, zinc, and vitamin A). Response: The barley-breeding program both at Aleppo and Mexico has expanded its scope to incorporate malt characteristics. At Aleppo, the program has initiated research to increase zinc, iron and Vitamin A contents within the Harvest Plus Challenge Program. Recommendation 14: a) Accelerating the use of marker-assisted selection (MAS) for biotic resistance traits is recommended. b) Expanded research on abiotic stress resistance is recommended through collaboration with NARS and ARIs. Emphasis may be placed on genetics of these traits by quantitative trait (QTL) analysis, selection of parental stocks, development of populations for selection with aid of linked molecular markers, and accelerated development of IBIS for information management. c) The Panel recommends that the barley participatory breeding scheme assure that genetic variability be retained within farmer-improved varieties as is found in typical landrace varieties, as a means to buffer against annual climate or biotic stress variances. Response: a) ICARDA accepts this recommendation and will plan an accelerated program to utilize MAS. MAS is already in use for scald (Rrs1 on 3H) and BYDV (YD2 on 3H). b) Since 1985 we have targeted drought tolerance through crosses with Hordeum spontaneum. Lines derived from these crosses have been identified with resistance to extreme drought conditions with NARS. New QTLs for key agronomic traits under drought have been mapped. Collaborative programs are underway with ARIs in Australia, Europe and USA. We accept this recommendation to expand the abiotic stress resistance program through seeking additional special project funding. c) The program is organized in such a way that it is possible to release populations that from a genetic point of view are similar to landraces. Durum wheat Recommendation 15: a) The Panel recommends that the durum program should continue to focus on drought, pest resistance, and grain quality research in collaboration with NARS and ARIs. b) The current durum program is presently concentrating on NARS with large durum growing areas; however, in the future the Panel recommends that more attention should be given to smaller production areas, such as in Ethiopia, Jordan, Egypt,Lebanon, and Libya. Response: a) The focus of the durum program will continue to be on drought, pest resistance, and grain quality research in collaboration with NARS and ARIs. b) To serve smaller production areas better additional important joint durum breeding-testing locations have been established in 2005: 1.

140

With the INRA program in Morocco to serve mild-winter coastal rainfed areas such as Libya and parts of Lebanon, building on other cooperative activities with these countries. 2. With the AREO program in Iran to serve favorable irrigated more southerly locations such as Egypt. Two additional partnerships would be created: one with Ethiopia for rust resistance in DW and other with Azerbaijan to develop facultative durum wheats. Spring and winter bread wheat Recommendation 16: Serious limitations in numbers of supporting staff were identified. The Panel is sympathetic to those needs and recommends that the staffing needs be considered jointly with the needs of the proposed combined bread wheat program and personnel shared to the extent possible. Response: Since the CCER an additional technician (GS-level) has been added to SBW. We aim to supplement SBW staffing with special project funding. With merging of spring and facultative/winter bread wheat programs a more efficient use of the available resources will be possible. Recommendation 17: Recommended that research priorities should address quality parameters of relevance to needs and preferences of the targeted populations, genetic analysis, host plant resistance, and epidemiology. Response: We are currently upgrading our quality facilities a biotechnologist (part-time) and a physiologist (part-time) will be assigned in 2006 to carry out some of this basic research on BW. Additionally we are seeking special project funding through the Global Rust Initiative. Recommendation 18: The Panel recommends that the proposed combined bread wheat-breeding program should delineate its breeding program based on four major types of environments, namely: _ Favorable Irrigated Spring Wheat Environment of CWANA. _ Semiarid (Mediterranean Rainfed) Spring Wheat Environment. _ Favorable Irrigated Winter/Facultative Wheat Environment. _ Semiarid Rainfed Winter/Facultative Wheat Environment. Response: ICARDA delineates its wheat breeding program based on these four major types of environments and has decided to delineate its WW/FW germplasm improvement program as follows: 1. WW/FW Germplasm for Dryland Areas: This would be done through already existing program Turkey/CIMMYT/ICARDA. ICARDA has agreed to assign a scientist to this project based in Turkey in 2006. 2. ICARDA is moving towards establishing 2 joint partnerships on Irrigated WW/FW; one with AREO (Iran) and other with Uzbekistan based in Tashkent. The current breeder based in Tashkent would be asked to work on this joint program (50% of his time). The Iran based Coordinator would provide the leadership to AREO/ICARDA collaboration. 3. We would continue to maintain a modest testing program on WW/FW in Aleppo through BW program. Food legumes General recommendations for food legumes Recommendation 19: Enhance investment to introduce underutilized species into the farming system and diets of CWANA populations, peas for example. Response: ICARDA will consider expanding into the selection of peas for adaptability to Mediterranean climate. ICARDA used to have a modest program on pea and we maintain a pea collection of > 6000 accessions from 96 countries, of which 1700 accessions are evaluated for 46 traits. Recommendation 20: a) Develop markers for various traits and use marker-assisted selection as appropriate. b) Participatory approaches with farmers and NARS should be systematically studied for comparative purposes with non-participatory methods. Response: a) The development of markers for traits such as Ascochyta blight in chickpea and Fusarium wilt in lentil and chickpea has started. Appropriate recombinant inbred populations (RILs)

141

have been produced. This will be continued. b) The chickpea and lentil programs have used Participatory Varietal Selection (PVS) (and not Participatory Plant Breeding) with Syrian and other NARS for food legumes for many years as a standard practice. PVS has helped to identify superior adapted genotypes of food legumes in such countries as Syria, Turkey, Kazakhstan and Yemen. This experience is being documented. Recommendation 21: For Central Asia, varieties have been released but seed production, processing, and distribution systems should be given higher priority. Response: A seed program is being established with ICARDA’s CAC program in Tashkent in association with CAC-NARS. Recommendation 22: The faba bean improvement program should be strengthened by recruitment of a P-level plant breeder. Response: Worldwide, there are few faba bean breeders. The current breeder at ICARDA is one of the best amongst these. ICARDA plans that the current breeder trains a younger scientist who will eventually run the program. Forage legumes The Panel offers the following recommendations that, in our view, will make the program more effective. Recommendation 23: There seem to be practically unlimited prospects for selecting, improving, and distributing additional forage species. The Panel recommends further exploration and evaluation of endemic species with the GRU that may enhance rangeland animal productivity if managed properly or reintroduced, but at the same time, evaluate and prioritize the needs for research among the species currently under evaluation. Response: The previous CCER review of forage legume improvement in 1996 recommended a more focused forage legume project. In 1996 there were 10 species in the program, whereas today the focus is on five species: Vicia panonica and V. dasycarpa for highlands; V. sativa and V. narbonensis for Mediterranean lowlands; and grasspea (Lathyrus sativus). Additionally there is research on underground vetch (V. sativa subsp. amphicarpa) improvement. ICARDA agrees with the Panel recommendation to prioritize those species already being improved. However ICARDA does not accept the recommendation to expand ‘exploration and evaluation of endemic species with the GRU’ at this stage. Recommendation 24: Professional staffing for forages is too small to exploit the many opportunities for research on this very large component of the landscape. We recommend a minimum of 50% assignment of an additional plant breeder, perhaps shared with Vicia faba breeding. Response: Like the Panel, ICARDA sees forage legume exploitation as under-funded, but sees the bottleneck not so much in the production of novel forage variants but rather more in their exploitation and the fitting of such types into the prevalent farming systems and different end-uses. Recommendation 25: The Panel believes there are many unmet opportunities in forage improvements, including antinutritional factors (ANF) and recommends that ICARDA, in its strategic planning process, develop in-depth partnerships with NARS and ILRI. Response: ICARDA agrees with the need for strong links with NARS and ILRI. We ran a joint workshop with ILRI for NARS in late 2004 on Food/Feed Crops funded by the Systemwide Livestock Program (SLP) and are looking for funding for grasspea research as a follow-up. Recommendation 26: Continue to develop and disseminate improved germplasm with desirable traits for testing in collaboration with NARS. The Panel encourages expansion of farmer participation in germplasm evaluation as a methodology to relate the project’s objectives to those of the farmer and vice-versa. An informal farmer-based seed distribution system may be the most effective means of increasing adoption of new varieties;

