Response to Science Council
Comments on ICARDA's MTP 2006-2008
ICARDA thanks the Science Council for its positive endorsement of our research following its re-structuring into six Megaprojects in early 2005. However several issues require a response.
We are concerned that the Science Council (SC) has misinterpreted the International Public Goods (IPG) nature of parts of our research agenda based on the limited information requested in the new Guidelines for Center MTPs (March 2005). MTP project narratives provide only an overview and do not give details of project research activities. Consideration should be given to further revision of the Guidelines for MTP project narratives and logframes to allow a suitable elaboration of this aspect of the agenda, if similar future judgments of this nature are anticipated.
Further open discussion is required on the definition within the CGIAR of an IPG, because the current SC interpretation is in our view too restricted to fulfill our poverty alleviation goal. Country-specific field research is required at the local level in most agricultural domaines, from which extrapolations are made to develop the lessons into an IPG. Our research at integrated research sites is designed with exactly this concept in mind. Again this is a result of the format required in the new MTP logframe of Output Targets consisting of quantified annual deliverables - Who, Where, What - which are inadequately informative in this regard.
We also see that the SC has misjudged part of our 'research for development agenda' as development per se again based on the limited information requested. Three examples follow:
Example 1: Developing plastic houses in Yemen and Afghanistan: This is action research investigating whether plastic house production is a viable alternative for resource poor farmers. (Precisely why the research is being conducted in two of the poorest countries in our eco-region). Research issues involve low-cost integrated production and pest management within plastic houses, efficient use of scarce water resources, market opportunities/constraints, and development of low-cost suitable structures adoptable by resource-poor farmers. Research outputs would be applicable to small farmers throughout the dry areas (IPGs).
Example 2: Managing a program on "research in alternative livelihoods fund" (RALF):
Example 3. SC Comment: There are other examples of non-Priority activities for example in developing isolated seed systems in many locations. These activities do not seem to conform to the mandate of doing research and certainly do not appear to produce IPGs.
Researching the viability of village/community/farmer-based seed enterprises is an IPG. Once shown to work, it has applicability almost everywhere in the more marginal areas of the eco-region where formal seed supply does not exist. The research clearly falls within the recently amended CGIAR Priorities "…the Priorities propose research on seed delivery systems, but the CGIAR should not itself enter into the delivery of such systems." A Review of Possible Changes to the Text of the CGIAR System Research Priorities 2005-2010 (Draft of June 2005) in the Light of Comments Received.
Turning to the comments on specific Megaproject themes:
SWEP for Central Asia and the Caucasus: Although ICARDA is the convening center for the CAC SWEP, it involves nine other centers and other partners. SC states that the SWEP defines some 40% of all ICARDA output targets. In fact ICARDA's research within this SWEP is an integral part of our six MP research programs. The inclusion of SWEP MTPs inside the convening Center's MTP leads to the impression of 'duplication' of activities/outputs and is a generic problem.
Final Paragraph on Partnerships and a tendency to list "everyone" whereas a focus on the "real" partners would be more useful. We take issue with this statement that the listing is an exaggeration of our partnerships. We have active collaboration with all the partners listed, primarily through restricted projects, and actively participate in all the CPs and SWEPs listed.
 |
ICARDA thanks the Science Council for its positive endorsement of our research following its re-structuring into six Megaprojects in early 2005. However several issues require a response.
We are concerned that the Science Council (SC) has misinterpreted the International Public Goods (IPG) nature of parts of our research agenda based on the limited information requested in the new Guidelines for Center MTPs (March 2005). MTP project narratives provide only an overview and do not give details of project research activities. Consideration should be given to further revision of the Guidelines for MTP project narratives and logframes to allow a suitable elaboration of this aspect of the agenda, if similar future judgments of this nature are anticipated.
Further open discussion is required on the definition within the CGIAR of an IPG, because the current SC interpretation is in our view too restricted to fulfill our poverty alleviation goal. Country-specific field research is required at the local level in most agricultural domaines, from which extrapolations are made to develop the lessons into an IPG. Our research at integrated research sites is designed with exactly this concept in mind. Again this is a result of the format required in the new MTP logframe of Output Targets consisting of quantified annual deliverables - Who, Where, What - which are inadequately informative in this regard.
We also see that the SC has misjudged part of our 'research for development agenda' as development per se again based on the limited information requested. Three examples follow:
Example 1: Developing plastic houses in Yemen and Afghanistan: This is action research investigating whether plastic house production is a viable alternative for resource poor farmers. (Precisely why the research is being conducted in two of the poorest countries in our eco-region). Research issues involve low-cost integrated production and pest management within plastic houses, efficient use of scarce water resources, market opportunities/constraints, and development of low-cost suitable structures adoptable by resource-poor farmers. Research outputs would be applicable to small farmers throughout the dry areas (IPGs).