142

therefore, the Panel recommends that farmers be encouraged and instructed to engage in community-based onfarm seed production and distribution of improved lines and cultivars. Response: In the region ICARDA is pioneering Village-based Seed Enterprises, wherein forage legumes are among the suite of crops covered. Genetic Resources and Biotechnology Recommendation 27: a) As the strategic and action plans for IGM are developed, the Panel strongly recommends stronger participatory interrelationships of genetic resources specialists, plant breeders, pest management scientists, agronomists, and end-use evaluation specialists through specific research goals and action plans. This is especially critical for GRU as it endeavors to serve the needs for genetic resources by the breeders and pest management group. b) The study of molecular genetic diversity by the GRU is entirely appropriate and critical for understanding diversity, devising collection and exploration expeditions, and advising the crop improvement teams on promising genetic resources for use in breeding, at the same time, the Panel recommends greater communication and collaboration with the BL and durum wheat molecular laboratory. c) The Panel recommends that the biotechnology team become more formally linked, in the context of IGM project with the crop improvement programs and GRU in regular planning and technical sessions. Response: a) ICARDA agrees with the Panel in the importance of strong participatory interrelationships among involved scientists. This will be achieved in joint research planning and the development of specific research goals and action plans. b) ICARDA accepts this recommendation and will ensure increased collaboration among the molecular laboratory of the Genetic Resources Unit, the Biotechnology Laboratory and the durum wheat molecular laboratory. c) ICARDA will seek strengthened linkages amongst its 3 IGM units, i.e. Germplasm Improvement (GI), GRU, and BL through the Biotechnology Coordination Committee. It would be accomplished through clearly defined projects, which have elements of integration. IGM would attempt to institutionalize its project based on shared priorities and team approach. Recommendation 28: a) The in situ conservation research is recommended as a long-term component of ICARDA’s IGM and extended to other countries in the CWANA region under ICARDA’s leadership, taking advantage of the expertise developed and partnerships already existing with NARS. b) The GEF project has emerged as a global model for in situ conservation and enhancement of natural and agrobiodiversity; it is strongly recommended that a means be found to sustain its main activities. Further support for research on a community-based approach for use and conservation of agrobiodiversity, as demonstrated within the GEF project, is warranted and recommended, especially for enhanced socio-economic participation. Response: a) ICARDA agrees that in situ conservation is an important long-term aspect of Integrated Gene Management. The Center is assisting NARS to develop projects on this aspect. b) The successful GEF-funded conservation of in situ biodiversity project has concluded without a successor project despite considerable work. Major efforts are underway to use the approaches and lessons learned in new projects such as one with AREO/Iran for the conservation of Aegilops tauschii in Western Caspian. Integrated Pest Management The IPM team has recognized some areas of research that need greater attention. The Panel agrees with their self-assessment and endorses the following recommendation: Recommendation 29: Further promote and enhance the exploitation of resistance sources by breeders at ICARDA and NARS programs and strengthen/encourage closer consultation between breeders, pathologists, entomologists, and biotechnologists to ensure optimal characterization of resistance sources to aid in the identification of resistance genes.

143

Response: ICARDA plans to strengthen the alliance between GRU group and IPM Unit to promote and enhance the exploitation of resistance sources for all ICARDA’s mandate crops. This plan has identified a Pre-breeder, especially to exploit variability from distant and related species. Recommendation 30: a) Progressively improve and develop inoculation procedures to facilitate tests for pest and disease status of most, if not all, segregating breeding materials in the breeders’ selection plots. b) Increase the use of molecular marker tools in epidemiological studies. c) Develop disease and insect pest distribution maps by geographic information systems (GIS) in collaboration with the ICARDA Natural Resource Management Program and validate prediction models for pest development/outbreaks in collaboration with CBSU. d) Give strong emphasis on the launching of farmer field schools (FFS) with NARS research and extension services in full participation of farmers. e) Re-enforce the testing of IPM options at ICARDA headquarters and at hot spots with collaborators. Responses: a) ICARDA agrees to this recommendation that all breeders’ plots including segregating populations but excluding yield trials are inoculated under the supervision of the respective pathologists. b) In 2006 ICARDA will appoint a Biotechnologist to handle wheat molecular markers for disease resistance. Currently BL facility provides technical backup to legumes and barley. The scientist is being moved from GRU to BL to handle wheat molecular markers on disease resistance and virulence of pathogenic fungi. c) The insect/pest and disease distribution maps would be planned for CWANA in collaboration with GIS and CBSU units in 2006. Emphasis in the validation of predication models will be given to wheat rust. d) Emphasis is already placed on FFS at NARS level. This will be amplified. e) The testing of IPM options will be done at the most effective and efficient locations with collaborators. Seed Systems for IGM and the NARS The following recommendations are made to enhance the effectiveness of the Seed Unit: Recommendation 31: a) ICARDA should establish a Seed Production and Development Committee (SPDC) with representation from the Crop Development Program, the SU, the International Crop Information System and Nurseries Network, and the Genetic Resources Unit (including the Seed Pathology Laboratory). b) Senior staff from the SU and NARS should participate in the annual, regional/subregional coordination meetings and as many national meetings as appropriate. Senior staff from selected seed systems in countries, where the Center considers that seed problems currently or in the near future may deter the dissemination of Center material, should also participate. Responses: a) This interaction, which is informal and smooth with the Seed Unit regularly interacting with breeders from the Integrated Gene Management Program, will be formalized through a Seed Production and Development Committee (SPDC) to ensure that seed production activities are aligned with the priorities of the different breeding programs. b) Seed Unit scientists participate with NARS in those regional/subregional/ national coordination meetings where seed issues are important. Recommendation 32: The SU is understaffed. It is therefore important that the vacant post of the Seed Economist is filled. To release senior SU staff for seed research, training, and development work and to improve the management of ICARDA’s seed operations and quality control, the following staff at GS level should be employed and attached to the SU: _ A seed storekeeper, a seed-conditioning (processing) plant operator _ A technician to manage the database, handle regular seed quality control and to support seed research and development activities with seed-testing work.

144

Response: A Seed Economist has been recruited. A storekeeper has been appointed and a seed processing plant operator will be appointed next year. Recommendation 33: The SU should organize its database on seed activities in such a manner that the Unit is able, at any point in time, to provide current, aggregated information about the quantity of seed handled or number of samples tested in respect of line/variety and client/purpose over the last 5 years and maintain inventory lists in a database that would be accessible on the internet for qualified users. Response: A database on seed activities entitled ‘SeedMan’ has been developed in cooperation with CBSU and is now operational. All 2004/05 production, processing, storage and distribution activities have been entered and queries for production, storage, distribution, crop management activities, inputs, outputs, and cost/benefit ratios and profit margins analysis can be made. The database would soon be demonstrated to the ICARDA audience before putting it on the Intranet for wider use. Recommendation 34: When implementing the participatory breeding concept, with respect to seed production and distribution, particular attention should be paid to _ Organization and participatory role of farmers in the selection work. _ Organization around and management of the small seed-cleaner supplied by the SU, _ Avenues being explored with local authorities to bring the material selected by and exchanged between farming communities into the operations of the national seed system. _ A transparent understanding about the sharing of benefits (profits) with respect to the sale of the farmers’ intellectual property. Response: With regards to the seed production aspect of this recommendation, the issue of organization and management around the small-seed cleaner’ is implemented in all places where village-based seed enterprise (VBSE) development activities are on-going (Afghanistan, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria). However, ICARDA feels that the small seed cleaner is only one – but important aspect—of the village based seed enterprises and the issue is addressed within the business plans, which are developed for such enterprises. The issue is not the seed cleaner, but the sustainability of the enterprises. The Seed unit is working with Syrian national seed program by establishing VBSEs to produce and market seed with farmers for barley varieties developed through participatory program. There are also efforts to extend this exercise to Eritrea. Recommendation 35: The CWANA Network Steering Committee should be replaced by a regional seed committee or Board with one member from each CWANA country that contributes an annual fee. Response: The Seed Unit is exploring different options for the future of the WANA Seed Network. First, an attempt is made to reorganize the network to encourage and involve the participation of the private sector. An International Seed Trade Conference will be organized in November 2005 in Antalya, Turkey, where these issues will be discussed. The basic idea is to organize an annual Seed Trade Conference in one of the countries of the region, where the private and public sector meet to discuss seed industry development issues and agree on action plans. The second avenue, which is being investigated, is the integration of the network into the APSA (Asia Pacific Seed Association). APSA is a very strong seed association operating in South East Asia, with public and private membership. The Director of APSA has expressed interest and will participate in the International Seed Trade Conference in Turkey, where further discussion will be held. Replacing the WANA Seed Network Council (which is 100% public sector) by a regional seed committee or Board with one member from each CWANA country that contributes an annual fee is at this moment not considered a viable option, because of the payments involved. Quality of Science Recommendation 36: The IGM scientists have been very active in publishing their results in peer-reviewed journals, about two papers per year per scientist, and also in publishing conference proceedings, manuals, and

145

materials to extend the scientific results, about four items per year per scientist. The Panel recognizes that the large service role of the IGM scientists in providing scientific information inside client countries and through workshops and training courses at ICARDA/Tel Hadya has been highly creditable component of ‘quality of science’. We urge continued diligence in publication of results and recommend wider use of electronic medium, which is largely accessible to the research community in all countries. Print medium is costly to produce and distribute and often not available to those who most need the information. Response: ICARDA accepts the recommendation and will make wider use of electronic publication in addition to continuing with current publication avenues. Adoption and Impacts Recommendation 37: a) It is recommended that each research activity should have an impact and adoption assessment included in the project plan from the outset and, further, that specialist in that field be integral member of research team. b) We recommend that collaboration with NARS be strengthened to maximize the utilization of NARS human resources and contribute to their development in the study of adoption and impact. c) The Panel recommends that the study of impact of adoption of improved varieties be linked with attendant impacts on the quality of natural resources including biodiversity and soil and water quality and pollution from pesticides and fertilizers to sustainable increased productivity taking in consideration risk aspects that require further quantification. Response: a) IGM (MP2) is working on impact assessment with MP5 (Poverty and Livelihoods Analysis). We have already undertaken research on impact of winter chickpea in Syria; on lentil in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Nepal; on durum wheat in Algeria and Morocco and on bread wheat in Iran. b) The above mentioned impact studies have been taken with NARS scientists. In case of Iranwheat, the NARS scientist is leading the study. c) The genotype is one aspect of integrated natural resources management. ICARDA is working with the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment on case studies of the impact of natural resources research and on appropriate methodologies to measure the impact of NRM. As this research develops we will ensure integration of the genetic component.

146

ANNEX IX ICARDA’S RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CENTERCOMMISSIONED EXTERNAL REVIEW (CCER) ON NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND SOCIOECONOMICS
ICARDA’s Board of Trustees (BoT) commissioned a review of Natural Resource Management and Socioeconomics which took place from 29 March to 7 April 2005. The team for this Centercommissioned External Review (CCER) comprised Professor Donald Slack (Chair), Professor Peter Midmore, Professor Patrick Cunningham and Dr Fatima Nassif. The process was provided Board oversight by Dr Kjersti Larsen. The Recommendations together with ICARDA’s responses are given below: Preamble ICARDA is undertaking a strategic visioning exercise, as part of which our research was revised and consolidated in January 2005 from a total of 19 Medium-Tem Plan projects into six, more integrated MegaProjects focused to produce outputs on the key issues of the dry areas. This CCER on Natural Resource Management and Socioeconomics is one of a series of reviews (CCERs) commissioned by ICARDA’s BoT to span the entire spectrum of our research activities. The new MegaProject structure lays out ICARDA’s overall research portfolio. Recommendations made by this CCER review should be addressed as part of a balance in resourcing for the overall research agenda. Recommendation 1: The realignment of projects into the six MegaProjects seems appropriate in light of the ongoing development of the CGIAR-wide approach to Integrated Resources Management. Some have expressed concern, however, that the realignment might actually discourage integration. Given the strong desire of the scientists to interact collaboratively, this is not likely. However, since most project funding will actually come from “special projects” which cut across MegaProjects, the Panel recommends that the management and functioning of the MegaProject structure be reviewed with the aim of promoting simplicity in lines of responsibility and reporting. Response: This CCER was conducted only three months after the consolidation of the research into the new six-MegaProject structure. We consider the MegaProjects as ‘Work in Progress’ within our Strategic Review and are continuously reviewing their operation. So ICARDA accepts the recommendation to ensure that there are clear and simple managerial and reporting responsibilities for all projects in the current structure. Recommendation 2: The recent improvement in socio-economic research performance suggests that appointment of a socio-economist at the P-level would be an efficient use of resources, and provide scope for some further attraction of grant funding to underpin core areas of socio-economic activity. The Panel recommends that such an appointment be considered. Response: ICARDA welcomes and endorses the ‘recent improvement in socio-economic research performance’ observed by the CCER, as this was of particular concern of the last EPMR review. We agree with the Panel that it would be highly desirable to appoint an additional socio-economist at the P-level. Within the context outlined in the Preamble and to this end we will seek incremental funding from special projects and/or arrangements with other institutions. Recommendation 3: An important area of new work for socio-economists would be to develop appropriate integrated impact assessment methods to correspond to the development of the Integrated Natural Resource Management approach. These need to be consistent across different spatial scales, and coherently assimilate different styles of evaluation, ranging from the highly quantitative to the qualitative. The Panel recommends that such methods be developed and implemented.

147

Response: The Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) of the SC is focusing on the development of appropriate methodologies to assess the impact of NRM research and organized a joint SPIA/INRM Task Force workshop at IRRI in June 2005 on this topic. ICARDA is already working closely with SPIA, and has contributed two case studies on NRM research for integrated crop/livestock production systems, wherein frameworks and methodologies were developed to assess the economic, environmental and social impacts of NRM research. Impact assessment will remain a critical component of research focus in the Poverty and Livelihoods MegaProject (MP5), so much so that MP5 has in the Medium-Term Plan 2006-2008 taken the new title: ‘Poverty and Livelihood Analysis and Impact Assessment in Dry Areas’. So ICARDA agrees with the recommendation of the CCER and is developing appropriate integrated impact assessment methods for NRM research. Recommendation 4: Given the certainty of water scarcity throughout the CWANA region and the increased competition amongst alternative users for this scarce resource ICARDA has an opportunity to take the lead in the increasingly important area of the re-use of wastewater for irrigation. Policies and technologies for the use of such waters have not been well-defined in much of the region and, in many cases; this may be the only source of water available for irrigation or supplemental irrigation. Thus the Panel encourages ICARDA to continue and intensify its research to better utilize wastewater as a source of water for irrigation. Response: ICARDA fully recognizes the importance of research on the management of scarce water resources in dry areas and has launched a MegaProject to this end. Within this framework ICARDA has great interest to better utilize wastewater as a source of water for irrigation and also in its environmental and health implications. The Center entered a strategic partnership with IWMI to utilize marginal quality water in agriculture (including wastewater) and jointly appointed a full time scientist for this purpose in 2003. So ICARDA agrees with the recommendation of the CCER to further develop its research on treated waste water. Recommendation 5: Recognizing the increasing demands on social research to i) achieve its specific agenda as exemplified in MegaProject 5, with its inherent challenges, ii) to contribute to other MegaProjects, and iii) to participate in most of ICARDA’s other undertakings, the Panel recommends that a critical mass of social science researchers with required competence profiles (institutions, policy and gender, among others) must be secured to allow timely delivery, continuity, and high quality output. Response: Within the context outlined in the Preamble, through incremental funding from special projects and exploring linkages with other CGIAR Centers and Advanced Research Organizations who can supplement our work on the social sciences, we agree to consider securing a critical mass of social science researchers. Recommendation 6: ICARDA is undoubtedly a Research Center. Production and sharing of knowledge are necessary for the Center’s growth and evolution. In fact publication in refereed journals can be used as the check point at the crossroads between research and development. In this respect, the social science research achievements seem rather limited. Improved quality output has not yet been achieved and must be the focus of greater attention in the future. The Panel recognizes that there is output in the pipeline to be delivered but it has certainly not reached a satisfactory level which could be at least two refereed journal publications per person per year. Consequently, the Panel recommends monitoring progress on refereed journal publication to ensure that this momentum continues. Response: ICARDA accepts the recommendation to monitor progress on refereed journal publication to ensure quality science outputs. ICARDA will carefully monitor progress on refereed journal publication within the planning and appraisal process and promote the production of publications in refereed journals. Recommendation 7: The rural families which are the primary beneficiaries of ICARDA’s work depend on a range of farming systems adapted to a wide range of dry land conditions. In more marginal areas, livestock are the source of all of the income of these families, and the management of the ecosystem is essentially a function of

148

the animal management regime. In many systems which involve cropping, more than half of the income comes from integrated livestock (usually small ruminant) production. The livestock element in all of these systems provides important economic buffering in an insecure world, and gives work and income opportunities from adding value along the production chain, particularly for women. The potential for improving livelihoods through improvement of the livestock component in these systems is under-researched in ICARDA’s current program. The Panel recommends that the specific requirements of an enhanced livestock element in the overall program be examined. Response: ICARDA, fully recognizing the importance of livestock to livelihoods in dry areas, agrees with the recommendation of the CCER. ICARDA will examine areas where more emphasis should be placed and the need for an additional position in small ruminant management funded from special projects. Emphasis will be given to aspects that integrate feed resources, nutrition, rangeland management and livestock production. ANNEX TO THE AUGUST 2005 REPORT ON CCER OF ICARDA’s NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS, FOCUSING ON THE 4th EPMR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE PROGRAM Introduction: The ICARDA Board of Trustees while receiving the CCER at their meeting in late September 2005 requested the CCER Panel for an ANNEX to their review summarizing the progress in natural resources management and socio-economics made at ICARDA in the light of the last (Fourth) External Program and Management Review (EPMR) in 2000. The EPMR- 2000 made four recommendations (shown in bold-face text) on these aspects. Using excerpts of the CCER review report (shown in normal font) the following shows the assessment of the CCER Panel in relation to these four EPMR recommendations (seriatim). 4th EPMR Recommendation 1. In view of the critical nature of water scarcity in the CWANA region, the Panel recommends that ICARDA place more emphasis on strategic issues of water use/allocation and management at rural community level, and that it join in strategic partnerships to carry out this work. Projects which have been developed and implemented within the past three to four years have indeed placed more emphasis on strategic issues of water use/allocation and management at the rural level. They have also developed and utilized relevant strategic partnerships with NARSs, ARIs and with other CGIAR Centers. Additional projects undertaken since the EPMR have also incorporated the suggestions. These include the Challenge Program, Water-for-food project “Improving On-farm Agricultural Water Productivity in the Karkheh River Basin (KRB)” which was developed together with the project “Livelihoods resilience in Karkheh basin”. These projects were initiated in 2004 and are being carried out through the NARSs in Iran with additional support and collaboration from the University of California-Davis, IWMI, IRRI and CIAT. This project is indicative of how ICARDA has formed and utilized strategic partnerships to carry out its work. The project “Communal Management and Optimization of Mechanized Microcatchment Water Harvesting for Combating Desertification in the East Mediterranean Region” or short title “The Vallerani Project” which was started in 2004 is another example of recently implemented NRMP water-related projects which incorporate the EPMR suggestions noted above. The objective of the project is improved livelihoods and reduced desertification in the marginal steppe areas of Syria and Jordan. It is carried out through partnerships with NARSs of Syria and Jordan and ARIs in Switzerland. Projects in Central Asia have also been implemented which incorporate the EPMR recommendations. The CCER Panel encourages ICARDA to continue and intensify its research to better utilize wastewater as a source of water for irrigation (CCER recommendation 4). 4th EPMR Recommendation 2. Regarding social science research, the Panel recommends that ICARDA should (i) reduce its scope and concentrate on fewer issues, selected in close collaboration with the Center’s physical and biological scientists – that are central to the operational mandate of the Center; and (ii) seek to improve the