Example 2: Managing a program on "research in alternative livelihoods fund" (RALF):
|
-
|
RALF is a mechanism for supporting research on alternative livelihoods to poppy production in Afghanistan. Livelihood options identified by the projects, and the research involved on market access, microfinance, etc, will be applicable in similar agroecologies and production systems, e.g. in South Asia (Pakistan), Central and West Asia. The outputs from RALF will contribute directly to our overall research program on improving livelihoods of the rural poor. |
|
-
|
ICARDA is not simply managing the program but also undertaking research projects within the program. |
Example 3. SC Comment: There are other examples of non-Priority activities for example in developing isolated seed systems in many locations. These activities do not seem to conform to the mandate of doing research and certainly do not appear to produce IPGs.
Researching the viability of village/community/farmer-based seed enterprises is an IPG. Once shown to work, it has applicability almost everywhere in the more marginal areas of the eco-region where formal seed supply does not exist. The research clearly falls within the recently amended CGIAR Priorities "…the Priorities propose research on seed delivery systems, but the CGIAR should not itself enter into the delivery of such systems." A Review of Possible Changes to the Text of the CGIAR System Research Priorities 2005-2010 (Draft of June 2005) in the Light of Comments Received.
Turning to the comments on specific Megaproject themes:
|
MP1
|
(Management of Scarce Water Resources and Mitigation
of Drought in Dry Areas) ICARDA keeps strong linkages with IWMI on the basin level and will further strengthen this through CPWF and other initiatives. |
|
MP3
|
(Improved Land Management to Combat Desertification) We are concerned that the first output in both MP3 and MP4 are interpreted to reflect the main objectives of both of these MPs. The main objective of MP3 is not as stated by the SC. viz., 'understanding of causes and driving forces of land degradation….' but rather this is the first, diagnostic phase, of 4 main elements. The others are 2), development of best-bet technological interventions (i.e. IPGs), 3), creation of an enabling environment through research on policy and institutional options and 4), institutional strengthening. The innovation in the MP is that these main objectives are embedded in the novel INRM approach (an IPG) that can be mainstreamed into ICARDA's strategic research with partners. |
|
MP4
|
(Diversification and sustainable improvement of
crop and livestock production systems in dry areas) (Research on household investment patterns and analysis), taken at face value, is a vital part of ICARDA's agenda. But, as for many other outputs in this MTP the strategic research agenda is not clear; Household investment patterns and market analysis is but one component of this project. Market opportunities/constraints will be location/ country/ commodity specific. Research undertaken at local level, will contribute to a body of knowledge with IPG value. However the overall objectives of MP4 are broader: To both increase productivity of crop/livestock systems (through improved cropping systems and livestock management, IPM, etc) and identify alternative income generating activities (either though diversification and/or adding value to products) with the overall aim to improve rural livelihoods. |
|
MP6
|
(Knowledge Management and Dissemination for Sustainable
Development in Dry Areas) seems to be the weakest of the mega-projects
in terms of likely IPG output. Yet, ICARDA proposes to spend close
to 14% of its budget on the activities described in this project. The IPGs generated by research must have an impact on rural communities and poverty. The creation of a Knowledge Management and Dissemination (KM&D) program is considered by ICARDA as the best response to the growing concern about the cost-effectiveness and impact of public investment in pro-poor research. The primary task of KM&D is to enhance equitable access to pro-poor knowledge that contributes to ICARDA's goals of food security, poverty reduction and preservation of natural resources. This is through broadening the transferability of specific technological, institutional and policy options generated by research to countries beyond the pilot target areas. e.g. creation and dissemination of IPGs. |
SWEP for Central Asia and the Caucasus: Although ICARDA is the convening center for the CAC SWEP, it involves nine other centers and other partners. SC states that the SWEP defines some 40% of all ICARDA output targets. In fact ICARDA's research within this SWEP is an integral part of our six MP research programs. The inclusion of SWEP MTPs inside the convening Center's MTP leads to the impression of 'duplication' of activities/outputs and is a generic problem.
Final Paragraph on Partnerships and a tendency to list "everyone" whereas a focus on the "real" partners would be more useful. We take issue with this statement that the listing is an exaggeration of our partnerships. We have active collaboration with all the partners listed, primarily through restricted projects, and actively participate in all the CPs and SWEPs listed.
| << Back |