149

quality of output by among others, (a) judicious recruitment or designation of a lead social scientist, (b) recruitment of high quality support staff, and (c) entering into more cooperative arrangements like those existing with IFPRI. The current nature of social science at ICARDA indicates optimism. Social scientists perceive themselves as having a key role to play in the NRM Program and in the Center as a whole. This role has been attained through a great deal of hard work, persuasion and mutual learning and is exemplified by intense involvement in development of future research strategies and commitment to the goals of individual projects. In summary, recommendations by the EPMR have had an effect on socio-economic research. The challenge they set has provided a stimulus to research staff to improve the quality and orientation of output. They have focused on fewer, more relevant issues, and together with greater collaboration and promotion of participatory research methods, have increased the efficiency of use of expertise in this area. (i) Focus Improved focus has been achieved by concentrating effort on key areas: • Studies of the adoption and impact of ICARDA’s research outputs on productivity improvement, income generation and natural resource management. • Valuation studies of natural resource use by rural communities, and analysis of impact of NRM research on rural livelihoods. • Rural livelihoods and poverty analysis, specifically including gender and nutritional dimensions of poverty, constraints on resource access and income opportunities and their role in poverty alleviation. • Policy and institutional analysis concerning natural resources management, particularly water and rangelands, to extend livelihood options for the rural poor. Combinations of economic and biophysical information in spatial databases have contributed to progress in identifying and exploring issues of major concern. Socio-economic staff support work across disciplines as well as developing a distinct research identity of their own. Their strategic response to the research workload on senior scientists includes a clear division of labor among group members, the attraction of graduate students, post doctoral fellows and joint appointments, and building partnerships. Effective interaction among socio-economists has provided another means of increasing group efficiency in the face of increasing demands for contributions to the different research areas. (ii) Quality of output In general, the social science group has responded well to the challenges. Outputs have been extensive, with a variety of documents and reports in different formats and in different languages in order to serve their diverse audiences. There are also conference contributions and papers in proceedings and chapters in books (often in collaboration with researchers outside the socioeconomics group, or in other CGIAR Centers); among these are some publications of significant value, which will be utilized widely in the international research and extension community. There has been considerable delay in appointing a lead social scientist (a prominent recommendation of the EPMR) to provide the necessary momentum, because ICARDA only found a scientist of sufficient caliber on the third round of advertisement. It is only recently that sufficient output of a quality suitable for publication has accumulated. A number of journal articles are currently in the process of peer review (the higher the quality of journal targeted, the longer the lag between submission and publication will be). Two more joint appointments with other CGIAR Centers have been made (with ILRI and IFPRI) which have potential to increase cross-fertilization of ideas and add impetus. Similar arrangements have been made with CIRAD France. At the present time, there is a core of lead scientists who are well qualified to undertake the research agenda to completion. The CCER Panel recommends (CCER recommendation 2) that such an appointment (a socioeconomist at the P-level) be considered. The CCER Panel

150

recommends (recommendation 3) the development of appropriate integrated impact assessment methods. 4th EPMR Recommendation 3. Recognizing ICARDA’s efforts to consolidate its natural resources management research by merging its former projects into a more integrated program, the Panel recommends that ICARDA, together with appropriate partners, articulate a vision, strategy and an implementation plan for natural resources management, drawing on CGIAR and other experiences and centered on Unified Research Sites most appropriate for its emerging poverty alleviation focus. The appointment of a new Program Director in 2001 has been instrumental in achieving progress in this respect. Combinations of economic and biophysical information in spatial databases have contributed to progress in identifying and exploring issues of major concern. The Program has developed a new strategy, logical framework and goal and purpose statements. The strategy was developed taking into account the CGIAR INRM Task Force findings, the NRM strategies of donors and the outcomes of regional priority setting exercises. The development of the Integrated Natural Resource Management approach, in which socioeconomic researchers have played a leading role, and its implementation in the Khanasser Valley Integrated Research Site has been instrumental in developing closer engagement with researchers elsewhere in ICARDA, supporting greater use of participatory methods in overall research approaches, and through overlays of complementary, targeted interventions, synergies are increasing the nature of insights that are being achieved. ICARDA natural resource scientists have had an increasingly prominent and enthusiastic role in developing the Integrated Natural Resource Management (INMR) approach within the CGIAR as a whole, most recently in the organization of the fourth in a series of INRM Taskforce workshops in Aleppo and providing an organizational role in the 6th workshop to be held in Manila in June 2005). This methodological approach aims to simultaneously address issues of environmental sustainability and poverty alleviation. It involves grass-roots participation, stakeholder engagement, adaptive learning and cross-discipline methods of working. 4th EPMR Recommendation 4. Recognizing that ICARDA has conducted a wide-range of studies offering partial insight into poverty, the Panel recommends that ICARDA determine, with its partners, the rural livelihood strategies of the poor in its region to clarify what research options, investments, policies and technologies are most likely to benefit them. Special emphasis should be given to highly vulnerable segments of the population. ICARDA has chosen to develop and integrate social science research in order to better serve its stakeholders. Particular expertise exists in livelihoods and poverty analysis; economics and market studies; adoption and impact studies; and gender research. Most, if not all, ICARDA social scientists have gone through a long process of interaction with other biological and natural scientists, inside and outside the Center. Initial coverage of new work in the series of Annual Reports of the NRM Program provides confirmation that integration between approaches of social and life sciences is greater and that priorities have been realigned towards the main objectives of donors for dissemination of pro4 poor innovations that involve diversification and value addition linked to market opportunities, and contribute to counteraction of environmental degradation. Social science research examining rural livelihoods and poverty analysis in ICARDA has only relatively recently been established (under the new MegaProject on livelihood and poverty analysis and impact assessment, MP5). Despite this, following a comprehensive review of approaches, several studies have been completed in which key constraints have been identified with technical as well as institutional and policy options identified and evaluated. There have been some successful (and also a few less successful) case studies which provide clear insights, resting on the social science contribution, that have been instrumental in addressing the complexity of pathways out of poverty. Research on livelihoods has come to represent the pivotal pillar of social science at ICARDA. Most importantly, both quantitative and qualitative research is carried out to build better understanding of rural

151

livelihoods strategies and their improvement. Participating in conferences and workshops on livelihoods analysis methodologies has allowed ICARDA social science research to learn from worldwide international development of new approaches and methodologies. Gender research is recognized as a necessary dimension of the work and is increasingly given appropriate attention. The focus on specific research themes provides opportunity for addressing gender-based researchable questions and hypotheses, and the selection of appropriate methods to investigate them. Gender research on particular niches, such as cheese making and food processing among others, are already being pursued by ICARDA socio-economists. Thus, the new structure also promotes establishment of a favorable environment in which the group members can undertake quality social science research with appropriate methodologies. The Panel recommends (CCER recommendation 5) that a critical mass of social science researchers with required competence profiles (institutions, policy and gender, among others) must be secured to allow timely delivery, continuity, and high quality output. It can therefore be concluded that ICARDA has the capacity to carry out high quality work on the economic, social and policy dimensions of rural livelihoods improvement and identifying potential pathways out of poverty in ICARDA’s mandate areas.

152

1 9 8 8 . 0 P e r c e n t a g e o f p o p u l a t i o n b e l o w t h e n a t i o n a l p o v e r t y l i n e A l g e r i a 1 9 5 1 4 . 1 2 0 0 0 . 0 B a h r a i n 2 0 01 1 . 0 1 9 5 5 4 . 7 C o m o r o s 2 0 0 6 0 . 0 1 9 6 9 . 6 D j i b o u t i 0 0 4 2 . 0 0 2 4 E g y p t 2 1 9 5 1 9 . 0 2 0 0 1 7 . 0 1 9 0 2 1 . 0 J o r d a n 2 0 0 1 4 . 0 L e b a n o n 1 9 6 7 . 0 5 6 . 6 1 9 0 5 0 . 5 M a u r i t a n i a1 9 6 2 0 0 4 6 . 3 1 9 8 4 1 2 . 5 7 0 0 M o r o c o 1 9 8 9 . 9 P a l e s t i n e 2 0 2 6 0 . 0 S o m a l i a 2 0 2 4 3 . 2 S u d a n 2 0 2 5 0 . 0 S y r i a n A r a b 3 1 . 2 1 9 6 ANNEX X 1 . 4 R e p u b l i c 1 2 0 4 6 . 7 9 0 6 . 2 T u n i s i a 1 9 5 2 0 0 4 . 2 1 9 24 1 9 . 1 Y e m e n 1 9 8 7 . 0 S o u r c e : T h e M i l e n i u m D e v e l o p m e n t G o a l s i n t h e A r a b R e g i o n 2 0 5 PROPORTION OF THE POPULATION LIVING BELOW NATIONAL POVERTY LINES, BY COUNTRY, LATEST YEAR AVAILABLE, 1990-2004

Country

J A N U A R Y 2 0 7

153

ANNEX XI REPORT ON THE ACTION TAKEN (AS OF MARCH 2006) BY ICARDA ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 4TH EXTERNAL PROGRAM AND MANAGEMENT REVIEW (1999/2000)
Recommendation 1: In view of a diminished expertise in fungal pathology at ICARDA, the Panel recommends that the Center should strengthen its scientific capacity for strategic and applied research in crop pathology, and its pathology support to the Cereal and Legume Enhancement Programs. Response: The recommendation to increase the Center’s scientific capacity in crop pathology has been accepted and is being implemented. We have a full-time senior pathology consultant from Aleppo University who provides input in legume pathology. Following an unsuccessful round of interviews, we will readvertise the P-level legume pathologist position for a young scientist to replace the above consultancy. Additionally we have recently recruited a post-doctoral fellow in legume pathology for three years funded by GRDC. In cereal pathology we continue to have a senior pathologist position that up to 1 March 2006 was additionally supported by a post-doctoral position on Swiss funding. Further post-doc positions will be included in the new special projects being developed in the field of plant pathology. Recommendation 2: The Panel recommends that ICARDA should review the opportunities that may be available if it should expand its research role in malting barley in developing countries. In undertaking this review, the Panel would expect ICARDA to complete a social and economic assessment of the potential of work in this area to meet CGIAR priorities. Response: ICARDA has implemented the recommendation and the review report is available. In 2002, ICARDA sponsored the first regional meeting of malt producers, brewers, millers and bakers to promote linkage of production of improved quality malting barley and wheat with contract-based production for premiums by regional farmers. This assessment of industry needs demonstrated the growing potential for higher on-farm revenues through production of varieties of malting barley and bread wheat that meet user needs. During 2004 a survey of malting barley production was undertaken in Ethiopia, which confirmed the importance of such barley. Building on industry malt barley improvement, the ICARDA/CIMMYT barley improvement project is incorporating multiple disease resistance (including Fusarium Head Blight) into malt quality lines in a program sponsored and partly funded by Anheuser Busch, USA. In Syria, with El Sharkh brewery, we are exploring local malt barley production. We are also in discussion with Heineken on cooperation in aspects of malt barley research. The aim is to take advantage of existing private sector malting barley knowledge and experience for the developing world. Recommendation 3: The Panel recommends that as a matter of priority ICARDA seek discussion with CIMMYT to develop mutually acceptable plans for the incorporation of doubled haploids and marker-assisted selection technologies in their joint durum wheat, spring bread wheat and facultative/winter bread wheat breeding programs. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. After detailed discussions at various levels ICARDA and CIMMYT agreed in December 2005 to jointly implement a wheat improvement program in CWANA, named the ‘ICARDA/CIMMYT Wheat Improvement Program’ (ICWIP) hosted by ICARDA and managed by a jointly appointed Director based at ICARDA, Aleppo. As part of this broader discussion, biotechnology cooperation is also being addressed. Meanwhile ICARDA continues to scale-up existing efforts on doubled haploid breeding and marker-assisted selection and for its mandate crops, including the joint ICARDA/CIMMYT activities. ICARDA is currently producing 3000 doubled haploid plants per year in wheat and barley.

154

Recommendation 4: Given the reductions in the Genetic Resources Unit staff that have occurred, the demands placed on the Unit for collection and conservation activities, and so as not to threaten its existing activities, the Panel recommends the GRU make a concerted effort to seek additional P and RA level staff from either internal or external sources, if it is to undertake an expanded program of research in situ conservation, prebreeding and the evaluation of collections using molecular markers. Response: The recommendation has been implemented by attracting project funding. ICARDA hired a P-level genetic resources scientist to coordinate an Agrobiodiversity Project supported by GEF/UNDP for four years, which involved participation of national genetic resources scientists from Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria. This project has recently closed. The scientist concerned is now the Coordinator of the Iran/ICARDA research project in Tehran and he continues part-time on in situ conservation activities initiated in the Agrobiodiversity Project. Meanwhile, proposals for the next phase are being developed. In 2004 ICARDA hired two P-level scientists in genetic resources on restricted project funding: (a) Legume Curator and (b) CAC Genetic Resources Coordinator. The Legume Curator has also recently taken over responsibility for the genetic characterization laboratory in GRU and the previously-responsible RA-level scientist shifted to cereal and pathogen marker research. An NPO-level scientist based at ICARDA has been registered at the University of Birmingham for a PhD to upgrade our in-house capacity in plant taxonomy to further strengthen the genetic resources work. Recommendation 5: In view of the critical nature of water scarcity in the CWANA region, the Panel recommends that ICARDA place more emphasis on strategic issues of water use / allocation and management at rural community level, and that it join in strategic partnerships to carry out this work. Response: ICARDA has fully implemented the recommendation. ICARDA’s strategy on water was revisited in the light of the EPMR and the evolving global and regional trends and demands. It now focuses on strategic issues such as improving water productivity under scarcity, environment issues, drought management and linking on-farm research to basin level research. One of the six MegaProjects through which ICARDA’s research agenda is implemented is now devoted entirely to the management of scarce water resources. ICARDA is a major partner in the ‘Water and Food Challenge Program’ and is implementing major research projects developed with the NARS and executed at the community level with a wide range of partners. ICARDA has a joint appointment with IWMI for research on marginal quality water. Recommendation 6: Regarding social science research, the Panel recommends that ICARDA should: (i) reduce its scope and concentrate on fewer issues, selected in close collaboration with the Center’s physical and biological scientists and the national programs - that are central to the operational mandate of the Center; and (ii) seek to improve the quality of output by among others, (a) judicious recruitment or designation of a lead social scientist, (b) recruitment of high quality support staff, and (c) entering into more cooperative arrangements like those existing with IFPRI. Response: Agreeing with the Panel’s recommendation to focus our social science research and enhance quality by recruitment/designation of a lead scientist and high quality support staff, ICARDA has moved to implement it. The Center’s social science research has focused on four major priorities: (a) analyzing rural livelihoods and the determinants of rural poverty, paying specific attention to the gender dimension of poverty and the structures that determine differential access to resources and income earning opportunities, and identifying potential “pathways out of poverty”, (b) assessment of research impact, with a focus on the adoption and impact of ICARDA’s research outputs on productivity, income generation and natural resource management, (c) market and non-market valuation of the natural resources used by rural communities and analysis of the impact of NRM research on rural livelihoods, and (d) analysis of policy and institutional issues governing natural resources management, particularly common property resources such as water and rangelands, with a view to creating an enabling environment that supports the dissemination and adoption of technology and livelihood options. To improve quality, ICARDA has recruited a Senior Economist to lead the

155

socio-economics group. We continued the joint appointment with IFPRI in policy and institutional research and are now negotiating with IFPRI for a replacement scientist. We have expanded cooperative arrangements with other partners, including two joint appointments with ILRI in the area of livestock marketing and with CIRAD in institutional aspects of rangeland management. Within the framework of the Challenge Program on Water and Food, ICARDA is collaborating with CIAT on livelihoods resilience and with IWMI on water productivity and basin level water allocation and policies. ICARDA is effectively contributing to the Systemwide programs and consortia, such as the ecoregional program for CAC, CAPRi, PRGA, Consortium for Spatial Information, and SPIA. ICARDA also recruited a senior seed economist. The socioeconomics group has strengthened their collaboration with advanced research institutions such as Yale University and Virginia Polytech in USA and CIRAD in France. There have been sustained efforts to recruit high-quality support staff, including junior professional officers, and associate experts, PhD students, and attempts to recruit Post-Doctoral Fellows for key research areas. Quality research outputs have been published in refereed journals, chapters in books, and other peer-reviewed publications. Recommendation 7: Recognizing ICARDA’s efforts to consolidate its natural resources management research by merging its former projects into a more integrated program, the Panel recommends that ICARDA, together with appropriate partners, articulate a vision, strategy, and an implementation plan for natural research management research, drawing on CGIAR and other experiences and centered on Unified Research Sites most appropriate for its emerging poverty alleviation focus. Response: Accepting this recommendation, ICARDA continued its efforts to strengthen research in Natural Resource Management (NRM). With the appointment of a new Director of the NRM Program in 2001, the Program developed a new strategy, logframe, and goal and purpose statements. The strategy was developed taking into account the CGIAR INRM Task Force findings, the NRM strategies of donors and the outcomes of Regional Priority Setting done by ICARDA with NARS and regional forums. ICARDA expanded its efforts in the INRM Task Force of the CGIAR Centers: it organized the 2002 meeting at ICARDA and the 2005 INRM workshop at IRRI. A key chapter on ICARDA’s NRM work was published in the CGIAR SC’s book on ‘Towards INRM’ in 2004. ICARDA staff contributed to a publication on guidelines for the implementation of NRM research in the CGIAR. These guidelines resulted from the 2002 Aleppo workshop that used ICARDA’s Integrated Research Site in Khanasser Valley as a pilot project to test and validate the guidelines. Since 2001 the program has been adopting the CGIAR-INRM approach to its integrated research sites in the region. With the recent adoption of the MTP research structure of six MegaProjects there has been further consolidation of NRM research and a more clearly articulated implementation plan. Recommendation 8: In view of the importance of the Regional Programs to ICARDA’s interactions with its stakeholders and the Programs’ increasing share of the total financial resources of the Center, the Panel recommends that ICARDA undertake a strategic review of its outreach activities to examine issues of strategic importance including: regional coverage, devolution /outsourcing, interaction with NARS, interplay between research and outreach, information management and its role in the diverse regions. Response: ICARDA implemented the recommendation to review issues of strategic importance of the Regional Programs. The ICARDA Board commissioned an External Review (CCER) of Outreach Activities, which was completed in 2003. The major recommendations of the CCER were: the annual planning meeting become the main joint research planning exercise during the year; a highland research network be established; the flow of information from field to headquarters and vice versa of results obtained from special projects as well as the practice of updating MTP projects be examined and used in developing a set of best practices; ICARDA’s management structure be reviewed to have one clear line of reporting for all research matters; the research agenda be reviewed to reformulate 19 MTP projects into a smaller number of interdisciplinary projects to effectively address the research needs of the major production systems in the dry areas; opportunities for strengthening linkages with rural development be explored with national partners to increase resources for agricultural research;

156

ICARDA’s role as an honest broker in triangular arrangements involving the Center, specialized research institutes and countries in the region be examined for promoting research on problems outside the traditional mandate; and the current training policy to be revised to attract more students to augment manpower for research. Implementation of the main recommendations of the CCER has started. Recommendation 9: To improve research quality and relevance, and to help develop a more prominent place for the conduct of multidisciplinary research at ICARDA, the Panel recommends that the Management promote quality and multidisciplinary research through recognition, rewards, and other incentives, and by assuring that appropriate criteria Response: The Panel’s recommendation for further promotion of multidisciplinary research through a variety of reward and recognition systems has been implemented. The reduction in 2004/5 in the number of Medium-Term Plan projects (previously 19) to six (MegaProjects) has de facto resulted in increased integration and multidisciplinarity. New criteria were included in the annual planning and appraisal process of scientific staff in 2001 to increase the incentive for interdisciplinary research and the production of high quality scientific outputs. During 2006 we will further refine the planning and appraisal process with a focus on quality scientific outputs, project funding, integration and multidisciplinarity. The Center has expanded the scope of the Staff of the Year Awards, with clear identification of outstanding researchers in P, RA and GS-levels as well as by recognizing an outstanding research support team. An annual award for Outstanding Scientific Article of the Year was initiated in 2003. The multidisciplinary nature of research is one of the criteria used for evaluation of the submissions. Recommendation 10: Recognizing that ICARDA has conducted a wide range of studies offering partial insights into poverty, the Panel recommends that ICARDA determine, with its partners, the rural livelihood strategies of the poor in its region to clarify what research options, investments, policies, and technologies are most likely to benefit them. Special emphasis should be given to highly vulnerable segments of the population. Response: The well being of the poor in the dry areas being central to the mandate of the Center, ICARDA accepted the recommendation and has made progress in implementing it. ICARDA realizes the need for a deeper understanding of the determinants of poverty in the CWANA region, and of rural livelihood strategies adopted by rural communities, in order to continually refine the targeting of research and identify pathways out of poverty. Accordingly, the Center initiated a new MegaProject (MP5) on “Poverty and Livelihood Analysis and Impact Assessment in Dry Areas” as cross-cutting among other thematic megaprojects. MP5 uses detailed analyses of the organization of households and communities, employing a sustainable livelihoods approach, and evaluation of the natural resources on which they depend. ICARDA has established a Geographic Information Service Unit (GISU) which is supporting the efforts in poverty mapping and analyzing associated features. ICARDA has also made rural livelihood analysis a core component of most of its other research projects. This will help understand the conditions of target communities and environments, including marginal environments where highly vulnerable communities live, and identify constraints that hamper the wide dissemination of technological options proposed. Recommendation 11: The Panel recommends that TAC undertake a comprehensive analysis of the impact of the continuing decline in unrestricted core funds on the Centers’ research activities and their outputs and impact, as well as on their interactions with national agricultural research systems and advanced research institutions. Response: The Center greatly appreciated this recommendation. The dramatic shift at ICARDA in unrestricted core funds from nearly 80% to about 30% in the last fifteen years has had significant impacts in terms of proposal preparation and reporting requirements. These changes have had an impact on scientists’ time and the Center’s flexibility. It is, however, a Systemwide issue. Some donors have responded positively to this recommendation after considerable lobbying. Canada increased its

157

unrestricted funding for Africa to ICARDA and other relevant Centers in 2003 up to the end of 2005. In 2004 DFID shifted its directed funding to unrestricted core, and in 2005 the Swiss Development Corporation gave ICARDA its first unrestricted financial contribution. As a result, core funding in 2005 accounted for about 41% of ICARDA’s revenue. Recommendation 12: Realizing that the complexities of managing research at ICARDA require many interactions between project managers and other units, and that staff productivity will be greatly enhanced if a computerized management information system (MIS) is available, the Panel recommends that ICARDA implement a purpose-built MIS system for project management, if necessary acquiring the services of a consultant with experience on the recently-commissioned Oracle financial package, so that a user-oriented system is put in place. Response: Agreeing with the Panel’s recommendation regarding the MIS system for project management, ICARDA has moved to implement it. After reviewing various options, ICARDA adopted the CIAT ‘Project Manager’ which was developed by CIAT and was being implemented in some sister Centers. The system uses a web-based application as the front-end (interface) and Oracle as the back-end database. It uses Oracle RDBMS and will be interfaced to the Oracle Applications 11i, which is the backbone of our MIS. The Project Office and CBSU have worked together to implement the system, which is now installed, and a large part of the data loaded. A technical team from CIAT visited ICARDA in April 2005 for training and technical consultations required to fully implement the system. Reports development will evolve as the use of the system progresses. It is expected that the system would be fully operational in the very near future. Implementation of the Oracle Applications 11i, currently under way, will strengthen our MIS and provide an integrated Project Management System.

158

ANNEX XII NUMBER OF TRAINING PARTICIPANTS BY TYPE OF TRAINEE WHO RECEIVED TRAINING AT/THROUGH ICARDA DURING 1978-2005

Type of Training /Year 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

Long-term Headquarters Group training Short-term Training 26 45 42 18 24 52 25 41 70 54 59 55 44 19 6 13 49 34 60 52 58 65 78 109 179

Non-headquarters Individual Short-term Non-degree Training 14 40 35 91 77 176 90 337 211 340 4 6 6 6 23 40 71 69 77 113 90

Individual Degree Total 2 3 4 6 1 4 13 22 35 39 37 40 26 66 55 55 125 128 203 223 397 313 590 525 693 744 716 659 552 717 668 816 865 718 615 606 560 552 858 1177 14222

16 16 14 12 10 11 9 22 28 23 24
740

216 171 111 102 84 146 140 171 207 152 111 91 139 109 327
2999

372 371 394 294 465 369 504 521 353 289 349 291 270 624 722
7599

96 113 83 81 90 84 98 106 87 106 83 102 64 58 50
1806

44 45 57 63 68 58 65 67 71 68 63 54 51 44 54
1078

159

ANNEX XIII NUMBER OF THESES COMPLETED BY HIGHER DEGREE STUDENT UNDERTAKING RESEARCH AT ICARDA BETWEEN 1998 AND 2005
Area Germplasm enhancement Production system NRMP Socio-economics Others Total 1998 16 3 4 5 1 29 1999 20 8 3 3 2 36 2000 7 5 3 4 3 22 2001 2002 11 7 10 5 6 39 1 6 24 23 16 13 16 1 2003 15 5 2 1 2004 7 3 4 2 2005 Total 6 1 5 1 98 33 31 22 18 202

160

ANNEX XIV ACTIVE SYSTEMWIDE PROGRAMS INDICATING ICARDA’S CURRENT PARTICIPATION (*)
SWP Title Alternatives to Slash and Burn (ASB) Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi) Global Mountain Program (GMP) Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA) Systemwide Genetic Resources Program (SGRP) Strategic Initiative on Urban and Periurban Agriculture (Urban Harvest) Systemwide Initiative on HIV/AIDS (SWIHA) Systemwide Initiative on Malaria and Agriculture (SIMA) Systemwide Initiative on Water Management (SWIM 2) Systemwide Livestock Program (SLP) Systemwide Program on Integrated Pest Management (SPIPM) Convening Center ICRAF IFPRI CIP CIAT IPGRI CIP WARDA IWMI IWMI ILRI IITA ICARDA participation * * *

* * *

161

ANNEX XV
ACTIVE ECOREGIONAL PROGRAMS INDICATING ICARDA’S CURRENT PARTICIPATION (*) ERP Title African Highlands Initiative (AHI) Collaborative Research Program for Sustainable Agricultural Development in Central Asia and the Caucasus (CAC) Consortium for the Sustainable Development of the Andean Ecoregion (CONDESAN) Desert Margins Program (DMP) Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains (RWC) Consortium for the Sustainable Use of Inland Valley Agroecosystems in Sub-Saharan Africa (IVC) Convening Center ICRAF ICARDA ICARDA participation *

CIP ICRISAT CIMMYT ICRAF

162

ANNEX XVI LIST OF CGIAR CONSORTIA (EXCLUDING SWP/ERPS AND CPS) AND COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE INDICATING ICARDA’S CURRENT PARTICIPATION (*)
Acronym CSI G&D INRM ICIS Title of Consortium/ Community of Practice CGIAR Consortium for Spatial Information Gender and Diversity Program Integrated Natural Resource Management International Crop Information System Convening Center(s) CIAT All Centers Centers with NRM Centers with Crop Improvement All Centers Eco-regional Centers ICARDA ICARDA ICARDA particip. * * * *

INTG ERA FHCRAA FHCRAI

Inter-Center Training Group Ecoregional Alliance Future Harvest Consortium Agriculture in Afghanistan Future Harvest Consortium Agriculture in Iraq for for Rebuilding Rebuilding

* * ** **

163

ANNEX XVII DONORS’ CONTRIBUTION TO ICARDA FROM 1999-2005
DONORS (In thousand US$) African Development Fund Arab Fund Asian Development Bank Australia * Austria * Belgium * Canada * China * CGIAR * Challenge Program CIHEAM Denmark * Desertification Trust Fund Economic Research Forum Eritrea Egypt * Erf-Femise Ethiopia European Commission FAO France Ford Foundation Germany * GM-UNCCD Gulf Cooperation Council Global Crop Diversity Trust IMPHOS IBRD (World Bank) * IDRC IFAD India * INRA-INRAT Islamic Development Bank Iran * Italy * Japan * JIRCAS The Netherlands * Norway * Morocco Mauritania Opec Fund For Inter.Dev. 1999 137 1,686 442 30 121 413 40 1,159 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

1,673 250 439 30 70 437 10 1,967

1,601 451 575 30 77 428 10 1,016 25 722

1,000 445 322 86 413

816 89 679 106 917 30 331 7 548

1,163 345 536 91 98 1,236 30 436 356 443

1,192 363 820 146 230 1,078 70 906 1,107 287

583 1,231 10 17 1,008 47 618 137 88 1,074

475 1,920 44 17 1,018 141 2,209 115 84 438

498

49 1,021 213 1,388 135 596

506 44 1,458 50 160 680

200 17 2,126 131 239 1,175 61

350 104 2,039 66 218 1,113 155 131

250

1,577 416 215 933 123 142 108

14 2,100 185 1,152 38 33 1,084 553 709 795 508

18 2,460 74 1,319 38

2,591 273 1,339 37

3,464 232 788 38

3,043 194 1,035 38

3,664 68 1,156 38

3,122 151 1,287 38 122 217 880 465 31 1,094 763 240 100 69

1,078 463 705 923 465

1,140 746 807 703 439

236 788 545 744 600

564 942 619 889 624 34 93

492 1,014 554 1,049 662 308 140

43

27

103

49

164

ANNEX XVII
DONORS Pakistan Peru * South Africa Spain Sweden * Switzerland Syria Turkey UNEP University of Hawaii University of Minnesota United Kingdom UNDP Univ.of California-Davis UNESCO USDA UNCCD USAID * Yemen Miscellaneous TOTAL 1999 8 25 199 500 113 500 33 2000 148 15 104 444 77 77 3 2001 552 25 15 419 163 505 43 81 2002 2003 113 2004 194 31 521 209 500 20 35 626 491 500 42 55 2005 355 49 583 931 500 30 45 108 23 3,276 132 60 181 3,970 97 28,882

10 447 18 505 28 78

819 188 17 1,505 118 366 4 20,450

860 198 17 43 1,487 439 75 22,894

1,317 216

1,045 237

1,277 177

2,161 177 23 282 15 2,932 448 26,032

33 1,517 55 256 21,712

231 7,179 210 23,134

244 5,400 313 24,356

Source: ICARDA Finance Department

165

ANNEX XVIII TRENDS IN CORE AND RESTRICTED FUNDING OF ICARDA FROM 1977-2005
Funding Trend
35 US$ million

30

30

Total
25

28 24

22
20

21

20

22 20 20

22 19 19 18 17 19 18

22

23

24 20

23

23 22

15

Total
14 12 11 7

16

Core

10

Core Restricted

5

4

-

79

80

81

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02

78

87

88

89

84

85

86

82

83

90

77

03

04 20

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

Core

Restricted

Total

Year

166

20

19

19

19

19

19

19

05

ANNEX XIX BRIEF PROFILE OF MEMBERS OF ICARDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES
1. Dr Guido Gryseels (Belgium): Board Chairperson. Expertise - Agricultural Science. Director, Royal Museum of Central Africa, Tervuren, Belgium. Former Executive Secretary/Deputy Executive Secretary of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), TAC Secretariat, Rome. 2. Dr Mohamed Zehni (Libya): BOT Vice-Chairperson. Expertise - Plant Physiology. Former Officer in charge, FAO Regional Office for the Near East, Egypt; Director, FAO Plant Production and Protection Division; Director, FAO Research and Technology, Development Division; and Ambassador/Permanent; Representative of Libya to the UN Organizations in Rome. 3. Dr Aigul Abougalieva (Kazakhstan): Expertise – Biochemistry and Agronomy. Head of Grain Biochemistry and Quality Laboratory, Center of Crop Science and Farming; former Director General of Center of Crop Science and Farming MA RK, Almalybak, Almaty Region, Kazakhstan; Scientific Leader of Plant Physiology, Biochemistry and Grain Quality, Kazakh Institute of Agriculture. 4. Dr Talal Bakafalouni (Syrian): Expertise – Internal Medicine; international health care management, economics and policy; policy advise, planning, monitoring and evaluation; human resource development; gender issues. Deputy Head of State Planning Commission for International Cooperation and Management Development Expert, Syrian European Business Center; former Advisor to Head of State Planning Commission for Health and International Cooperation; Director Center for Health Studies. Member Syrian National Committee for Bioethics; Member of the Board of Directors of Higher Institute for Population Studies and Research of Syrian Ministry of Higher Education; Member Syrian Scientific Society for Quality. 5. Dr Henri Carsalade (France): Expertise – Administration and management of development and research institutions at CEO level; international relations, agreements and fund raising. Presently member of the General Council of Agriculture advising the Minister of Agriculture of France; nominated to be the next President of Agropolis in Montpellier from June 2006; former Assistant Director-General, Technical Cooperation Department, FAO, Assistant Director-General, Sustainable Development Department, FAO, Senior Advisor to Chairman of the Board of Trustees of CIRAD, Paris, Director General of CIRAD, Paris and Montpellier, Director General of Rural Economy Service (including agriculture and forestry) of the territories of French Polynesia. 6. Dr (Mrs.) Teresa Christina Fogelberg (The Netherlands): Chair Audit Committee of the BOT. Expertise - social anthropology and development sociology; Associate Director, Global Reporting Initiative. Former Special Advisor to the Minister of housing, spatial planning & the environment; Director of Industry and Climate Change Department, and Special International Environmental Advisor; Ministry of Environment, The Netherlands. 7. Prof Dr Shinobu Inanaga (Japan): Expertise - Crop Science. President Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS). Former Professor of Crop Ecology and Physiology and Director of Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University, Japan. 8. Dr (Mrs.) Kjersti Larsen (Norway): Expertise - Social Anthropologist. Associate Professor/ Head of Department, Department of Ethnography, University Museum of Culture and Heritage, University of Oslo.

167

Fifth External Program and Management of ICARDA

9. Dr David J Sammons (USA): Expertise - Agronomy/Crop Breeding. Senior Advisor for University Relations and Agricultural Research, Training and Outreach, US Agency for International Development (USAID); Professor of Agronomy, International Programs in Agriculture, Purdue University, USA. 10. Dr Michel Antoine Afram (Lebanon): Expertise - Agricultural Education and Policies. Director General, Lebanese Agricultural Research Institute (lari), tal amara. Former Dean of School of Agriculture, Saint Joseph University. 11. Dr Majd Jamal (Syria): Expertise – Entomologist. Director General for Scientific Agricultural Research (GCSAR), Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform, Syria; Associate Professor, Department of Agriculture, University of Damascus, Syria. 12. Dr Abdelmajid Slama (Tunisian): Expertise – Agricultural Economics; policy formulation; regional strategy formulation; resource mobilization; impact assessment governance of agricultural research projects. Former Director of NENA Division and Technical Advisory Divisions at IFAD. .Member of the Board of Trustees of IFDC and member of Board of Directors of ICBA; former member of Board of Trustees of INBAR. 13. Dr Mahmoud Solh (Lebanon): Director General (Ex-Officio Member). Expertise- Genetics and Plant Breeding; international agricultural research and development; project planning, analysis and evaluation; administration and management. Former Director of Plant Production and Protection (AGP) Division, FAO; member of the governing Board of IPGRI; Assistant Director General (International Cooperation), ICARDA; Regional Coordinator of the Nile Valley and the Red Sea Regional Program of ICARDA; Regional Food Legume Breeder in North Africa.

168

ANNEX XX ICARDA STAFF STRUCTURE
NATIONAL AT HIRE Afghanistan Algeria Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Bolivia Cameroon Canada Czech Republic Egypt Ethiopia France Germany Ghana India Iran Iraq Ireland Italy Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic Lebanon Malaysia P 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 8 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 12 3 1 1 4 RA 1 1 AEP PDF V.SC. NPO GS SC TI TL TOTAL 2 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 23 3 4 4 1 9 2 2 1 2 6 7 4 1 26 1

2

1 1 1 1

1

19

169

Fifth External Program and Management of ICARDA

Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria Pakistan Palestine Philippines Poland Russia Senegal Somalia Sudan Syria Tajikistan Togo Tunisia Turkey UK Ukraine Uruguay USA Uzbekistan TOTAL: P = Principal Staff RA = Research Associates AEP = Associate Expert Prof. PDF = Post Doctoral Fellow VSC = Visiting Scientist NPO = National Professional GS = General Support Services

4 1

1

1 1

1

3 1 1 1 1 1

3

3 1 1 1

1

1 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 57

2 13

42

283

3 1

7

1 2

3 1 1 1 8 1

1 40

2

4

2

46

25 358

2 19

19

8

6 1 1 3 8 3 1 2 1 1 1 5 350 1 1 4 3 7 1 1 10 28 555

SC = Special Cases TI = Teacher International TL = Teacher Local

170

ANNEX XXI ICARDA ORGANIZATIONAL CHART AT COMMENCEMENT OF THE REVIEW (APRIL 2006)

ICARDA Organization Chart
Director General Prof Dr A El-Beltagy Internal Auditor CGIAR IA Asst. Director General (Intl. Cooperation) Dr M Madkour
Nile Valle y & Red Sea Regional Program Dr K Makkouk North Africa Regional Program Dr M El-Mourid

Admin. Officer to DG & BOT Ms H Nourallah Director of Corporate Services Mr M Valat Director of Finance Mr. V Sridharan Asst. Director General (Gov. Liaison) Dr A El-Ahmed
Asst. National Coordinator Mr N Trabulsi

Asst. Director General (Research) Dr W Erskine
Mgmt. of Scarce Water Resources & Mitigation of Drought (MP1) Dr T Oweis Improved Land Mgmt. to Combat Desertification (MP3) Dr R Thomas Integrated Gene Mgmt. (MP2) Dr S Rajaram

Personnel Services Ms L Yazbek

Purchasing & Supplies Department Mr E Abu El Nagga

Budget & Outreach Officer Ms I Silang

West Asia Regional Program Dr A Amri

Central & South America Regional Program Dr F Capattini

Diversification & Sustainable Improve of Rural Livelihoods (MP4) Dr C Piggin Knldg. Mgmt. & DissemiNation for Sustainable Dvlpmnt (MP6) Dr A Sidahmed

Physical Plant Unit Ms L Aswad

Catering Mr M Samman

Associate Director of Finance Mr A El Shennawy

Liaison Assistant Damascus Ms S Kabalan

Arabian Peninsula Regional Program Dr A Moustafa

Afghanistan Project Dr N Malik

Poverty & Livelihoods Analysis (MP5) Dr K Shideed

Security Unit Mr A Aswad

Labor Office Mr M Valat

Treasury Officer Mr M Samman

Central Asia & The Caucasus Regional Program Dr R Paroda

Iran Project Dr A Amri

Geographic Information Syste ms Unit (GISU) Dr E DePauw

Genetics Resources Unit (GRU) Dr J Valkoun

ICARDA Intl. School of Aleppo Mr R Thompson

Damascus Office Ms H Sharif

Pakistan Project Dr A Majid

Turkey Project Dr M Moussa

Seed Unit (SU) Dr T van Gastel

Computer & Biometrics Services Unit (CBSU) Dr Z Abdul Hadi

Beirut Office Mr A Agha

Visitors Services Mr A Dakermanji

Comm. Documentation & Information Services (CODIS) Dr S Varma

Human Resources Development Unit (HRDU) Dr S Ahmed

Farm Operations Dr J Diekmann

Tele-Communication Services Mr E Abu El Nagga

Transport Services Mr M Kojah

Project Officer Dr E Bailey

Terbol Station Mr M Sughayyar

Vehicle Workshop Mr A Katayan

Legal Affairs Mr T Kayyali

Clinic Dr Ms L Babekian Dr Mr Y Hamzeh

Fabrication Workshop Mr A Katayan

171

Fifth External Program and Management of ICARDA

ANNEX XXII ICARDA: CORE AND RESTRICTED FUNDING (2000 - 2005)
Revenue/Funding (US$M) Unrestricted Core Restricted Total 2000 9.33 14.64 23.97 2001 8.50 13.98 22.48 2002 9.09 15.14 24.23 2003 9.10 16.07 25.17 2004 10.45 16.05 26.50 2005 10.97 18.85 29.82 % Growth 2000-05 18% 29% 24% Average Percentage Unrestricted Core Restricted 39% 61% 38% 62% 38% 62% 36% 64% 39% 61% 37% 63% 2000-05 38% 62% % Growth Expenses Unrestricted Core Restricted Indirect Costs Net Expenses Surplus (Deficit) 9.95 14.42 (0.67) 23.70 0.27 9.20 13.73 (0.63) 22.30 0.18 10.09 15.14 (1.00) 24.23 0.00 9.85 16.07 (0.76) 25.16 0.01 10.58 16.05 (0.80) 25.84 0.67 11.38 18.85 (0.89) 29.33 0.48 2000-05 14% 31% 24%

Source: ICARDA Finance Department

172

ANNEX XXIII ICARDA: FINANCIAL HEALTH INDICATORS AND OTHER PERFORMANCE MEASURES (2000 – 2005)
Financial Health Indicators CGIAR Benchmarks 90–120 days 75 – 90 days 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000

Short-Term Solvency (Liquidity) Long-Term Financial Stability Efficiency of Operations (%) Cash Management of Restricted Funds (%) Other Performance Measures Working Capital (days) Capital Reserves (US$ mln) Net Assets (US$ mln) Cash balance & Fixed deposits (US$ mln) Unrestricted cash balance (US$ mln) Inventory (US$ mln) Fixed Assets (US$ mln)

170 117 18.1 81.8

196 136 19.6 52.4

188 132 21.9 45.9

182 130 21.8 58.7

188 140 22.4 202

157 113 24.2 90.3

90–120 days

166 8.0 12.7 13.4 1.6 0.3 3.5

191 8.7 12.2 13.2 0.8 0.4 2.8

182 8.8 11.6 10.8 (1.3) 0.5 2.7

175 8.2 11.6 8.9 (2.4) 0.3 3.3

179 8.2 11.6 8.5 (2.2) 0.3 3.3

149 7.9 11.3 12.2 (1.7) 0.4 4.4

Source: ICARDA Finance Department

173

Fifth External Program and Management of ICARDA

ANNEX XXIV LIST OF ACRONYMS
AARINENA ACSAD ADB ADG AFESD AHI APRP ARC ARI ASB AST AVRDC BS CAC CACAARI CAPRi CARDEN CAS-IP CBC CBSU CCER CDC CGIAR CIAT CIDA CIHEAM CIMMYT CIP CLAN CODIS CONDESAN CP CSI CWANA DANIDA DFID DG DH DMP DNA EC EPMR ERA ERP FAO FAO-RNE The Association of Agricultural Research Institutions in the Near East and North Africa The Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands Asian Development Bank Assistant Director General Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development African Highlands Initiative Arabian Peninsula Regional Program Agricultural Research Center Agricultural Research Institute Alternatives to Slash and Burn Agriculture Science and Technology Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center Benchmark Sites Central Asia and the Caucasus Caucasus Association of Agricultural Research Institutions Collective Actions and Property Rights Camel Applied Research and Development Network Central Advisory Service on Intellectual Property Rights Center Board Committee Computer and Biometric Services Unit Center-Commissioned External Review Center Directors Committee Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research International Center for Tropical Agriculture Canadian International Development Agency International Center for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center International Potato Center Cereals and Legumes Asia Network Communication, Documentation and Information Services Unit Cosortium for the Sustainable Development of the Andean Ecoregion Challenge Program CGIAR Consortium for Spatial Information Central and West Asia and North Africa Danish International Development Agency Department for International Development Director General Doubled haploid Desert Margins Program Deoxyribonucleic acid European Commision External Program and Management Review Ecoregional Alliance Ecoregional Program Food and Agriculture Organization FAO’s Regional Office for the Near East

174

FFS FHAO FHCRAA FHCRAI FHI FX G&D GAP GCC GDP GEF GFAR GISU GMP GM-UNCCD GNP GP GRTP GRU HQ HR HRDU HRN HRP IAMZ ICARDA ICBA ICIS ICRAF ICRISAT IDRC IF IFAD IFPRI IGCSE IGM IITA ILRI INRM INTG IPG IPGRI IPM IPPM IPR IRRI ISI ISNAR IT-KM IVC

Farmer Field Schools Future Harvest Alliance Office Future Harvest Consortium to Rebuild Agriculture in Afghanistan Future Harvest Consortium for Rebuilding Agriculture in Iraq Financial Health Indicators Foreign Exchange Gender and Diversity Program Southeast Anatolia Project Gulf Cooperation Council Gross Domestic Product Global Environment Facility Global Forum on Agricultural Research Geographic Information Systems Unit Global Mountain Program Global Mechanism of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification Gross National Product Germplasm Program Graduate Research Training Program Genetic Resources Unit Headquarters Human Resources Human Resources Development Unit Highlands Regional Network Highlands Regional Program Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Zaragoza International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas International Center for Biosaline Agriculture International Crop Information System World Agroforestry Center International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics International Development Research Center Impact Factor International Fund for Agricultural Development International Food Policy Research Institute International General Certificate of Secondary Education Integrated Gene Management International Institute of Tropical Agriculture International Livestock Research Institute Integrated Natural Resources Management Inter-Center Training Group International Public Good International Plant Genetic Research Institute Integrated Pest Management Integrated Production and Protection Management Intellectual Property Rights International Rice Research Institute International Statistical Institute International Service for National Agricultural Research Knowledge Management Information Technology Initiative Consortium for the Sustainable Use of Inland Valley Agroecosystems in Sub-

175

Fifth External Program and Management of ICARDA

IWMI IWWIP JIRCAS KMD LA LAC LAN LARP M&M MAAHF MAS MDG MOAL MoU MP MSU MT MTP NARP NARS NEMEDCA NENA NGO NPG NRM NRMP NVRSRP OPEC PA PDF PFU PMS PPB PPU PRGA PRODESUD QTL RALF RP RPG RWC SGRP SIMA SLP SPIA SP-IPM SU SWIHA SWIM SWNM

Saharan Africa International Water Management Institute International Winter Wheat Improvement Program Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences Knowledge Management and Dissemination Latin America Latin America and the Carribean Local Area Network Latin America Regional Program Mashreq/Maghreb Project Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Food Marker Assisted Selection Millennium Development Goals Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Memorandum of Understanding Mega Project Michigan State University Metric Tons Medium Term Plan North Africa Regional Program National Agricultural Research System Near East, Mediterranean and Central Asia Near East and North Africa Non Governmental Organization National Public Good Natural Resources Management Natural Resource Management Program Nile Valley and the Red Sea Regional Program Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries Protected Agriculture Post Doctoral Fellow Program Facilitation Unit Performance Measurement System Participatory Plant Breeding Physical Plant Unit Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Projet pour le Développement du Sud Quantitative trait loci Research in Alternative Livelihoods Fund Regional Program Regional Public Good Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains Systemwide Genetic Resources Program Systemwide Initiative on Malaria and Agriculture Systemwide Livestock Program Standing Panel on Impact Assessment Systemwide Program on Integrated Pest Management Seed Unit Systemwide Initiative on HIV/AIDS Systemwide Initiative on Water Management Systemwide Soil, Water and Nutrient Management Program

176

SWP TA TAC TIPO UNCCD UNDP USAID USDA-FAS VBSE VIR WARDA WARP WB WTO WW/FW β-ODAP

Systemwide Program Technical Assistance Technical Advisory Committee Technological, Institutional and Policy Options United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification United Nations Development Program United States Agency for International Development United States Department of Agriculture- Foreign Agricultural Service Village Based Seed Enterprises Vavilov Institute Africa Rice Center West Asia Regional Program World Bank World Trade Organization Winter Wheat/ Facultative Wheat β-N-oxalyl-L-β, β-diaminopropionic acid

177